User talk:NicholasJB

You probably don't need this as you are experienced in the Esperanto wikipedia, but at least you won't have a red talk page link anymore.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! . -- Jeff3000 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Photograph
Hi Nicholas,

I just wanted to leave you a brief message after your comment on the photograph, and I didn't want to engage a debate on the talk page. The picture on wikipedia has made me think a lot about really important fundamental things about the Manifestation and images and why we don't view it frequently. I came to two conclusions, which helped me reconcile things in my mind. One, it would very quickly and easily become the source of idol worship. People visiting Baha'u'llah often wanted some kind of souvenir from him, so he would give them some day-to-day item, like a sandal. People would take home this item and worship it because it came from Baha'u'llah. If we put His image on our walls and worshipped it, how would we be different from the idol worshippers? Two, in reality the image of Baha'u'llah is meaningless and does not reflect the face of God. Physically, Baha'u'llah was human. His being God was relative to His attributes and perfections and writings. The photograph just carries matter-of-fact information about a human body. I worship Baha'u'llah's message and the transformative power of the Word of God.

Anyway, I think it's an interesting debate, and thanks for commenting. Cuñado  -  Talk  06:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Logical point here. I understand that the DNA is the miror, and that DNA is what is the Kibla, and when alive the DNA was Manifestation. However a photograph is not DNA, infact the photograph does not even approach the mirror. I think you need to understand only what is asked to do around representations of Manifestation which includes Baha'i'llah and that is not to represent them on the stage in visual form. So the photography is one immage that does not need to be represented on the stage. Let the vibration of His words be our connection with his Holy Personage.RoddyYoung 12:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Images
Hi NicholasJB, would you have any pictures of the World Centre that you have taken yourself that you could upload at commons.wikimedia.org on a free license? Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

They're mosty about 2 or 3 megabytes, but perhaps I shall upload some when I get around to it. NicholasJB 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Stokestmilboroughchurch.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Stokestmilboroughchurch.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary and reliable sources
Hi Nicholas,

I've seen you've added some material on the Baha'i Faith in relation to vegetarianism and so forth. Almost all of your sources that you use to cite the material are primary sources or from other wikis. Primary sources, such as the writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, cannot be generally used as sources, but instead secondary sources, those that make the interpretation of the primary sources must be used. Also other wikis and personal websites are not considered reliable and can't be used as sources. I'll be removing the current content, and hopefully you can reference the information from sources that are acceptable. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, one of the reasons Wikipedia can be very annoying. It's also one reason why I cannot put the actual Baha'i perspective on evolution on Wikipedia, due to the fact that some "secondary sources" have misinterpreted 'Abdu'l-Baha's writings on the matter. I don't see how I can put anything on the Baha'i Faith and vegetarianism then, if none of the sources I have used are acceptable.NicholasJB (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I should also note that even if there are reliable sources, there is the issue of undue weight. The Baha'i perspective does not and should not be in every page where the Baha'i Faith has a view. Already there have discussions at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_9 and continued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Archive_2 discussing the fact that the Baha'i view has been overrepresented in Wikipedia, and this problem shouldn't be expanded. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is absurd. If religions such as paganism and rastafarianism are represented on a Wikipedia page, the Baha'i Faith should likewise be represented. I do not believe the Baha'i Faith is represented enough. I will not accept that. I am not interested in decreasing Baha'i representation on Wikipedia.NicholasJB (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is not helpful. Wikipedia has a policy of undue weight, and based on that policy the Baha'i viewpoint cannot and will not be given equal representation as other religions.  If we are part of the Wikipedia project we have to play by it's rules; just like if we live in a country we have to be obedient to the rules of that country. If Rastafarianism is represented that doesn't mean the Baha'i Faith should be represented, but that Rastafarianism should be removed and reduced in content.  If your keep adding Baha'i viewpoints all across Wikipedia three things will happen: (1) You'll give a bad impression of Baha'i editors and Baha'is all over that they don't follow the rules, (2) All of the current Baha'i content will be reviewed and much of it reduced like it was in the past, and (3) Experienced Baha'i editors will revert your additions so that they are in line with the Undue Weight policy.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeff3000, I understand where you're coming form here. However, I do not like that you find my attitude "not helpful". You know as well as I do that the Baha'i viewpoint should be given equal representation, whether or not the policy you refer to allows that. In reality, however, I believe this policy is being misinterpreted due to an inaccurate perception of the Baha'i Faith. It is wrong to accept that perception. Rather, one must fight for what is right. I disagree with your unbiased approach in principle. I do not believe in playing a role of impartiality. I believe in defending the Baha'i Faith and ensuring that it receives the recognition it deserves. One must, usually, obey the rules of one's country. But one must, often, protest those rules through legitimate channels or disobey those rules in matters of principle (i.e. in teaching the Faith, etc.). Baha'i scholars, likewise, cannot be wholly impartial in their work, since they must acknowledge the power of divine Revelation, although I know there are many Baha'i scholars who erroneously seek to conform with their non-Baha'i peers. Jeff3000, however experienced you may be in Wikipedia, please do not think that your way of going about things must be enforced on others. You may be doing what you think is in the interests of the Baha'i Faith, but I have my own way of doing things.NicholasJB (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Nicholas, the Baha'i viewpoint should not be given equal representation. You think your actions will defend the Baha'i Faith, but in fact if you take a longer term look at it, the actions that you will take will give a negative light to all Baha'i editors and will hurtful in the end.  If you are going to be an editor, you have to abide by the rules, and those including being unbiased as per WP:NPOV.  Wikipedia is not meant to be a venue for advertising the Faith, it is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  If you want proclomation, go create your own websites or contribute to other wikis like bahai9 or bahaikipedia, but this is not the venue.  That is my final comment here, and I will tell you, if you are unbiased in your actions and edits you will be reverted, and reverted quite quickly by a number of Baha'i and non-Baha'i editors.  In the end if you don't subsist you will be blocked by non-Baha'i administrators.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeff3000, that's really rather a strong statement, considering that I have done nothing wrong. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge and the Baha'i viewpoint does deserve equal representation where appropriate. I understand that you disagree, but I have the right to hold a contrary opinion. I am interested in the truth and doing what is right, even if it is not popular.NicholasJB (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're working with Truth, Wikipedia is not the place for you: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" from the verifiability policy. You should also read Disruptive_editing which states "Wikipedia editor create long-term problems ... on insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view" Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeff, there is really no need to try and warn me here. I believe you're getting into a false dichotomy here. Truth is often established through verifiable evidence. I simply do not believe the Baha'i Faith's persepective should be excluded, where, say, an Islamic perspective is included. Whether people like it or not, the Baha'i Faith is the second most widespread religion on this planet, and should be represented where appropriate. If it is to be compared with fringe views or nrm's, I believe there is a fundamental misundestanding of its role in the world. Wikipedia is one arena among countless others where the Faith does need to be presented accurately and given due acknowledgement among other equally important faiths.NicholasJB (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a fun time equaling the Baha'i perspective to the Islamic perspective; it's not going to happen. You seem to have an imaginary view that the Baha'i Faith is that important.  It just isn't yet, and that's not to say I don't believe it's the solutions to the worlds solution, but as of now, it just hasn't reached the same level as the other religions that you are comparing it to in people's conciousness and until it does, your comparisons in Wikipedia are invalid.  Using the second most widespread religion is a false point, and Baha'is overuse that statistic to make themselves feel better.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeff, you're doing what you think is right. I will stick to my "false" points and "imaginary" views. I wish you would see my perspective, but I see that is not happening any time soon.NicholasJB (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nick, I think you're missing the point here. Jeff3000 has seen your perspective and was trying to explain to you where it doesn't jibe with WP's intent. This is not a venue for "teaching". While relying on the texts themselves is indeed the key to effective teaching, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V are the cornerstone content policies here, so presenting analysis based on primary sources is wholly inappropriate. It also trips across WP:RS and others.

We regular Baha'i editors have tried to cultivate a strict adherence to the policies. That has saved the articles on far more instances than it's inhibited us.

One key to reliance on reliable secondary and tertiary sources is that it (should) spare the editors from wrangling over interpretation. For example, on evolution, I think you are (were?) well-intentioned, but wrong. (I dunno if that's still your current thinking.

But, if we were to arm wrestle over "the actual Baha'i perspective", that would lead to nothing of use — not for WP, nor for either of us. I trot out my pedigree and/or arguments, you yours, and then what? What's "the actual perspective" on issues where legitimate difference of opinion exist? In this venue we're both forced to rely on verifiable secondary sources. That short-circuits the potential for circular editorial debates. It also ensures that the picture painted of whatever subject, including Baha'i, can be expected to be treated as reasonably objective by the novice reader.

Parenthetically, I'm not trying to pick a fight over evolution, but merely remind you of a genuine difference of opinion we expressed here that is a fair example of the value of reliance on secondary and tertiary sources for analysis rather than on our own. Kalimat's Evolution and Baha'i Belief would be such a source. It's rather dense but an exhaustive treatment on that particular subject and worth the slog through. You'd find that you are right, but after a fashion that's a bit narrower than I think you realize.

Last point: external links are sometimes more useful if you're trying to address a particular point from a particular perspective. Follow policy here, but it's sometimes easier to add a link to a good site than tailor text to conform to all of the content policies.

Cheers, MARussellPESE (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * MARusselPESE, I am aware that this is not a venue for teaching. I did not say that it was, although of course one of the main reasons to provide accurate information on the Faith is to defend it's best interests. I gave teaching the faith as an example of where Baha'is disobey the law in many countries. In any case, I am well aware of what Jeff was saying and certainly did not miss the point here. I am pretty sure some of the current Baha'i articles currently do rely on primary sources, in whole or part. With regards to evolution, I believe 'Abdu'l-Baha's own statements in Some Answered Questions are clear enough. I do not want to argue that here. My views on that issue have not changed. While I find secondary sources on the Faith helpful in many cases, I believe we are all capable of understanding the Writings of the Faith ourselves, even without a knowledge of Arabic and Persian. Although, in my case, I have studied Arabic and Persian, Islamic history and travelled to Iran and various Arab countries.NicholasJB (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about pictures Iran
I have added a question for you on Talk:Bahá'í pilgrimage. Could you please check? Wiki-uk (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cambridge Islamic College


A tag has been placed on Cambridge Islamic College requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Domdeparis (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Cambridge Islamic College for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cambridge Islamic College is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cambridge Islamic College until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Domdeparis (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)