Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 4

Bahá'í censorship/literary review

As a way of getting a consensus how about we lay down some facts which we need to put in the article. Feel free to edit this and add your own comments. Once we have a list of things we know to be true that need to go in, all we need to do is put the NPOV padding around it.

• Introduced by the Guardian.
• From a neutral website:

The Bahá'í authorities impose prepublication censorship on all material written by members about the Faith. All such material must first be scanned by a review committee of the Bahá'í National Spiritual Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published. This was a temporary policy introduced many decades ago, which is still in force.

• The same site claims that the closing of the Talisman listserv is not conclusively attributed to the Bahá'í World Center, however an investigation was under way.
• For obvious reasons, non-Bahá'ís are exempt from this censorship.
• In the US a series of scholars became disillusioned and left the faith following the Universal House of Justice's refusal to remove the review process. For everyone's reference this includes Juan Cole. I'm pretty certain none were labeled covenant breakers.
• Here is a guideline provided by the House of Justice:

The standards to be upheld by reviewers are the following: (a) conformity with the Teachings, (b) accuracy, (c) dignity in presentation. Taken from a here. The article is written by the present day secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of the UK.

Again, try and keep it based on facts. We want both sides of the argument. Wikipedia is neither a judge nor a jury, but is to present the facts. I suggest we leave the paragraph for a few days for people to add comments here until we can build a better paragraph for it. -- Tomhab 14:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add my comments below

• Introduced by the Guardian.

We need dating and a quote for this. "Shoghi Effendi stated in a letter of (year) that: quote establishing review" PaulHammond 16:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

• From a neutral website:

The Bahá'í authorities impose prepublication censorship on all material written by members about the Faith. All such material must first be scanned by a review committee of the Bahá'í National Spiritual Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published. This was a temporary policy introduced many decades ago, which is still in force.

Sounds good to me. PaulHammond 16:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

• The same site claims that the closing of the Talisman listserv is not conclusively attributed to the Bahá'í World Center, however an investigation was under way.

• For obvious reasons, non-Bahá'ís are exempt from this censorship.

• In the US a series of scholars became disillusioned and left the faith following the Universal House of Justice's refusal to remove the review process. For everyone's reference this includes Juan Cole. I'm pretty certain none were labeled covenant breakers.

I know for a fact that Dr Cole was never declared a Covenant Breaker. Basically, that status only goes to descendents and supporters of the Remeyite groups. PaulHammond 16:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Here is a guideline provided by the House of Justice:

The standards to be upheld by reviewers are the following: (a) conformity with the Teachings, (b) accuracy, (c) dignity in presentation. Taken from a here. The article is written by the present day secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of the UK.

this is what i wrote that martin reverted (no reasons given):

" In order to have some Official "Accreditation", books published by Bahai´s on the Baha´i Faith are required to go through a literary revision process that verifies the correctness of the references and if the views expressed are in accordance to baha´i doctrine. This process was created by Shoghi Effendi as a form of protection from misinformation, this has however lend some Baha´i scholars to leave the Baha´i Faith, acussing the Baha´i Administration of Censorship. "

please give yours suggestions/opinions on what you may see wrong with this and that may be improved

i had changed the title from "Bahai Administration and censorship" to "Bahai Literary Revision" since its more neutral and more in accordance to what is done.

On the "entry by troops" section, what is wrong with changing from "Faith of Bahá'u'lláh" to "Baha´i Faith"??

also, the phrase "Although most non-Bahais, and probably even most reasonable Bahais, " clearly looks POV, and the rest of the paragraph just doesnt seem to make sense. should we remove it or write it in a more clear way?

Thanks :) - --Cyprus2k1 17:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes you'll never win though I guess, but it is a bit of a textbook Bahá'í response :). Although I don't have as much problem with it as most, I think generally a lot of people (ie - the neutral point of view) would find this as censorship so this should be reasonably prominent. By the way I might be wrong in thats its not a "Literary review" - its just "the review process" or the "Bahá'í studies review" process. Mixing it up with my dissertation where a literary review is when you review other related literature on the topic - Sorry!

If I were to write it I guess it would be a little like:

Title: Bahá'í Studies Review process and censorship

The Bahá'í administration impose prepublication censorship called the "Bahá'í Studies Review Process" on all material written by members about the Faith on the topic. All such material must first be scanned by a review committee of the Bahá'í National Spiritual Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published for:

• Conformity with the Bahá'í writings
• Accuracy
• Dignity in presentation

This was a temporary policy introduced many decades ago by Shoghi Effendi, but is still in force. Although Bahá'ís defend this as a way of protecting the young religion from misinformation, some this has led to some Bahá'ís being disillusioned and leaving the Faith citing it restricts their freedom of speech.

I think that puts the right emphasis and put in a bit of a defense for the Bahá'ís. Input welcome. -- Tomhab 21:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tom, I don't like the word "censorship" in an encyclopedia article. It sounds too negative. Yes, it's a horrible policy. Yes, its insensitive application has caused prominent academic former-Bahá'ís to leave the faith. But it's not like what used to go on in Soviet Russia, where people who published things the authorities didn't like were sent to prison/psychiatric wards. -- PaulHammond 17:37, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed that the word "censorship" appeared in the neutral source you were quoting, and you have basically quoted that along with working in what the Bahá'í guidelines on review say. I think the result is quite balanced, so the paragraph as you suggest is fine, but the section heading should be something like "Bahá'í prepublication review", or, if there are any details about how this policy affected academics like Denis MacEoin and Juan Cole, the title could be "Bahá'í prepublication review controversy". Also, there should be a link to your source after you quote it. - PaulHammond 19:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The section "Restrictions on freedom in the Bahá'í community" refers to "certain limitations on personal freedom in the Bahá'í community" without being specific. It refers only to prepublication review and inappropriate debate on listservs. These relate to publishing only. Bahá'ís who do not publish--and that is the vastest majority--are not restricted. What we non-publishers have to do is merely practice healthy self-discipline. For example, I try not to make unsubstantiated claims on Wikipedia, but that is not a restriction of my freedom. The "Restrictions on freedom in the Bahá'í community" heading and the first sentance are therefore grossly misleading. I therefore consider that (1) the title should be "Prepublication Restrictions in the Bahá'í Community", (2) that the first sentence should refer only to publishing, and (3) "For example" should be deleted. I altered and tidied up the paragraph earlier but 163.17.101.125 (from Taiwan?) changed it without explanation apart from saying it was 100% correct and that I'm a bigot...well that's a first! The Jargon File defines Bigot as A person who is religiously attached to a particular computer, language, operating system, editor, or other tool..., which I find reassuring to some extent. --Occamy 19:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There have not been any dissenting opinions to what I wrote above, i.e. that the restriction is on publishing and not otherwise. The title is therefore misleading by referring to "Restrictions on freedom in the Bahá'í community". It should read " Publishing Restrictions in the Bahá'í Community". Occamy 11:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not want to engage in Wiki ping pong with Martin2000 over "Restrictions on Publishing in the Bahá'í Community" section. He wants the title to be "Restrictions on Freedom in the Bahá'í Community" but refers to no personal restrictions except for speaking with Covenant-breakers, and that subject is covered amply in the Laws section lower in the article...In addition to observing religious laws (see below)... Being declared a Covenant-breaker is similar to Cherem in Judaism, Excommunication in Christianity and Takfir in Islamic law, so this is not unique to the Bahá'í Faith such that it needs to be amplified in this section. Therefore, by removing the superfluous Covenant-breaking issue, the only issue being dealt with is pre-publication review and publishing on the internet. These are not restrictions on personal freedom. Also the statement "Such restrictions can be seen as..." is literally POV. The situation is clarified by reference to "Opponents of the Bahá'í administration...." It is for this reason that I am insisting on the unambiguous NPOV "Restrictions on Publishing..." references. Occamy 20:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted Martin2000's reversion but have added a paragraph about the restriction of not being permitted to associate with Covenant-breakers, as a compromise; it looks odd but.... The point is that all laws are restrictions on personal freedom, and this article is not the place to discuss whether laws are needed or not; that anarchist philosophy is likely discussed elsewhere in Wiki. Therefore restrictions on publishing freedom should either be presented in a separate section--as it is now--or be discussed under the Other Laws and Ordinances section.

Putting things in perspective, the Restriction on Publishing Section should be presented after Other Laws and Ordinances, which itself needs tidying up as a major section on its own. Occamy 09:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is incapable of protecting its readers from fundamentalist Bahá'ís:

Shunning - Menu http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Shunning.htm

Compare "The Bahai Technique" - Slander & Shunning http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm

Frederick Glaysher -- 69.244.183.198 21:10, 31 May 2005

Glaysher's movement is separate to the mainstream Bahá'í movement (hence why he made a shismed). His arguments are covered in the "Restrictions on Publishing in the Bahá'í Community" section, and also in Minor Bahá'í divisions. -- Tomhab 12:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Covenant of Baha'u'llah and division

Hi - I took out "according to Bahá'í sources" from Abdu'l Baha, and put the ref back behind "Baha'u'llah appointed...". Mirza Muhammad Ali (AB's half brother) did criticize AB's leadership, and tried to usurp his position, but if we are going to talk about this, I think it needs a paragraph in "Covenant and division" after the mention of Subh-i-Azal, not something this oblique. Haven't put this in yet, since the article is long and will need some work on other sections too once we have settled where all the critical comments are going to live in the end. How much about Mirza Muhammad Ali is there at `Abdu'l-Bahá already? PaulHammond 16:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

And why does `Abdu'l-Bahá have a dash in his name? PaulHammond

Sorry to be obstructive here, but I think this should not be taken out. The half brother "tried to usurp" is alrady POV, implying he had no right to that position. He probably thought otherwise - otherwise he would not have tried - unless of course you can give evidence that he knew he was not supposed to but decided to give it a go anyway. I do not suggest that we go into a major discussion who waa sright here or not, but either teh Acc Bahai sources go in - or and probably better - we report simply the fact of his succession - without commenting on legitimacy or otherwise and leave this debate to teh article on the man himself. Refdoc 17:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well , he was apointed to that position by Baha´u´llah himself (in his testament i think?), so isnt it POV to say "Baha'u'llah appointed..." ? - --Cyprus2k1 21:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is the text of Baha'u'llah appointing Abdu'l-Baha:

The Will of the divine Testator is this: It is incumbent upon the Aghsan, the Afnan and My Kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch. Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: 'When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root.' The object of this sacred verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch [Abdu'l-Baha]. Thus have We graciously revealed unto you Our potent Will, and I am verily the Gracious, the All-Powerful. Verily God hath ordained the station of the Greater Branch [Muhammad Ali] to be beneath that of the Most Great Branch [Abdu'l-Baha]. He is in truth the Ordainer, the All-Wise. We have chosen 'the Greater' after 'the Most Great', as decreed by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Informed. (Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 221) --Occamy 22:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does it make sense to add the specific texts to the article that pass authority to Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice, i.e. the Covenant? --Occamy 06:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No it does not. This page is not about the jsutification of succession, but about the Bahai faith. If I as an outsider read it I do not want to know how various middle eastern princelings justified their succession or competing claims, but I want to know waht Bahai faith is about(World peace and the lot) . We do link to the Orthodox Bahais, We do explain in a short sentence each time that this succession did not go completely unchallenged, but that the majority followed the main man. An dthat should be enough. More on the biographgical pages.

Then we have a section on the convenant itself and there we explain why it is an important thing and how it works and how it is justified. We explain the gist and leave plenty of references for the interested reader. My 2p Refdoc 08:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - are you British, Refdoc? (2p?) As I understand it, Baha'u'llah's Will and Testament appointed Abdu'l Baha as his successor, and Mirza Muhammad Ali as the leader of the faith after Abdu'l Baha. About half of Abdu'l Baha's Will and Testament was all about justifying to the Bahá'ís why it was necessary that he change the order of succession to Shoghi Effendi, and make a new post, the Guardian. (It's fairly obvious - instead of supporting Abdu'l Baha, Ali had acted to undermine him at every turn, making trouble for him with the Ottoman authorities, and IIRC attempt to poison him. To me, the question then becomes why didn't Baha'u'llah realize this was likely to happen?). But, the order of succession was clear in Baha'u'llah's Will. - PaulHammond 12:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale Cull

I am somewhat fed up with the dublication of effort both on this page and on the biographical pages. Every addition will only lead to further additions here and on the biographical pages. At the same time we get all the time the warning that the page is too long.

I have therefore conducted a wholesale cull, removed absolutely everything which is worth debating within the biographical sections and hope this will make the article more lightweight, allowing concentration on the doctrinal etc matters. Revert me if you are unhappy, but please do debate it. Refdoc 21:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the latest two edits, Amir has deleted substantial biographical parts referring to Baha'u’llah and Abdu'l-Baha, yet added back the paragraph on Baha'u'llah's wives. A rigorous and NPOV Bahá'í Faith article requires biographical information, but only information that explains why the Bahá'í Faith is what it is now. Using this clear--and belatedly obvious--criterion, (1) the wives entry becomes irrelevant and (2) too much about Abdu’l-Baha has been deleted because it no longer explains how the Baha’i Faith grew so fast in America and Europe. Comments please.--Occamy 06:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was not Amir who deleted stuff this time. It was me - as I explained - and i put it up for discussion. I thought carefully and still think the doubling up of information here and on the biographical pages invites to go overe every debate twice - how many wives did Baha'ullah have and was he justified to have them, why did Abdul Baha become successor and not his brother - are the scriptures given justifying this actually trustworthy etc etc etc. You see wo could go on and on and on. While I think this is good and worthy, it does not need to be done twice - here and on the individuals pages. It needs to be done once and thoroughly, while all other pages simply contain the barebones of these biographies and refer otherwise. I do see you point wrt growth in Europe etc, but again this is a point much larger than just Abdul'Baha's biography and needs to be dealt with explicitly. One needs to take into account the post war situation where a lot of people were disillusioned with traditional values etc, etc etc

Wrt Amir, I would simply ignore him. He is a law unto himself, does not discuss and certainly does not take anyone's views into account. I am not aware yet of him having actually made any worthwhile contribution on this page (or any other). Once he becomes bored he will stop and move on - or otherwise one can go down more formal routes - RfC, arbitration etc. Do after his 'edits' a diff and see whether he has added anyting useful otherwise continue editing on the page version just before his last edit. Refdoc 07:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh!! the reason you are unaware of any worthwhile contributions by me to this and Bahaullah articles, is because you are clueless on this subject -- otherwise, you would know that I have brought to light a number of very important issues and historical facts in these articles. In fact, it seems it is only me and occasionally other random users to bring "outsider" points of view (which are more often than not factual and researched) into the article, and the rest are just a bunch of Bahai zealots working in concert, who are interested in making a colourful, pretty pamphlet for religious promotional purposes out of this article. Oh, and of course, we also have you who is here for ... hmm ... not sure for what, for playing the role of class teacher, I guess. Have fun. --Amir 09:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

things to do:

*No personal attacks

*Concede a point, when you have no argument against it. Declare when your disagreement is based on intuition or taste.

*Work toward agreement

*Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party.

*Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.

- --Cyprus2k1 09:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great, I got you engaged in debate.... Now if you would move on and debate the issues you bring here on the places they belong - i.e. the biographical pages a lot would be gained Refdoc 09:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have brought issues on the bio page of bahaullah of course, but bahaullah and bahaism are not inseparable subjects. Therefore, some overlap of content between the two articles is normal, natural and even preferred. But I agree that the two articles should not be growing in parallel with excessive content overlap. --Amir 10:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree - some overlap is necessary. But I would suggest that any overlap resulting in major debate and major parallel growth is not necessary and not good, beyond a minimum note - e.g. "He published 1000 books pamplets and letters (for more information see...)" This makes it clear that the literary activity is crucial and important, but more is there to know - and then go into the full length and detail of the debate on the individual's page. Similarly I pressed for saying simply "Abdul Baha succeeded Baha'ullah" rather then debating the ins and outs of teh succession and the relevant Ketab-e Aqdas quotes as this would bulk up the page without any clear benefit, but then have a thorough discussion of claims and counter claims at the relevant biographical page. Refdoc 11:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "excommunication"

PaulHammond removed a sentence just now wrt Abdul'Baha removing as covenant breakers large parts of his father's family. This is a matter which - if substantiated is of major inmportance and should not be removed - particularly not without a suitable comment on the talk pages.

I am slowly despairing with this page - it appears that where one hole is not yet stitched up someone comes and tears the next one right next to it. And while my impression has been that while Amir has been largely responsible for a lot of the recent POV edits, unsubstantiated edits and pointless deletes marring this page, a number of other users do not seem to hesitate to take similar measures. Not good! Refdoc 12:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The whole question of Covenant, division, expulsion et al is both highly sensitive and highly complex. While the vastest majority accept the Bahá'í Faith as it is, there have been a relatively few who have not accepted a change in authority to the new head of the faith. There were followers of Baha'u'llah who did not accept Abdu'l-Baha; those who did not accept Shoghi Effendi, and last, those who did not accept the Universal House of Justice. And there are many Muslims who interpret Muhammad's title of "Seal of the Prophets" to mean--in effect--that nobody could claim to be a fresh Manifestation of God, and that Baha'u'llah was an impostor. They can raise various issues that at first sight look negative: three wives, expulsions from the family and so on. It takes only a few words in the article to raise a dissenting claim or an attack, which usually requires a voluminous answer by way of background, context and scholarly comment.

This puts those wanting to maintain a NPOV in a dilemma: try to squeeze a long explanation into a relatively short article, or to delete or move the accusing passage elsewhere or into the Discussion page for further consideration. I too am disappointed that those wanting to present alternative POVs choose to rush them into the article without pror discussion, which can be frustrating.

Part of the solution will be a create an article that expands the Covenant of Baha'u'llah section, listing the specific texts that gave authority to the next head of the Bahá'í Faith. --Occamy 14:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Refdoc, the point is that Abdu'l Baha certainly made Muhammad Ali a Covenant Breaker - but as to "all the other wives and all the rest of Baha'u'llah's children, and this fact is well known by all Bahá'ís" - that is just wrong. First, I thought we had got to the point that we were putting the detail into the biographies. Second, this needs substantiation. Third, I was sure this had been removed before. Fourth "and all the Bahá'ís know that their faith is a lie" is something only Amir believes. It needs to be encyclopedic language. PaulHammond 14:10, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, after spending an hour archiving this discussion page, I thought my edit summary "removing unsubstantiated NPOV assertion" covered it. PaulHammond 14:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Temple Photograph

The current photo of the Indian temple shows little more than an outline of an award-winning design. Can someone please replace it with an image that shows users what it really looks like? --Occamy 17:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I took this picture from a page on Bahai architecture here on Wikipedia. I simply attempted to replace like with like, but the page had plenty of other pictures, plenty nice ones. Have a look and replace. Why does it have to be Delhi? Refdoc 17:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dehli's is the most famous and spectacular Bahá'í temple. Thinking about alternatives, maybe aside from the Shrine of the Bab, I can't think of anything else that would be so closely associated with the Bahá'í Faith in the public mind as the Dehli temple. Occamy 22:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the one in Wilmette Illinois? Its a bit churchy, but people may find it interesting that theres a temple in the US (rather than the Bahá'ís being a "third world cult") -- Tomhab 23:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A photo of the Shrine of the Bab would be more meaningful. Meanwhile, this photo of the Indian temple [[1] is more interesting than the current strange one of red clouds. The copyright section on the source page is blank, so I don't know what would happen about a licence. Occamy 17:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In response to my inquiry if the images of Bahá'í sites are licenced or copyrighted, the owner of the [[2]] website writes "Ok for the use of the photos for your site. Thank you for your work for the open knowledge of human being. Eric Louvet". Is this sufficient to use some of the huge numbers of photos on in Wikipedia? Occamy 20:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geographic Extent

"The majority of Bahá'ís live in the "Thirld World" " actually, the majority of the world population lives in the Third World.... should this be here? - --Cyprus2k1 08:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

probably not, unless the proportion is much higher than expected. I woudl also struggle to call India a Third World country,nowadays. Refdoc 08:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am curious to know what is the source of this statistics? If it is the Bahá'í headquarters, naturally, like all other religions and ideological organizations, they would have a tendency to overstate their membership. My own feeling is that the actual number of Bahá'ís in the world is probably about 50% of what the official Bahá'í claim is. Martin2000 08:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Bahá'í faith keeps extremely accurate records on membership. Virtually all Bahá'ís sign a "declaration card" when they accept the faith. In some nations, such as Vietnam, signing a declaration card can draw problems with the government and in these nations no accurate records exist to my knowledge. Anyone formally withdrawing from the Bahá'í faith is similarly supposed to advise the administration of this, but some people simply become "inactive" as is the case with any religion. Robertbrockway 20:59, Mar 17 2005 (UTC)

As most countries do not register the religious affiliations of their citizens, and as some countries of those who register such data, deny the legality of conversion , e.g. Iran, it would be difficult to find alternative sources of numbers. Under these circumstances numbers provided by a religious body are as reliable as anything else floating about and simply need to be acknowldeged ("acc Bahai sources..."). Refdoc 09:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"...they simply need to be acknowldeged" -- is this a Wikipedia rule or are you stating your own opinion? Martin2000 09:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes and yes. Both my opinion and Wikipedia - assertions of facts need to be referenced. assertions of facts can be disputed and alternative assertions can be made with other references - common procedure. "Acc to Bahai sources there are x million worldwide including x thousand in Iran. The Iranian ministry for religious affairs denies this explaining there is anot a single Bahai living in Iran and the religion does not exist in the first palce but is a zionist conspiracy funded by the CIA") Two competing asertions of fact...

I just notice there has been a wholesale cull of this article recently. It seems you did it Doctor. Are you aware that this is breaking a Wikipedia rule? Did you discuss it first and then cull massively or you just decided to do it on your own? Martin2000 09:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no, yes and yes. I proposed it, Various bits of the "cull" were close to achieving consensus/had achieved consensus and I eventually implemented the lot in order to get an impression of how it would look like and how it would go down generally. I wrote a comment on the talk page advising people of my suggestion. And subsequently this did not break any Wikipedia rule but was simply "bold editing". None of the asserted facts were removed as they all form part of other related and linked in pages. Feel free to object to my proposals Refdoc 09:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

really, what is a "wholesale cull"? :) - --Cyprus2k1 09:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

btw, wikipedia "rule" (etiquette actually) : Dont flame..

A cull is a mass slaughter of e.g. a cattle herd in the face of a danger - e.g. an illness or risk of starvation. You kill many to ensure the survival of the herd. And Wholesale cull is the same a bit bigger.... :-)

The need for a "mass cull" in this text obviously was twofold - firstly continously dublication of discussion and secondly frequent messages form the software that the page is too big. So sometrhing had to go tto satsify the software and I do think dublicated stuff is the first to go. Refdoc 09:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000 suggests that the Bahá'í administration's six million estimate of the number Bahá'ís is too high. It is likely to be broadly correct, and maybe a little conservative. Bear in mind that the number would include Bahá'ís who are no longer active in their local Bahá'í community, which would be the same for statistics on all religious adherents. The following numbers come from [[3]] and provide an idea of the geographic spread of the worldwide Bahá'í community. I don't know where Britannica sources its data, but it is a start.... According to the 1992 Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year, the Bahá'í Faith had established "significant communities" in more countries and territories than any other religion except for Christianity. They were organized in 205 areas worldwide vs. 254 for Christianity. According to The Bahá'í World, this has since increased to 235 countries and territories, including over 2,100 racial, ethnic and tribal groups. Encyclopædia Britannica Online estimates that they had about 7.4 million members worldwide in mid-2002:

• 1.8 million in Africa
• '3.6 million in Asia
• 0.13 million in Europe
• 0.91 in Latin America
• 0.81 in Northern America
• 0.12 in Oceania.

The Bahá'í Faith states that it currently has about 6 million members worldwide, including about 2.5 million adherents in India and 140,000 in the US. Occamy 22:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yesterdays edit war

yesterdays edit war betwen anonymous, were probably the same user using proxies (my guess)... how ridiculous.. :\ - --Cyprus2k1 08:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

heh left hand versus right hand? -- Tomhab 14:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Remeyite details

This is about Ariadoss's recent edit including details about the international bahai council etc.

Is this really necessary given that we go into it this much detail. Isn't it covered in the Orthodox Bahai Faith page enough? Certainly not trying to discourage Ariadoss - it looks all correct and the more we can add to Wikipedia the better, but if its covered by other passages I'd say the best plan would be to have a small summary of events. -- Tomhab 23:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the article is too big, i think the "The Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh and division" section should be more short and then with a link to a article talking about it in more detail (as is being done with the biographic articles. what are everyones else opinion? - --Cyprus2k1 09:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you Cyprus -- Tomhab 10:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A basic outline/stub about the International Bahá'í Council is now available. Occamy 10:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert revert revert

What exactly are people protesting against??? This just seems to be pedantic and for the sake of it.

If there is a specific part you don't like revert that one bit. At present we are adding and removing a whole day's worth of small edits (almost all of them negligible to any POV, just including grammar and URL corrections). It's unlogged-in IPs too...

Also the pictures come back now........ -- Tomhab 10:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just got to add that non-discriminate reverting IS vandalism. -- 144.32.177.119 11:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh and for the last few edits 144.32.177.119 is me. -- Tomhab 12:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Due to continuing edit wars I have protected this page. This does not represent any opinion on the situation. violet/riga (t) 19:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh fun. Is there anything that can be done to at least reprimand the IP that keeps reverting (more than the 3RR rule)? Also can it be classed as vandalism (since its long been agreed by Bahá'ís and others alike that the photo doesn't belong). -- Tomhab 21:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

nope I'm pretty sure that the IP is a set of open proxies and due to a flaw in the wiki software we can block them all all you can do is push them over the 3RR rule then get them banned (yes this is the kind of edit warring that is officaly dissaproved of).Geni 21:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am entering the fray here, having gotten involved a little earlier on the Bahá'u'lláh page. I believe an image towards the bottom of that page, or a link to it should be there, and have placed links to the 2 available candidate images on the talk page myself, but agree that there is no need for any image of Bahá'u'lláh be on this Baha'i Faith page at all. It was posted here by someone who seems intent on offending Bahá'ís, and most of the users involved here seem to be far more respectful of their practices. ~ Achilles 22:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Damn the Wiki and its open ethos malarkey -- Tomhab 00:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually I blocked Martin2000 and his sock puppets for very disruptive activity, including extremely insulting behavior, sock puppetting, block evasion and (as it happened) wildly excessive reverting. His activities are also on the cusp of vandalism, but there is no consensus for that. He is currently unblocked. I will soon remove protection from the three protected Bahai-related articles and this will be his last chance to behave himself before I consider asking for arbitration, which I expect to get, with a revert parole, personal insult parole, and ban from altering the placement of pictures in Bahair-related articles seeming like the most likely remedy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changes based from comments from Neutral Observer

(The context of these comments can be found in the /Request for Comment archive. There is also some discussion of the material about Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l Baha's wives in the /Biographies archive.)

(this section has been cut-pasted down to be more easily located)

The neutral observer who entered the discussion made some comments, including moving the section about the wives out, since the information is in the Baha'u'llah page, Martin2000, can you please provide some more reasons why it should be here. If we are in disagreement, maybe we should go to mediation. -- Jeff3000 04:06, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Bahaullah is right at the very center and core of the Bahai Faith, and therefore, his life, including the fact that he had three wives at the same time, is very important and relevant to an article about the Bahai Faith. --Martin2000 05:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

since the article in about the religion it self, just a brief mention of the founder should be made and with a link to the founders article. the wives of the founder have to relevance to the religion article and are already metioned in the founders article. all other religious pages do not talk much about the history of their founder (especially with regards to family), and instead take it to the other pages . for example, the the Muhammad's marriages have their own page.

Hinduism: No history, no history of the founder

Zoroastrianism: History of where it was spread and how it declined. No history of the founder.

Islam: just pointers to the History of Islam and Muhammad, brief mention of Islam today.

Christianity: Link to History of Christianity and Jesus and then briefly (one paragraph) talks about who Jesus was (stating he was a descendent of Judah) and how he was persecuted. No mention of His mother Mary.

Buddhism: Large section on the Life of the Buddha (4 large paragraphs), one mention of his family "He decided to abandon his worldly life, leaving behind his wife and child"

Judaism: Gives history from Jacob to Moses to Samuel to David to Solomon. No mention of their family.

this has been twice in "dispute resolutions" and "Request for comments", this were the comments from the neutral observers:

"Bahá'u'lláh's wives and children - since this paragraph makes no mention of the religion itself (it's wholly biographical) it should be in article on the man rather than the faith. I recommend taking it out. - Raul654"

""Wives: Islam does not discuss Muhammad's wives, Nation of Islam does not discuss Elijah Muhammad's; ditto for Mormonism and Joseph Smith. Should not be in there." - Jeff3000"

instead of removing the paragraph on the wives immediately , i await further comment.. - --Cyprus2k1 09:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Based on this, i suggest the paragraphs should be removed (they already exist in their relevant articles). what is everybodys else opinion? - --Cyprus2k1 12:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removing the paragraphs would be appropriate, moving the relevant bits--if any--to Baha'u'llah's Family. Occamy 21:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would be TOTALLY inappropriate to remove the section about his three CONCURRENT wives. The whole idea is to let the reader know about this discrepancy in the Bahai religion, that the prophet of this religion himself had three CONCURRENT wives. This is quite important for the non-Bahai (and I would say even for the Bahai) readers to know. Removing it would be tantamount to censorship and POV. You have to remember that this article is not a replacement for a religious promotional leaflet, it is to inform the reader. --Amir 17:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved with this debate, but I just thought it prudent to remind you that a Neutral Observer (I've forgotten who it was now...) made the suggestion. Doesn't mean its right, but you're persuing this a little unneccessarily aggressively. Lets talk this through. In the mean time, think "chill pill" :) -- Tomhab 17:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Islam does not mention that some of mohamed's acts were highly questionable under islamic law. The christianity page does not cover the stuff covered in Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible. Clearly however at least some mention of this should be made in the Bahá'u'lláh with the full detials covered in a wive article if there is enough materail (as is the case with mohamed).Geni 18:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So if article X is lame, is that an excuse for article Y to also be lame?! what kind of logic is that? Instead of whining here, go fix those articles. --Amir 18:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You assume that those articticles have I problem I don't think they do I'm using them to issulstrate there is a wider consensus on this issue. If you have a problem with those articles you can of course edit them although I would suggest it would be better to disscuss such changes on thier talk page first. Untimetly if I'm reading an article on say Zoroastrianism I want to know what the relgion is about a bit about it's history an bit about it's reltionship with the modern world and any practices of note.Geni 18:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Bahaullah had three concurrent wives is quite relevant to an article about Bahai Faith. If it needs to be explained, then so be it, but it is very relevant because this religion at first declares "only two wives" and later, a clear "two" is "interpreted" as "one"!! Therefore, it is quite important and relevant if the article does contain the fact that the founder of this religion himself had three concurrent wives, even for some time after he declated his new religion to the world (and according to his claim, he already knew about this religion some 11 years prior to its "international debut" but had kept it all to himself in "concealment") --Amir 19:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I want to know about the founder of a relgion then I will look for an article on them. Btw how is your attempt to insert info about the disspute about mohameds wives into Islam going?Geni 19:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above again, you seem to be one of those people who need to read even simple sentences several times before it sinks in. Regarding your question about Islam page, I am not contributing to that page (not yet anyway) and your question is dumb and inrrelevant. --Amir 19:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The discussion attached to the Baha'u'llah article demonstrates that the Three Wives argument is a dead-end, a red herring; it is defeated. Occamy 03:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The return of Martin

About this edit: I largely suspect ths point of adding in "Another example is that Bahais are forbidden from any association with excommunicated members, or else they run the risk of getting excommunicated from the faith themselves" which is slightly incorrect since its collusion with the excommunicated which is banned, and communication is discouraged but after changing that is a bit of a tautology........ Anyway I largely suspect the reason why it was added was so Martin2000 can imply the Bahá'í faith has restrictions on personal freedom not only publishing restrictions. Maybe I've just become cynical from being on the Bahá'í pages too long... -- Tomhab 12:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the imputation that the change was sneaky, when there was an active discussion about the para above, Occamy suggested changing the title of the section on 7 Feb, waited a couple of weeks to do it, on 21st Feb, then no-one had any problem with it until today, when one imperious editor happens along, ignores the talk page, vandalises a paragraph and calls the people who discussed this section "sneaky". PaulHammond 13:59, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I beg your pardon. The actual word Martin used in his edit comment was "deceitful". PaulHammond

Does anyone have any opinions on this (other than myself, occamy, Paul and Martin)? -- Tomhab 11:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Bahá'í pages

Check out Bahá'í timeline. Just added it. Feel free to add in new things or expand stuff. Please don't provide lots of detail though - the page is getting pretty long already. Besides thats what other articles are for. -- Tomhab 15:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also just made up Letters of the Living. It seems mostly right. Figured it was about time I built a page for it. -- Tomhab 00:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added wikilinks to this and the other two new articles to the "See also" section of this protected page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

India

Similarly, I've just added a page on Bahá'ís in India on analogy with Islam in India, Jews in India, and Christianity in India. Please look it over and add and emend – and once the page is un-protected, would it be possible to insert a link to Bahá'ís in India from here? Cheers, QuartierLatin1968 03:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Articles size

We're at 39kb which is double the maximum target size of 20kb Wikipedia:Article_size. This section is for people to discuss what needs to be converted into a new article.

I suggest much of the history, and backing up of the history. Example of the history of the covenant, and chunks from the Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdul-baha pages. Basically most up until (but not including) restrictions on publishing would go under my knife. I'm happy to do much of the work (although I'm sure others will put back in sections they believe were inappropriately removed). Opinions? -- Tomhab 15:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any opinions? I don't want to do this just for someone to tell me I'm wrong and revert it all. -- Tomhab 02:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not disagreeing... but I think that controversies like "restrictions on publication" need to be moved down to BELOW beliefs and teachings.

Also, I would cut the "brief timeline" down to 4 to 6 elements... refering to the "non brief" one on a different page. Or, put it in paragrpah form and dump the brief timeline all together. Rick Boatright 02:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Syncretic

Squideshi inserted that the Bahá'í Faith is "syncretic". Its own article states that Syncretism is the attempt to reconcile disparate, even opposing, beliefs and to meld practices of various schools of thought. While the Bahá'í Faith does build on the spiritual values of other faiths, it brings so much new material that it would be misleading to describe it as syncretic. But I am not an expert in these matters and would value the opinions of others. Occamy 19:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If its unsourced I reckon get rid of it. If it is sourced then change it to "some feel it is syncretic". The Bahá'ís faith is recognised as independent by all but the most fanatical. It is certainly Bahá'í belief that we weren't introduced "to fill in the missing gaps". -- Tomhab 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Syncretic is about right and would in my eyes well apply. Refdoc 01:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't that impose a POV though? Saying something is syncretic also implies its motives were exactly that (to resolve any difficulties within a religion by adopting other "better" practices) - whereas Bahá'ís believe that Baha'u'llah was the fulfilment of a prophecy and brought his own dispensation. In its present form it implies that is widely acknowledged - I've never heard anyone describe it that way before. Bahá'ís certainly wouldn't agree with it. I reckon that we shouldn't include it unless a paper comes up in which case it should be changed to "which some view as syncretic". Obviously just one person's opinion. -- Tomhab 02:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV- aye. But mine, so I wrote "in my eyes".:-) No particular preferences whether in or out. Refdoc 02:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Never realised people saw it that way. How about:

The Bahá'í Faith is a monotheistic religion which has been viewed by some as syncretic. Its members follow the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh, founder and prophet of the religion.

I think its important to make it clear that Bahá'ís don't view it that way. -- Tomhab 02:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the sentence and added a source. The source is incidentally Bahai in origin, and disputes the assumption, but it also says that the majority of religious studies text books describe Bahai faith as syncretic - so i think this really covers both angles. I do agree though with Tom etc taht the word should not be in the first line as it is under dispute. Refdoc 12:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh I eat my own words. -- Tomhab 13:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Refdoc inserted in the article that the "Bahá'í Faith is commonly perceived as syncretic." I believe that this statement goes too far as it is not a common perception, even according t Refdoc's source. I scanned the first forty Google results for "Bahá'í Syncretic". Among them, only the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute [[4]] seems to argue that the Bahá'í Faith is syncretic.

My personal experience is that some people consider the Bahá'í Faith to be syncretic when first hearing how it includes the spiritual principles of the major faiths. But this opinion changes when they learn how innovative its social laws and objectives are, and this includes the Bahá'í administration. After all, the world's major faiths differ in their social teachings and not in their spiritual teachings: love thy neighbour, the golden rule and so on. If one of the most common assumptions about the Bahá'í Faith stated in Religious Studies textbooks is that it is a syncretism, that is a source that is disputed by scholarly analysis such as Refdoc's source. That is the reason I amended Refdoc's latest edit. Occamy 14:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think its that important either way. My problem was with the first version (and other people's reverts) that left the reader assuming it was created to be syncretic. -- Tomhab 15:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Writing that the Bahá'í Faith is syncretic is misleading. Here is another scholarly reference stating that the Bahá'í Faith is not syncretic, despite the learned observations of 64.110.76.13: "This was the point that some of the early adherents missed: neither Bahá'í beliefs, nor membership in the Bahá'í community were syncretic." in Outpost of a World Religion: The Bahá'í Faith in Australia 1920-1947, Graham Hassall, Journal of Religious History, 16:3, June 1991, 315-338. [[5]] Occamy 15:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it can be safely assumed that many think it is syncretic and others (mostly Bahais) will not agree. To write anything (much) different would be giving in to one POV or another.

Leaving this aside I have edited the sentence before as it appeared as if Krishna Mohammad etc are factually messengers of God rather than in teh eys of Bahais etc. Now it should be clearer that this is actually Bahá'í teaching ratrher than common ground. I hope you see my point Refdoc 15:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Urrrgh looks like Martin's back on his IP proxy reverting..... Doesn't this just make your day. -- Tomhab 16:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look, the INTRO PARAGRAPH says that many scholars think the Bahá'í Faith is syncretic. I accept that. But see http://bahai-library.com/articles/rg.syncretism.html if you think there is no basis for a DISPUTE on this. In the mean time, Martin has managed YET ANOTHER revert (nitram0020...) and I'm up against 3rr on it. So, I'm logging off, and hopefully by morning, more sane heads will have chimed in here. I _thought_ we had a concensus regarding syncretic. I thought. It's in THE OPENING PARAGRAPH. but to put it in the opening SENTENCE, as a barefaced fact, instead of a DESCRIPTION in the opening sentence is just Martin's anti-Bahá'í bigotry. I've swallowed a lot on these articles to get NPOV. this, tho, is a LITTLE TOO MUCH. I'm going away to cool down for a few hours. Rick Boatright 22:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Squideshi did that did he? He was also the person who inserted the Bahá'í Faith as an example of a Syncretic faith into the article on Syncretism (I went and checked it out yesterday, since Martin seemed so exercised about the fact that reading that article would change everyone's minds such that we would all capitulate to his revert-warring without discussion). I can see why there's a case to be made that the Bahá'í Faith is a syncretism - and why several old paper encyclopedias refer to the Bahá'í Faith as a syncretism. My understanding of why this is wrong is that the word generally tends to apply to philosophical systems that rely on taking parts from other systems and religions. I think the Bahá'ís tend to resist this as a descriptor of their faith because of the undertone to it of "this is a man-made system", whereas the Bahá'ís themselves understand their faith as a new revelation from God. It kind of ties in with Iranian opponents who justify their persecution of Bahá'ís by the argument that the faith is not *really* a religion, but rather a political system (or else something invented by British or Russian spies in order to infiltrate their country. These days, Israeli spies invented it is sometimes heard).

Seems to me it might be that the syncretism article is the one that needs editing. Still, "the Bahá'í Faith is Syncretic" should not be entered as if it were a clear, uncontested fact that the Bahá'ís themselves are perfectly happy with - because that just ain't the truth. PaulHammond 10:43, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would search for non-pejorative applications of the word "syncretic" to the Bahá'í Faith, by scholars and others. If none are found, I would leave it out. If any are found, I would write in the main article "In view of . . . some people call the Bahá'í Faith 'syncretic.'" If there are few considerations that go into calling it syncretic, they could be listed within the sentence. If there are many, the sentence could read "In view of the considerations discussed at (link), some people call the Bahá'í Faith 'syncretic.'" JimHabegger 03:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

Please note that WP:3RR rule applies to everyone, however "good" his/her motives are. Please also note that continous edit warring can lead to page protection, invariably on the "Wrong Version" Refdoc 01:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reverting for "fun", Open Proxies etc

Reverting for "fun" or as a "punishment" is vandalism. It has clearly nothing to do with editing or with conflicts over which edit is the "right" one. Continous use of "Funny" reverts might lead to page protection, invariably on the "wronng version".

Please note that Wikipedia policy regarding Open Proxies is completely clear and has nothing to do with the validity of any edits - Open Proxies are simply not on. TO repeat this: The use of open proxies is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Open Proxies can be banned indefinetely on sight. I have done so with two open proxies and I will do so with all others involved in editing this page. Refdoc 18:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Point of Information - What's an "Open Proxy"? I know that anonymous edits is perfectly okay in wiki - people talk of banning them, because most vandals are anon users, and using anon edits to "win" revert wars is frowned upon. PaulHammond 21:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

An Open proxy is an Internet proxy server which is accessible by unauthorized users, specifically those from elsewhere on the internet. (USE the wiki!!!) Rick Boatright 03:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect the page

Damn. Why is the page protected? I want to make some changes. Can someone unprotect the page? I am getting impatient with the Bahai censorshipmeisters and the incompetent low-IQ admin who has made a career for himself in Wikipedia by hanging around the Bahai articles where he doesn't even have the slightest qualification on the subject matter. Martin2000 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nah leave it for a while and let the mysterious person who was using the proxy IPs chill off don't you think Martin? I mean no-one wants an edit war right? By the way, calling the admins low-IQ doesn't generally help encourage them unprotect it... -- Tomhab 22:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I protected it and I'm not gonna unprotect it tonight, thanks to that comment. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Photos Revisited

While we wait for the disputes over the Bahá'í Faith page to settle themselves, can we please change the top photo of the Dehli Temple? It is a poor photo of the building and it seems to have a numbing effect on the brain (mine at least). This temple is probably the most recognisable Bahá'í thing after the shrine of the Bab, and I therefore recommend [[6]] as a replacement image. The site owner has given his permission (see his message under Temple Photograph section above) and I could not find a more interesting image of the temple on the site. Alternatively we can follow the pattern of most of the religion articles by using the nine-pointed star; but I can't find a suitable image. FYI, here is the list of images on the pages of the major religions.

• Juadaism: Star of David, Menorah
• Hinduism: OM symbol, old temple, new temple, symbol on woman's forehead, young boy brahmachari , huge gathering of Hindus, temple, Hindu ascetic, yoga practioners, dancer, Hindu god Shri Ganesh, cow, symbol, ivory statue of Lord Rama
• Zoroastrianism: temple
• Buddhism: statue of Buddha; statue of Buddha, engraving of the Buddha's first sermon, Buddhists praying at temple, Buddhist monk, statue of Buddha; statue of Buddha, painting of a monk, young Buddhist monks, Buddhist flag, hallway in Calfornian temple
• Christianity: Cross, Ichthys symbol, chart of main branches
• Islam: Masjid al-Nabawi mosque in Medina, Kaaba

And while we are at it, can we have something other than the photo of the Book of Laws? Occamy 19:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As it is, the page is protected, Editing is currently impossible. Once this changes... Refdoc 20:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that we can't change this for a while, I think the change looks good. And yes if we can get a Bahá'í logo for the top that would be good. Nine-pointed star, greatest name or something recognisably Bahá'í would be a good idea. -- Tomhab 22:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reading through Wikipedia copyright guidelines. I am unsure whether it would be appropriate to use images from www.bahai-biblio.org. How paranoid should we be about appropriate/fair use of images? --Occamy 17:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

As I'm bored and the main page is locked, I thought I'd do a bit of spring cleaning. Taken out a few topics and archived them (bits about the biographies and the vote). A little tidier. Needs a lot more doing, but I'm not that bored. If you're worried about where they've gone they're in the relevant archived bits up top. -- Tomhab 22:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current Disputes to be Resolved

While we have this time out, it's worth listing the main points of dispute to resolve through ths Discussion page. Contributors should be careful to avoid POV, which really is not difficult, whether one is pro- or anti-Bahá'í. Facts that are undisputed--such as "monotheistic"--should be at the top of the article; points that are disputed by scholarly sources and not our POV--such as syncretic--should be at the bottom of the relative sections with a comment highlighting the dispute. Please add to the list of suggested disputes:

• Syncretic?
• Restrictions on Freedom versus Restrictions on Publication; should covenant-breaking be in this section?
• Covenant-breaking: is the Bahá'í administration preventing free discussion by preventing Bahá'í associating with Covenant-breakers?
• Images: what would be most appropriate, in all senses of the word?

Looking through the article's History, it's amazing how much time has been wasted by contributors trying to force major changes without prior consultation via the Discussion page; enough interested people are watching to quickly make changes...but such a waste of time. Conversely, the debate about whether the Bahá'í Faith is syncretic has been constructive and illuminating (vandalism aside).Occamy 08:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to extend the block for another few days to allow time for contributors to debate the contentious issues on this page. If people don't take the opportunity to contribute constructively through rational debate of the disputes, let it be noted against future vandalism and major reverts/changes that are unsupported and/or POV. Occamy 12:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• Images: why don't you put up teh picture here so we can decide upon them. The Aqdas book I put up as an illustration of the covenant. It ain't pretty.it is a black book nil else, but it served to illustrate a point. if this is felt unnecessary so be it.

• Syncretic: Martin is quite wrong - even if only Bahá'ís object to the name than there is a valid dispute which needs to be acknowledged. The editing question is much more wrt to teh weight i.e "many", "most" etc. I must say if the Bahai article I quoted said "most religious studies books say", than I would think this is to some degree authorative as the article goes on to object to it.

• Restrictions wrt publishing freedoms: they must be mentioned, given that the Bahá'í faith is aiming for World government etc this is a very relevant point. I doubt though that the amount of fire exchganged over this qeustion is appropriate.

Refdoc 12:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Syncretic is disputed, which is why I posted it as disputed. Restrictions re publishing, fine, as long as it's clear that the restrictions are national not universal, that some NSA's do not implement such restrictions, and tmporary. images - I'll put some Bahá'í LOGOs here tonightRick Boatright 14:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean with "disputed"? "Disputed" as in we are not clear whether we put it into the text at all? Not an option really. Or to put into teh text as a "fact under dispute"? You have my agreement here. Refdoc 14:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

as you suggest I mean that there is a dispute about if the Bahá'í Faith is syncretic and that this needs to be in the paragraph, not just the insertion of the word in the introductory sentence. We're on the same place here. Rick Boatright 18:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to put in my two cents... About Restrictions of publishing/personal freedoms. My problem is that Martin is manipulating the debate to imply it is far worse than it is. Sure, publishing restrictions, that goes in without a doubt, but I'm at a loss to see what he means by personal restrictions. Can't talk to the excommunicated - tautology and besides its "discouraged" from talking to them (told to shun them, but theres no punishment for communicating). You can't collude with them though. -- Tomhab 14:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the top image of the article, on second thoughts, the nine-pointed star seems most appropriate. Other pictures could include the grave of Shoghi Effendi by the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh and Division section; Seat of the Universal House of Justice next to Administrative Order section; Indian temple by the Mashriqu'l-Adhkár section (why not rename it the Temples section, as this is the English wikipedia?); the Shrine of Baha'u'llah under Rituals, by text referring to the qiblih; maybe an early LSA in the Administrative Order section; how about one of the Bahá'í co-chair of the Millenium Forum organizing committee for the Involvement in the life of society section, to show the respected role of Bahá'ís among international NGOs? Nothing comes immediately to mind for the Teaching & Laws. Occamy 19:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the book obviously... Refdoc 08:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course you have a point. But I was trying to think of Teaching & Laws in action, rather than simply the book of laws. Occamy 18:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re. Syncretic, Cole's following quote supports the view that all the major religions are syncretic to some extent, but it is the social (and political) aspects of each that are innovative. If this is a common feature, then it would be inappropriate to single out the Bahá'í Faith as being syncretic without putting the statement in context, i.e. that other religions are too. "...[Baha'u'llah's] writings throughout advocated a syncretic approach to religion and a liberal progressive one to political and social questions." Juan Cole, History Today, Mar90, Vol. 40 Issue 3, [[7]]

lack of progress on dispute resolution

We seem to have a problem.

The one (or two) people most opposed to forming concensus and compromise and getting the page in reaosnable form, are not posting or participating in the discussion.

Martin, in particular simply deletes everything posted to his talk page. and does not comment here.

What do we do NOW? Rick Boatright 06:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've lost track has there been an RFC yet?Geni 14:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nah, these are all faily recent developments. A RFC is probably the best move actually... -- Tomhab 14:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC

I made a point of personally inviting Martin2000 and Amir1 to the party. So it's not as if they don't know about it, unless their ISP(s) crashed just like mine did today. Occamy 18:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bah, call me skeptical, but I doubt they'll respond to make sure any consensus reached lacks legitimacy (so they can continue to revert to their heart's desire). You'll notice that Martin rarely uses talk pages. -- Tomhab 19:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Martin was banned for 245 hrs and so were several of his commonly used proxies - I guess this put him off somewhat Refdoc 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Errr sorry if this is a stupid question but 24 or 245 hours? I'm just wondering if he's waiting for his ban to run out, or if he's lying low for a couple of extra days -- Tomhab 18:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

24Geni 08:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aye, sorry, 24hrs. And he is probably lying low. Refdoc 09:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Martin in his Nitro000x is not reverting THIS PAGE too. on subjects which we had reached a consensus on. Rick Boatright 17:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

Eleven days is long enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

69.160.150.226

69.160.150.226 has deleted whole sections without explanation or justification. After all the sweat and tears that have gone into them, do other users agree that they should be restored and then edited as needed? --Occamy 17:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Too late its gone. That was enough deletion to be vandalism. -- Tomhab 22:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protected

There seems to be an ongoing revert war related in some way to the one on Bahá'u'lláh. Protecting because it's getting a bit pointless. In the meantime, please discuss edits and I'll perform those that gain consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let us unprotect this page now. The current way of editing is not really the way it should be done - no offense meant, Tony, all your edits are perfectly innocent. Also if they are editable again Martin2000 will have no "excuse" to abstain form Wikipedia and from making his required comment onto the RfC.

If no objection comes I will unprotect this page this pm (GMT) Refdoc 10:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected now. Let us see what happens... Refdoc 11:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

`Alláh-u-Abhá is not a Ritual Greeting

I have deleted the reference to `Alláh-u-Abhá because it is misleading for the article to state that "Formal and proper method of greeting among Bahá'ís is "`Alláh-u-Abhá", meaning God is Glorious." Persian Bahá'ís often use it as a greeting to other Bahá'ís but many westerners do not. Shoghi Effendi wrote "The Bahá'ís are free to greet each other with Allah-u-Abha when they meet, if they want to, but they should avoid anything which to outsiders, in a western country, might seem like some strange Oriental password." (Directives from the Guardian, p. 3); I have added the emphases in these quotes. In a December 8, 1941 letter written on his behalf: "The term of 'Allah-u-Abha, on the other hand, is a form of Bahá'í greeting...'" (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 266). "The use of "Allah-u-Abha" in the East is, generally speaking, confined to a greeting. It is not said at the end of prayers and the Guardian feels that the less it is used freely in public by the Bahá'ís in the West (before strangers) the better, as it gives a very peculiar impression of us, and makes us seem like some strange Oriental sect." (Shoghi Effendi through his Secretary; Compilations, Principles of Bahai Administration, p. 16). --Occamy 16:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We could replace it with something along the lines of : "`Allah-u-Abha" is a greeting commonly used amongst Bahá'ís, especially the persian members of the community. I'll have a look at it. PaulHammond 20:32, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, no, you're right. It shouldn't appear in that section. I feel like it's a more interesting thing to know about than all the details about "laws and ordinances" in there, but I don't feel like shoehorning a minor verbal convention into this article, when it is already this long. PaulHammond

Perhaps this information can be placed somewhere else. Is there enough significant information to warrant an article on Allah-u-Abha? Dremo 23:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOVing the section on the Báb

"The Bábí Faith has its own scriptures and religious teachings, but its duration was very short. According to the Báb, His primary purpose was to prepare the way for "Him whom God shall manifest," the one promised in the scriptures of all of the world's great religions."

would perhaps be better phrased thus:

"Although the Bábí Faith has its own scriptures and religious teachings, Bahá'ís believe its duration was intended to be very short. In their reading of the Báb's writings, he declared his primary purpose was to prepare the way for "Him whom God shall manifest," the one promised in the scriptures of all of the world's great religions."

There is still a small community of Babis / Azalis / Bayanis who obviously read the Báb's writings differently, which makes it a little un-NPOV to phrase a comment on the Báb's dispensation being short as if it were fact, I think. Arvind 23:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like the change. I had myself thought that that paragraph needed fixing. Dremo 00:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure. If anyone can actually point to a community of Azalis that would be interesting. There are definitely none in Cyprus and haven't been any for decades. -- Tomhab 09:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I knew one some years ago, and he said there were a few thousand of them in Iran and a few families in Famagusta, aaround the places associated with Subh-i-Azal / Mirza Yahya. They tend to call themselves Bayanis. Juan Cole makes a small acknowledgment of their help in his translation of Subh-i-Azal's treatise on kingship. Arvind 19:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well... I lived for several years in Cyprus and from what I've heard from the local Bahá'ís in Famagusta, they know all the relatives of Mirza Yahya (its a small place) and they all consider themselves no different from other muslims apart from they had a "Muslim holy man" of a relative. Take that how you will - I personally have never met any of them. I guess that could be just a sweeping statement. -- Tomhab 21:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put the links on the Talk:Bab page, but there is always www.bayanic.com and Nima's yahoo group Bayan19. You might go look at those for modern Azali's, but on the Bayan19 group at Yahoo she clearly admits there is not CONTINUITY to the older Azali groups, and that this is her attempt to RESTART the Bayanic movement. Rick Boatright 22:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the 1960s, the Azalis published an edition of the Panj Sha'n [8], so there clearly is a community which has some continuity. It's interesting that Azal's family said they were Muslims - it's possible that they're practising some form of taqqiya which apparently survived amongst the Azalis[9]. The bayanic.com website (thanks for the link, Rick!) seems to have a piece about Subh-i-Azal written by his granddaughter. --Arvind 16:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Errrrm I'm not sure, maybe its just a case that the younger generations associate themselves less with someone who died so long ago... Thats always been my hunch. Then again the same could be said about Bahá'ís... -- Tomhab 17:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Nima" is normally a man's name... Refdoc 07:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Learn something new every day. I've been reading that name since his publication of his translation of the primal points will and testiment back in ??2002?? - but never saw a gender term. Oh well. Thanks for clarifying. I'll need to re-wrap my brain on that one. Rick Boatright 17:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the number of Babis, not only Bahá'í sources state that Babis were few in number; Juan Cole writes: "Later on, in the early twentieth century the few remaining Babis were among the most vociferous proponents of the Constitutional Revolution...." Source: "Millennialism in Modern Iranian History," in Abbas Amanat and Magnus Bernhardsson, eds. Imagining the End: Visions of Apocalypse from the Ancient Middle East to Modern America (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002), pp. 282-311. [10]. The decendents of Subh-i-Azal living in Famagusta are most unlikely to be secret followers of their ancestor who are hiding through taqqiya; the reason for this unlikelyhood is that the Turkish part of Cyprus is generally secular and poses no threat to them. Therefore any new "Bayanis" are unlikely to be directly connected with descendents of the Famagusta exiles. --Occamy 20:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm The number 500-5000 that I've read in Peter Smith's Concise Encyclopedia could be counted as "few remaining Babis" - There may have been millions or at least 100,000s during the time of the Bab. Interesting that we've just had a visit from the friendly neighbourhood Bayani by the looks of things. Check Bahá'í and Universal House of Justice history pages. -- Tomhab 21:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lots of new articles

For those who haven't noticed, I've started up a lot of new articles (see Category:Bahá'í-related stubs). Although not the greatest reason I found out that whilst there were only a handful of Bahá'í stubs there were several hundred Islamic ones and wanted to get more Bahá'í stuff on wikipedia. Ends justifies the means I hope. Anyway, with the aim of making this more of a community project if people would like to read through it and make any edits they feel, go for it. I really should be doing more work though...

Oh just to add. I've started using the terms Bayani where normally I'd use Azali (as they seem to prefer that term) and Subh-i Azal where some might use Mirza Yahya. Any commentry on the decision would be nice. If poss, I'd like to get a set standard to be used across wikipedia as using one then the other gets confusing. -- Tomhab 23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chronology

The chronology has been deleted from the article but I think that the article needs a short chronology to provide a sense of perspective to developments in the Bahá'í Faith. This would be in addition to the detailed chronology listed elsewhere. --Occamy 13:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah well - go ahead and revert it -- Tomhab 13:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Others may agree with the deletion; there is no need for a hasty revert and it is a minor issue from my POV. --Occamy 20:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bahá'í Elections

It is VERY misleading to suggest that any Bahá'í is eligible to elect the NSA and UHJ, since Bahá'í voters are prohibited from informing delegates or NSA members of their choice of candidate and do not have any ballots available from which to choose candidates for the NSA or the UHJ. In addition, only a small fraction (less than 1%) of Bahá'ís are eligible to participate in the elections of the NSA or the UHJ, which are either delegates, in the case of NSA elections, or NSA members, in UHJ elections. Delegates and NSA members are also prohibited from informing Bahá'ís who they voted for in the NSA or UHJ elections, so there is no input from the voter and no accountability from the person doing the electing.

Most astute observers and political science scholars would call this a "sham election", as it would not even qualify to be called "representative democracy" since there is a no accountability between the elected representative and the voter and no communication of the desire of the voter to the representative. In other words, if the representative is not capable of representing the will of the voters because of communication restrictions that are part of the election structure, how can you call this democracy?

Bahá'í elections are therefore like electing electors to the Electoral College in the U.S., but without a vote by the people for President. The elector thus has no idea who the voters in her district would prefer as President, and the voter has no idea who the elector voted for!

Avoiding disclosure of sufficient detail of Bahá'í elections as you have done in your section on the Administrative Order of the Bahá'í Faith, gives the reader the impression that "any" Bahá'í is eligible to elect the NSA or the UHJ and that the elections are a "democratic" process. This is a false and misleading impression that any objective and unbiased writer would seek to avoid. -- 24.6.117.96 22:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. There is nothing about a representitive democrasy that describes the need for voters to digress what they voted for.
2. If most astute observers and political science scholars, then you can find one and insert the comments in a NPOV way.
3. Key to Bahá'í elections is the decisions made DO NOT REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE MASSES. According to Bahá'í writings they represent the will of God acting through the assemblies.
4. As to avoiding, as said on your talk page, feel free to write a paragraph in a NPOV way.
5. gives the reader the impression that "any" Bahá'í is eligible to elect the NSA or the UHJ. As you've just said yourself, US citizens do not vote for their president, they vote for the Electoral College who vote for president. Bahá'ís vote delegates who vote for the NSA who vote the Universal House of Justice. This is all in wikipedia (see Universal house of justice for its part). Its not in the NSA page because there is none. The Bahá'í faith page is a summary.

I have already answered pretty much all these questions in the user's talk page after he asked pretty much the same questions in my talk page. -- Tomhab 22:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Above

You missed the point entirely! The point is not whether individual voters remain anonymous, it is the fact that they have NO VOTE at all! There is NO ballot, and NO NSA or UHJ candidates on any ballot that are used in Bahá'í elections at the "all" Bahá'í stage, and this is NOT made clear in your description of Bahá'í elections. "Wishful thinking" concerning your hope that a delegate or NSA may vote for the best person, let alone the person that would best serve the interests of Bahá'ís, is not the same as VOTING for that person! Your own website defines [2] [11] "representative democracy" as "a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests. This is not possible under the Bahá'í scheme of elections since the interests of Bahá'ís can not be ascertained by the representative because Bahá'ís are unable to communicate their interests based on the structure of the election! -- 67.188.7.127 00:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must be missing your point as what you've said hasn't cleared it up for me. Obviously since you feel strongly about it we can request the opinion of a neutral party (well we can try to get several opinions). How does the following wording sound:

Bahá'ís use what they call a representative democratic voting system which is split into 3 stages:

• The Bahá'í masses vote for a regional delegate.
• Regional delegates votes for a few National delegates.
• The National delegates in turn vote for a worldwide body.

However, nominations, campaigning and affecting a delegates vote are all strictly prohibited. Although discussion is allowed, delegates are not allowed to disclose their preference to others. As such, a Bahá'í on the lowest tier cannot vote for a delegate on the condition he votes a certain way (which is present in most representive democrasies) as this is against the spirit of the election. No canvasing is allowed as this may disadvantage people. Delegate weighting is not performed (so a country such as China has the same voting power as Spain dispite being 200 times bigger - I'm not certain about smaller countries such as Luxembourg or Monaco).

One editor has questioned whether the term Representative democracy is misleading since, in effect, the lowest tier can put no direct vote to who gets voted in (assuming they don't get voted to a delegate level). If it is misleading, is the term Democratic also misleading?

Let me know what you think. -- Tomhab 01:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Above

The term "democracy" is also misleading because your website defines this as "a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry"[12] According to the authoritative interpretations of Bahá'í law, the ultimate power rest with the UHJ, not the Bahá'í citizenry[13] If the Bahá'í citizenry wanted to alter a law passed by the UHJ, they would be powerless under the Bahá'í election scheme since there would be know way of communicating their dissatisfaction collectively through the election process in order to alter the objectionable law.

I think the most neutral languge which informs the reader of the democratic shortcomings of Bahá'í elections is the term "semi-democratic". The languege below I think best describes this semi-democratic process:

Bahá'í elections are semi-democratic. What this means, is at the lowest level of administration, the Local Spiritual Assembly (LSA), "all" Bahá'ís in that particular locality get to vote once a year for their nine-member LSA.

At the National Spiritual Assembly (NSA) level (the country level), the direct democratic input of Bahá'ís is diminished, in that Bahá'ís are required to vote once a year for "delegates" that in turn vote for the nine-member NSA. The structure of this election is such that no ballot exists for NSA members, only for delegates, so the delegate does not know whom Bahá'ís in her area would prefer as National Spiritual Assembly members. In addition, the Bahá'í voter has know idea whom their delegate voted for because of the secret ballot at the NSA level. It is "hoped" that the delegate voted for the best spiritual person to represent the Bahá'í Faith on the NSA, but the Bahá'í voter has no way of communicating to their delegate who they think is the best spiritual person to represent their interests on the NSA.

The nine-member Universal House of Justice (UHJ) elections are held every five years, and are based on votes of the NSAs around the world. Like the NSA elections, there is no way Bahá'ís can communicate collectively who they believe are the best spiritual people to serve their interests on the UHJ or ascertain who their NSA voted for, as this is also a secret ballot.'' -- 67.188.7.127 01:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's just not NPOV. It's just not. It implies that there is an intrinsic value to mass elections and campaigning which is certainly NOT established. Let's try a different take on the same facts.

The selection of the members of Bahá'í administrative bodies involve elections. These elections are organized in a unique manner in four levels of administration.

• At the local (town, city, county) level of administration, the Local Spiritual Assembly (LSA) is directly elected annually by a vote of the adult Bahá'ís in that particular locality. This vote occurs without nominations, and the ballot lists all adult members of the community. Election is by plurality.
• In the United States and India, regional councils are elected by members of these Local Spiritual Assemblies in an election conducted by mail. Again, no nominations occur, each LSA member is direted to submit the names of the indivuals in the region they feel are best suited to serve.
• The selection of the National Spiritual Assembly (NSA) is also indirect using a different methedology. The nation is divided into voting districts. In each district the members are charged to elect a delegate who will represent them at the annual national convention, and who will vote for the members of the NSA. The charge to the members at the local level then, is to select the individual whom they belive will do the best job of representing them at the national convention, and who will do the best job of voting for the NSA memebers. No input is provided to the delegate on whom to vote for in the NSA election. The NSA election at the national convention does not involve nomination or candidates. Some critics of Bahá'í elections have charged that this results in an effective nomination of the incumbants who are inherently the most well known individuals, and therefore likely to be re-elected. Others have charged that his indirect election reduces the direct democratic input of Bahá'ís is diminished, in that the delegate does not know whom Bahá'ís in her area would prefer as National Spiritual Assembly members. In addition, the Bahá'í voter has know idea whom their delegate voted for because of the secret ballot at the NSA level.
• The nine-member Universal House of Justice (UHJ) elections are held every five years, and are based on votes of the members of the NSAs around the world. Like the NSA elections, there is no nomination or campaign process. NSA members are free to vote for any individual they would like. The members of the NSAs are charged to vote for the best individuals to serve on the House of Justice. Critics of Bahá'í elections again charge that this results in the effective nomination of the incumbants, and the appointed staff of the various international agencies operated by the House of Justice. Rick Boatright 15:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is going out of scope of the Baha'i Faith article. This article is already pretty long. Starting a Bahá'í administration page would include the above edits (under elections I'd propose). You don't really need the intricacies of Bahá'í voting on a summary page which this is. By the way, I've requested Refdoc comment on whether calling it a representitive democrasy is misleading (as per the original charge). -- Tomhab 15:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Someone started Bahá'í Elections and I have edited THAT.Rick Boatright 15:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

67.188.7.127 should refer to the discussion page in Bahá'í administration for appropriate answers to at least some of his/her questions. --Occamy 21:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking me to have a look at this. I must agree, ¨representative democracy¨ it does not seem to be. But ¨sham election¨ or ¨semi-democratic¨ does not apply either. A similar system would be called in German Räterepublik - probably best translated as Councilar-republican system or indeed Soviet system (if there wasn´t the stalinism/leninism association...) It is/has been a valid form of republican government, but due to its obvious ease of abuse nowadays not a very popular one on state level. Many reformed churches are goverened in a similar way though - a local congregation elects its own elders who form the session, one is elected to go to the regional presbyterium, where again some will get selected to attend at national synods/assemblies. Works pretty well if you want a stable system with slow speed of changes and when the majority of the participants are sane and sensible people.... In summary my suggestion is to describe the system but leave all and any (potentially emotive) terms wrt democracy etc out. Hope that helps. Sorry I am not much here in these days. Refdoc 23:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting points. Nice to get a neutral view every now and then. -- Tomhab 23:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't really have any disagreement with the suggestion but want to point out that the page you've linked us to is NOT wikipedia policy, its a debate that is very much ongoing. If someone changes I certainly won't revert it however. -- Tomhab 19:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Are there actually any examples of the use of "BC/AD" in this, or any other Bahá'í article though? Since Bahá'í history starts in CE 1844 (or possibly slightly earlier if you take the Shaykhi movement as being a precursor to the Babis) I rather doubt it - I skimmed the article here and couldn't find any references to "BC/AD". Bahá'í books tend to use the Common Era abbreviation too, though.

Wikipedia being what it is, however, I don't think much of anyone's chances of getting this to be uniform policy - someone is always going to change things to make a point. If someone says "I want Wikipedia to accept" isn't that shorthand for convincing everyone who's likely to make an edit that they should do what you want? PaulHammond 10:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Syncretism revisited

Because of its inclusiveness in recognizing all the above as messengers of God, the Bahá'í Faith is commonly assumed in religious studies textbooks to be syncretic, although this is disputed by other scholars and by the Bahá'ís themselves who feel that the issue is one of perspective and therefore neither significant nor relevant.

I'm troubled by this sentence at the end of the intro. I don't think it's true to say that the Bahá'ís believe that the issue of syncretism is "neither significant nor relevant", as shown by the passion evidenced by Bahá'ís in the discussions here. I think that Bahá'ís don't like the implication in the word "syncretic" that their faith is a man-made philosophy - but I can't think of a three-word phrase that explains that, and I think a digression on what Bahá'ís think about their religion being called "syncretic" is out of place here. I'm going to cut the untrue "therefore", because I think that the Bahá'ís feel it's a matter of perspective is fair enough - but if anyone can come up with a pithy summary of why Bahá'ís don't like being called "syncretic" I'd be pleased to see it! PaulHammond 11:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

A (minor?) restructuring

I've been doing a kind of copy edit on the article today - and I came across the point where the article talks about Abdu'l Baha's death, then jumps straight into talking about schisms, covenant-breakers and Guardians before mentioning Shoghi Effendi. I think it read better this way - it goes from Abdu'l baha's death to ABs Will, the appointment of Shoghi Effendi, then him dying without leaving a will, and then all the sections about Bahá'í controversies come in. If anyone disagrees with me - feel free to be bold in your edits! PaulHammond 12:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear why the link to Minor Bahá'í divisions has been removed from the article. --Occamy 20:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It was red - I assumed the article had been deleted. Apparently, someone just introduced a spelling mistake - I'll have a go at fixing that. PaulHammond 21:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ah - apparently someone corrected "Bahá'í" (no diacritics) to "Bahá'í", thus destroying the link to the article (the article has no diacritics, and there is no redirect from minor Bahá'í divisions to minor Bahá'í divisions. PaulHammond 21:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Removing redirect at top of article

I don't think there should be a disambig at the start of this article - there are links to other groups if people are interested, references and links to the splits at the appropriate places in the article, and the history of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha etc. is something that is common to the Remeyite groups anyway. Plus it encourages people to put arguments about the different schisms right at the top of the article. So, I've removed it. PaulHammond 12:44, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vast Majority Rejected Remey

It is appropriate to reintroduce vast to the following passage in the Covenant section: "A few Bahá'ís accepted his claim and became known as Remeyites, whilst the vast majority looked towards the creation of the Universal House of Justice..." The emphatic rejection of Mason Remey's claim is described in two letters from the Hands of the Cause in the Holy Land to all the Hands of the Cause (sourced from "Ministry of the Custodians" ISBN 0-85398-350-X [[14]]), extracts from which are:

• "In spite of this world-wide demonstration of solidarity and steadfastness in the Covenant, a group of five members of the French National Assembly accepted Mr. Remey as the Guardian of the Faith, and the National Assembly informed the believers of France of the advent of a new Guardian." 28 May 1960 (p. 204)
• It seems that only about fifteen believers throughout the world have accepted Mason Remey's claim, of whom about ten are in France and five in the United States. 15 June 1960 (p. 208) --Occamy 21:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yikes didn't know it was that small a number that joined originally. Does you know any more about the French NSA? I've just read on the article on Joel Bray Marangella (one of Remey's stronger followers and chair of the French NSA) that it was only three. -- Tomhab 00:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the same source, here is an extract from a 14 May 1960 letter concerning the leaders of the five: These were led by Mr. J. Marangella, General M. Darakhshan and Mr. B. Fillon...

Do we have documentation that isn't from the Hands or the House on the numbers that initially accepted Remey? If so, it would be nice to annotate "vast" to such documentation, since it's reporting and not opinion. In justification of "vast", it would be probably reasonable to note that while a quorum of the french NSA accepted Mr. Remey, no other NSA did so. Even by count of NSAs, which are probably the best numbers to mention from the POV of the Orthodox Bahá'ís it's vast. Other than that, I think that some inclusion of these quotes, here or on another page would be appropriate. --Christian Edward Gruber

I don't know of other sources. I believe that the publication "Ministry of the Custodians" can be safely regarded as authoritative, though this is my POV: the correspondence between the Hands concerning Remey's action does not read like sanitised history. Enough on the subject has been included in this article, though more could usefully be included in other related articles. --Occamy 20:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)