Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 9

Portal Link Placement

I was thinking what the best place for the portal link is. In other pages the portal link is near the top, but if just placed in this article it looks weird, since the template is there as well. At the same time, I don't think the bottom of the page is where it should go. I've tried out different things to put the portal link beside the template, but none of them is perfect. The examples that tired are the following:

Idea #1: Seems to be the best, but has a little extra space at the bottom

  <table style="float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; text-align:center;">
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">{{portal}}</td>
      <td>{{Template:Bahá'í}}</td>
    </tr>
  </table>

Idea #2: Screws up in small widths, and doesn't work in IE, but works nicely for Firefox

  {{Template:Bahá'í}}
  <div style="position: absolute; right:160px; top:490px;">
    {{portal}}
  </div>

Idea #3: Screws up in small widths, and doesn't work in IE, but works nicely for Firefox

  {{Template:Bahá'í}}
  <div style="position: relative; right:12em; top: -62.2em;">
    {{portal}}
  </div>

Anyone have any ideas, and can you take the above and make them better? -- Jeff3000 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Errrm, not sure what you want, but:

  {{Template:Bahá'í}}
  <div style="clear:right">
    {{portal}}
  </div>

You used right clear in the table one but not the others, so you may have already thought of it -- Tomhab 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The article as it stands seems very pro Bahá'í in tone

A very shiny happy version of things the article on answers.com seems more a little more NPOV http://www.answers.com/topic/bah-faith (unsigned comment by User:67.183.93.122)

I'm not quite sure what the point of providing a link to a wikipedia mirror is, when the original article is on this page. So, this is your opinion. This is a wiki. If you have any sourced suggestions to improve this article, then go for it and make a contribution. What exactly do you expect to happen as a result of expressing your opinion here? PaulHammond 14:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I have a serious problem the the tone in the second sentence under "Demographics". It begins:

"One disillusioned individual..."

This is not NPOV. This either needs to go, or be re-written properly. The "Cristicism" section seems extremely downplayed juxtaposed with the "Praise" one. I am adding the inappropriate tone flag duely.--Chèvredansante 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Chèvredansante, I have removed the "dissusioned indivudiual" phrase which was added today, and what do you recommed to do with the criticism section. Note that the other religious pages, do not have a criticism section, and have it in the "See also" section. -- Jeff3000 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Jeff3000, then perhaps both sections ought to be removed? I'm sure than entire articles could exist re: the controversy of this faith; and re: the praise that it has recieved.--Chèvredansante 03:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Chèvredansante that's what most editors of this page would suggest. One editor Dawud, would like the criticism page to be here, and thus that is why it's here. The praise section was added to provide the other side. There is already a seperate criticism page (though it's called Bahá'í apologetics). -- Jeff3000 03:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If there is already a criticism page, then let us remove this rubbish section and simply link to said article in footnotes. Redundancy is unencyclopedic. --Chèvredansante 03:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask you do that, since if I do it, Dawud will state I am being biased in taking away the criticisms (as I am a Baha'i) -- Jeff3000 03:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we post a "criticisms" section on the Chr!stianity article, hmm? Oh and why don't we mention the historical corruption of the Papacy therein? I am extremely contre-Baha'i, as I believe that priciples from the Abrahamic branch of religions have been claified within it, yet certain dogmas added which are not to my taste. In this mood, I am removing the non-NPOVic criticisms & praises section, and replacing it with a nice in-house link in external references. Namaste. --Chèvredansante 05:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As it stands, the Christianity article does bring up the Crusades, Thirty Years' War, and conflicts with science and feminism. The "persecution" section includes both persecution by, and against, Christians. One problem with many criticisms is that they would be better levelled at particular denominations or families within Xty (priestly child molesting, televangelist scandals). Others are rather obvious (like objections to theism).

In the Baha'i case, we would't want people to look up "Baha'i" without being alerted to the possibility that everything isn't all happy-cheery, would we? We wouldn't do that with the "Scientology" entry. Someone might join by mistake!

And have you thought about what this is doing to the "apologetics" site? It's supposed to be for discussion (pro and con, and misc. other) of various controversial issues. Now what are we to do with a litany of praises?211.72.108.19 10:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Errrm so... the links you'll include. I presume they won't only include links to the criticisms part? -- Tomhab 17:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

He already made the change. Now the "See Also" section looks like this:

• Bahá'í apologetics (praise & criticism)
• Bahá'í timeline
• Non-Bahá'í (terminology)
• Bahá'í humor
• Bahá'í orthography

LambaJan 20:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted non-NPOV edits re: commentary. 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Orthography

Is there a reason why a virtual encyclopedia for all peoples is using specifically Bāhāī orthography in articles pertaining to the Bahāī Faith? Ought not the Bahāī tendency to use the accute accent be replaced with a macron over applicable vowels (thus: "Bahāī" rather than "Bahá'í", "Bahāullāh" rather than "Bahá'u'lláh") to render pronunciation in a more scholarly manner? Otherwise, the page looks like it was written by Bahāīs rather than being neutral. In recognition of their system of orthography, we can state how they write their words: "The Bahāī (rendered as "Bahá'í" by its adherants) Faith is an emerging global religion founded by Bahāullāh (written as "Bahá'u'lláh" by Bahāīs), a nineteenth-century Persian exile. "Bahāī" is either an adjective referring to this religion, or the term for a follower of Bahāullāh." It would make this more NPOV, IMHO.

There used to be a note on the page that stated something like Shoghi Effendi who translated much of the Baha'i writings used a specific transliteration of Arabic and persian which was common at that time. And thus all of the Baha'i writings and references to the Baha'i Faith use that specific orthography, Bahá'í. Following Wikipedia's 'most common' rule, the Baha'i pages use that orthography. Searching for "Bahāī" on google and going through the first 10 pages of Google search I couldn't find a single page that used the Bahāī orthography. -- Jeff3000 00:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the page that kind of describes it: Bahá'í orthography -- Jeff3000 00:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation! Very good reason, then, to keep their system of orthography. I hadn't thought of the Google issue, but it's quite relevant. Again, thanks! Kitabparast 00:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Mzgaragarov Edits

Of all of them, I think there is one that might not constitute plagurism, however it would be debatable.

Line 16- *Elimination of all forms of prejudice (Except against Homosexuals, who are not recognized.)

Is this not so? --→ Chèvredan∫ante ^{talk · contrib} 03:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe so. While the Bahá'í Faith teaches that the only acceptable form of sexual expression is within a marriage between one man and one woman, the Bahá'í writings teach people to treat everyone, including homosexuals, with love, respect, and dignity. So Bahá'ís are taught not to treat homosexuals as condemned outcasts, and are told not to apply the Bahá'í teachings to people who have not accepted Bahá'u'lláh.

These teachings have been expounded from multiple compilations that have been released from the Bahá'í World Centre. Now I'm not saying that some Bahá'ís don't do that, and actually have a prejudice against homosexuals, but that is their fault and not in the Bahá'í teachings.

The way I see it, is that it's somewhat like the prohibition of alcohol in the teachings, which is unacceptable in the Bahá'í teachings, but that does not make it right for Bahá'ís to be against people who do drink alcohol. The Bahá'ís who have a prejudice against people who are homosexual, I would say, need to follow the Bahá'í teachings more closely. -- Jeff3000 04:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read through Homosexuality and Bahá'í Faith, it paints a good picture of the actual teachings toward homosexuality. Cuñado - Talk 08:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Commentary section

This section is no good. Praise and criticism exist but each of them need actors. Also ones praise is another criticism. View the homosexuality issue in the U.S. So, before we start making value judgment we must discuss the Bahai position on issues in a coherent and neutral manner. That means that a bunch of the criticism section should be broken down and explained as law. Not to be cited from primary Bahai sources which are interpretable I believe but they need to be cited from notable doctrinal sources. The law section shouldn't be a list but an explanatory exposition of law with no value judgment. Bahais could kill children and it should be explained in law before it goes into the spinoff critiques of that practice. If you display Bahai doctrine in a way that represents the faith (does every Bahai agree to the majority laws? If so who dissents?) then the reader will make an informed opinion about the faith. The criticism of certain individuals and groups is less important in defining the faith. What they criticize may be bahai practice but their criticism is not a means to reveal what the practice is. The criticism is a layer added onto the practice since the practice is independent of the criticism. An exposé of notable critics is fine... but not the passive voice unsourced section we have now. The same goes for praise... praise should be incorporated into social outreach of the Bahais or be melded into law if applicable. gren グレン 18:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks gren for your suggestions. I, taking your advice, have incorporated the statements from the criticism and praise section into the main article. These include

• prohibition on homosexuality
• the shunning of covenant-breakers
• Women are barred on the Universal House of Justice
• acceptance as a UN NGO

One note, regarding the list of laws. Baha'u'llah appointed his son, `Abdu'l-Baha as the official interpreter of his writings, and `Abdu'l-Baha appointed Shoghi Effendi to be the official interpreter after his death. The laws, which are listed in that section, have been codified by Shoghi Effendi. The small divisions which occured in the Baha'i Faith after Shoghi Effendi's death all believe in those laws. -- Jeff3000 19:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I am not sure exactly how it works. If it's an official rule of law (like Catholic catechisms) then it belongs... if it's like the Bible or Qur'an which are interpreted in many and often opposite ways then you can't cite it as law. I just wanted to avoid quoting of the text outside of established context. gren グレン 19:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Grenavitar, the list of Baha'i laws in the article are the official rule of law in the Baha'i Faith much like the catechisms. They were coded by the official interpreter of Baha'u'llah's writings in the book Synopsys and Codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas -- Jeff3000 19:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that Baha'is have been standing by and doing nothing while the "criticisms"--section--which we have discussed ad nauseum--is removed again and again. Is this what Baha'i "consultation" is worth? Yes, I realize that Wikipedia encourages revision, but without this, the site is fundamentally unbalanced. As for the criticism that these are "unsourced" or undiscussed, each (except the last, which I will work on) is linked to a place where it is discussed. What makes them "criticisms" instead of "praises"? The fact that they are commonly given as criticisms (and defended by Baha'is). The fact that outsiders would not be able to guess them is, to my mind, an important reason for including them here.

Another thing: in the previous section, somebody wrote that Baha'is are recognized and respected by almost every country in the world, or somesuch. Hogwash.

And another other thing: Would whoever has been adding prominent links to "Baha'i Faith" to other religious sites, please stop? For instance, somebody keeps adding "...and most recently, the Baha'i Faith" to the list of Abrahamic religions in the first paragraph of Christianity. First of all, nobody except Baha'is do that. Neither Christians, Jews, nor Muslims as a group have much interest in your relationship with them. Second, it's only half true. Think about it--according to your theology, Muhammad is the "seal" of the Semitic line of prophets, which Abraham started. The Bab and Baha'u'llah are outside this.Dawud 12:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand the Baha'i understanding of seal of the prophets, which means that the "prophetic cycle" of alluding to the time when symbolic heaven will be on earth is over, and that Baha'u'llah is still a prophet, but has started the "cycle of fulfillment".

Secondly Gravitar, an admin, has said that both praise and criticisms are POV, please read his section above. -- Jeff3000 15:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not so much that Baha'u'llah is or is not a Prophet, is or is not the Fulfillment of prophecy, but rather that both The Bab and Baha'u'llah are descendants of Abraham and claim that lineage (In the same way that Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad claim the lineage). Nmentha 07:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Dawud feels that "consultation" means that we are to accommodate him and his POV. A perusal of the archives indicates that people haven't liked the "Criticism" section going back at least to July, 2005. He's the only one who's shoe-horning these in "Baha'i torpedoes be damned". (Wikipdedia sourcing and documentation policies be damned as well apparently.) Dawud's been asked since at least June (Tomhab 12:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)) to provide decent sources. User pages, blogs, etc. are still a problem. This interchange from June, 2005 is especially enlightening as this has gone on for over six months with at least six other editors trying to get him into line. Is there anyplace to take this for arbitration?

Dawud, It's easy to see who's been putting Baha'i links in unusual places. Click the "History" tab and scroll backwards till you see it appear. If there is one person putting these up, take it to an admin. If it's an anonymous user, and it's really out of place (We really aren't "People of the Book", but we are Abrahamic.) then take it out.

MARussellPESE 19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I yield to you on points of Baha'i theology. I forget that in Baha'i-speak, "consultation" means silencing internal critics, not compromise with external ones. You are right--we are not part of any community which obliges us to respect one another's views. God willing, I will never be "in line with" you people.

In order to be balanced, an article must include significant criticisms. You Baha'is, however, have done everything possible to make criticisms less visible. So yes, I do see you as "torpedoes." You're not interested in accuracy, you're interested in whitewashing your religion. Unfortunately there are more of you right now. It's the nature of the topic, I suppose.

Many of the sources you've been calling "blogs" (having discovered that this is apparently grounds for disqualification of otherwise embarrassing material) are actually articles or letters stored on various personal websites. I can't imagine what you think the problem could be, or what you think a "legitimate" source would look like. Surely the problem couldn't be content...?

Who is this "Gren" and what makes you think his views (which I find nearly unintelligible) deserves special deference? If you think the "criticisms" section is too short, then by all means, let's expand it. The original point of the abbreviated section was to alert people to the existence of more such criticism (with sources etc.) on "Baha'i apologetics". As things stand, a reader of this entry might remain oblivious to the dark side of your religion, or fail to make the connection with "apologetics." I'm sure the prospect fills you with horror.218.168.241.124 12:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Gren is as admin who works on the Muslim sites, and has worked on how to deal with criticisms on the muslim related pages. The point that he makes is quite important. An encyclopedia is a not a place to have a POV, which having a criticism section is, but instead facts have to be provided, and the reader himself has to make the decision. That is how a page becomes balanced. Before I removed the criticism and praise section, I placed most of the criticisms in the rest of the article. Secondly there is a link to Baha'i apolgetics page, with the word criticisms beside it. -- Jeff3000 15:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There are legitimate ways and means to have relevant material presented in a manner that is consistant with the rules and style of this encyclopedia. If you follow them then changes will be much smoother and more pleasant for all of us.

Not a single edit that I've seen actually removed the criticisms.

Now Grenavitar is saying that the criticisms and praises are not good because they are passive-voiced, failing to provide actual criticisers and praisers; and because they are presenting the beliefs and actions in terms of their criticisms and praises instead of presenting them as facts (ie. Bahá'ís believe this, they've done that, etc.) and then presenting the facts that this person or this group of people criticises or praises that belief or action.

This sounds fair and reasonable to me. LambaJan 22:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added content in the main article about the conflict that caused the resignations or explusions, and linked to the main article about that conflict which was in Baha'i divisions. -- Jeff3000 03:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

None of the criticisms that were there before remain on the main page. A couple are linked. Thus, of all the controversies which have historically turned inquirers away from your religion, all that is left is a bare mention of the existence of CB groups (without describing shunning), plus links. While few "seekers" would be attracted to CB sects, many would balk at joining a religion that practiced the policies which were formerly described under "criticisms".

Expulsions, by the way, are different from "divisions" since most expellees do not go on to start their own rival Baha'i group.

Why would criticisms be considered POV on the main page, but allowed on the "apologetics" page? (Other than because you've made it into a dumping ground for such things.) But I find this whole line of reasoning ridiculous. Imagine Scientology with no mention of criticisms--how neutral would that be?--Dawud

I just took a quick glance at the Scientology page, and I would favour that page being reframed in such a way that the bullets and issues in the Controversy and criticism section be stated within the rest of the article as Grenavitar suggests. I'll try to bring it up in their talk pages in the next couple days. Also please look above with the criticims that I have included on this page. And you're right that "criticisms" is not the right word for Apologetics either, because that is POV. The way that Apologetics is framed is non-POV and I would better describe it as "Issues." -- Jeff3000 16:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been awhile now, and I see a disturbing pattern at work. It goes like this: Some Baha'i erases something critical of their religion. We spend weeks discussing whether, and how, criticisms should be incorporated. The article left behind lacks the criticisms in question. I begin to suspect that this is an intentional strategy.

I propose that in the future, criticisms should STAY UP while we discuss whether and how to change them. Otherwise the Baha'is among us have no incentive to compromse. 218.167.174.135 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Everybody but you Dawud believes that the criticisms are POV. Grenavitar a muslim didn't think they should be here, Chrevedesante, a homosexual, felt that they should not be here. Given that wikipedia should be NPOV, I will again remove the criticism section. The fact that Homosexuality is not allowed is in the article, the fact that covenant-breakers are shunned are in the article, the fact that women are not allowed in the Universal House of Justice is in the article. What's not in the article is Baha'i review and the expulsions which don't fit anywhere in particle and which even Grenavitar said are not that important. -- Jeff3000 13:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think some people need to realize that "netural point of view" means exactly that - nothing more, nothing less. Emphasis on the latter. Danny Lilithborne 14:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We should seek the best NPOV article rather than a compromise that averages the more extreme positions expressed here. It is appropriate for controversial issues to be raised in this main article, but only briefly, with links to articles that discuss the issues more fully elsewhere. As many of the Pro and Con issues raised under criticisms are POV, perhaps it would be best to refer to the whole subject as "Controversies" rather than Criticisms. Likewise high profile support for the Baha'i Faith from respected sources should be mentioned briefly too, if only to provide balance. --Occamy 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on a good bit of this, but "Controversies" would not be accurate unless all topics under the heading actually were controversies. Most of these really are criticisms. Bahá'ís have beliefs about, for instance, homosexuality that some groups disagree with and sometimes criticise the Bahá'ís about. There is no controversy about that. LambaJan 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Side note: I just archived the Demographics section because this page is very long, I hope this wasn't premature. LambaJan 23:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Archiving is never premature in my experience, especially with religious debates. :) Danny Lilithborne 02:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Occamy, there is no room for compromise, especially not in the Baha'i teachings, rather, it is always preferable to have the best NPOV article rather than a compromise between extremes. A compromise could lead downgrading the quality and neutrality of the work. Remember that NPOV does not mean "middle way". I would also like to make a note that NPOV does not mean that something true and verifiable has to be countered by the opposite. If something is true and verifiable, then it does not matter whether it sounds bias or not. Ultimately, NPOV is necessary for the purpose of determining whether something actually happened and whether it is true or not. Nmentha 07:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with LambaJan, these are not controversies, but indeed criticisms by certain groups of people that have different views on certain aspects of the Baha'i Faith compared to most Baha'is. For example, Baha'is believe that homosexuality is against the laws of God for those that are Baha'is, and many others would consider that not progressive for a relatively new religion. These are different points of views on the subject of homosexuality and the Baha'i Faith. The important thing is to include the fact in the article, which is that homosexuality is not seen as correct in the Baha'i Faith, and let the reader decide for himself if that is ok, or if it is not ok, and thus be critical. This is what NPOV means, as Grenavitar explained above. The same goes for the so called unenrollements/resignations; the Covenant and the form of Baha'i administration come from Baha'i writings which many Baha'is see as authoritative, which gives them certain powers such as instilling Baha'i review. Other people believe that the Baha'i administration is going over their powers, and thus criticize it. Again both of these aspects have a POV, and thus a NPOV statement could be included about what happened, but not assign it a connotation of "right" or "wrong" and let the reader decide.

BTW, a praise section is also POV. For example some people might praise the Baha'i Faith for its SED projects across the world, and others would state that they are not doing enough. So, the way to make it NPOV, would be to say that Baha'is have the following SED projects, and not connect it with praise. -- Jeff3000 04:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added the two other statements (and links to appropriate pages in Wikipedia) from the criticisms section, hopefully in a NPOV way. They include the Baha'i review, and the resignations/unenrollements. -- Jeff3000 06:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • There does come a point where you have to balance "neutral point of view" with "rules of disclosure", Jeff. Danny Lilithborne 07:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dawud, Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets not MESSENGERS. This was to differenciate the Quranic Dispensation from the Jewish one in which there was a continuing heiarchal line of Prophets. Be you Sunni or Shia, you recognize the fact that the Administration post Muhammad was to not be Prophetic, thats all it was. If you read the Surah of Hud, you will see that not only is a new Messenger not sealed off, but it is FORETOLD. Really read the Surah, and then read 120 towards the end of it

120 And all that We relate unto thee of the story of the messengers is in order that thereby We may make firm thy heart. And herein hath come unto thee the Truth and an exhortation and a reminder for believers.

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 11 - Hud) 69.226.45.60 12:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No donations?

It would be nice if this article included information about why Baha'i houses of worship cannot accept donations from non-Baha'i's. I don't know, so I can't include it. But here's the reason for my question: a nice Baha'i house of worship near where I grew up was doing some major renovations. I had fond memories of it and the people there from my childhood so I wanted to give them a donation toward the work. (I don't think there is a Catholic church in the world that would refuse a donation like that for the "new roof" fund.) But I was told that it was a tenet of the Baha'i faith that donations from outsiders cannot be accepted. Crypticfirefly 06:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well actually its all Baha'i funds. Giving to the fund is one of the "privileges" of being a Baha'i. In fact, I think it largely has a practical aspect - making sure any donations do not have any political sway (politics is a mini Baha'i swear word). Also I think it promotes the idea that Baha'is are impeccably honest - closer to the idea of the Guardian that Baha'is would be moral "shining lamps" in the future. Hmmm I've really gotta look up a more firm answer though :) -- Tomhab 09:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tomhab is right, funds are not solicited or accepted from people who are not Baha'is for any Baha'i fund. There's a couple reasons for this:

• Giving to the fund is a spiritual act for Baha'is and enhances unity in the community

"Giving to the Fund, therefore, is a spiritual privilege, not open to those who have not accepted Bahá'u'lláh, of which no believer should deny himself. It is both a responsibility and a source of bounty. This is an aspect of the Cause which, we feel, is an essential part of the basic teaching and deepening of new believers. The importance of contributing resides in the degree of sacrifice of the giver, the spirit of devotion with which the contribution is made and the unity of the friends in this service; these attract the confirmations of God and enhance the dignity and self-respect of the individuals and the community."

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to all National Spiritual Assemblies, August 7, 1985)

• Donations from people who are not Baha'is could at times be used to request something back in return. (i.e. it could be political, and Baha'is as Tomhab individated. Baha'is see the current political sphere as very divisive, and not conducive to the unity within the community, and thus accept or advocated any political position.):

"He wishes me to stress again that under no circumstances the believers should accept any financial help from non-Bahá'ís for use in connection with specific administrative activities of the Faith such as the Temple construction fund, and other local or national Bahá'í administrative funds. The reasons for this is twofold: First because the institutions which the Bahá'ís are gradually building are in the nature of gifts from Bahá'u'lláh to the world; and secondly the acceptance of funds from non-believers for specific Bahá'í use would, sooner or later, involve the Bahá'ís into unforseen and difficulties with other, and thus cause incalculable harm to the body of the Cause."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 12, 1938)

Funds are accepted however for humanitarian projects that the Baha'is are involved in:

"The crucial point in deciding whether or not funds may be accepted from non-Bahá'ís for funds, it sometimes happens that a person who has a great know, it is absolutely forbidden in the Faith to accept from non-Bahá'ís contributions towards the work of the Cause itself. However, in addition to the work of spreading the Faith and establishing its institutions, Spiritual Assemblies also engage in humanitarian activities, and contributions from non-Bahá'í sources may be accepted towards such activities. Indeed, although we never ask individual non-Bahá'ís for funds, it sometimes happens that a person who has a great admiration for the Faith insists on contributing. In such a case the contribution may be accepted, with the express provision that it will be used only for charitable and humanitarian purposes."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Panama, March 6, 1983)

Thanks for the good question, and I hope this clears it up. -- Jeff3000 15:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Italicizing quotes — a personal gripe

Generally speaking quotes are not italicized. This is a long-standing and bad habit of some Bahá'í publishers and has crept into the style of these articles. My old copy of Turabian says that italics are used wherever one would underline with a typewriter. (Yup, I'm that old.) My old Strunk & White and the Wikipedia MOS both follow suit. (Yup, that old: I know how to play Bridge.)

I've just finished up the reprint of the old US-NSA's Comprehensive Deepening Program and they italicized every-last quoted word. It's a fabulous book, and dirt cheap. (I wish I'd read it years ago, but I'm not that old.) I'm intending to use it as a foundation for junior-youth classes. But the italics made my teeth itch at every turn.

So, in addition to giving you insights into me you'd rather not have, accept my apologies in advance if you see my edits eliminating these. MARussellPESE 14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The NSA is following Shoghi Effendi's style (Dispensation of Baha'u'llah). While it might not be correct on paper, I find it enhances readbility on the screen by differentiating what is a quote and what is not. There are many differences between what is appropriate on paper, and what is appropriate on screen. My personal preference is to keep the quotes italicized. -- Jeff3000 14:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that italics ergonomically differentiates the quotes from normal text on screen. --Occamy 19:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I have put quotes on wiki in perhaps 5 different formats. I usually do whatever looks best, and I haven't found any standards in wikipedia guidelines. Recently I've used the format of indenting a quote, adding the double apostrophes (") on both ends, and italicizing the whole quote, followed by a source double indented in brackets, like this:

"There was an old woman who swallowed a fly. I don't know why she swallowed a fly. I guess she'll die."

(Ayatollah Khomeini, Children's stories, Harper-Collins 1983 pg. 23)

I could live with not italicizing the quote. If we can agree on something I'll go through all the Baha'i pages and fix it up. Cuñado - Talk 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered, but as a personal preference I'd go with MARussellPESE's suggestion. Wikipedia also has this as a standard. Having said that, I think the wiki idea that consistency (on a page/topic) is the key, so theres nothing wrong with deciding which here on a talk page.

Whatever is decided, all quotes should be changed, but don't need to be instantly so don't worry :) -- Tomhab 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff3000, could you provide reference for the Guardian's preferred usage. (Was this a decision of his?) Near as I can tell this is a US NSA convention. And, at least on Ocean they're in quotes in Dispensation. (I've gotta look at a hard-copy.)

Ergonomically, I find them very hard to read — especially in the san-serif font wikpedia defaults to.

Consistency is best, however. Ciao, MARussellPESE 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it was his personal preference, but printed versions of Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, World Order of Baha'u'llah, Advent of Divine Justice, and Promised Day has Come all use italics for quotations from the Holy Writings, and don't use italics for quotations from other sources. Whatever the decision, I'll back it up by fixing the style to the decision. -- Jeff3000 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

MARussellPESE, could you show an example of what you're proposing? Or is it just like my example but not italicized? Cuñado - Talk 01:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cuñado, you're example without italics per the Wikipedia MOS. I reviewed The World Order of Baha'u'llah, the Q&A section of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and others, and all use the italics for quoting the Texts as Jeff3000's pointed out. It does make the quoted selections easier to find. (Books use serif fonts regularly, and that may make a difference.) My Bible is a red-letter edition for the same reason.

I'd submit that a good argument could be made that controlling style here on Wikipedia should be the generally accepted form and not an idiosyncratic one used by Bahá'í Institutions/publishers, whatever their reasons for using a different one. Ciao, MARussellPESE 14:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style is actually pretty clear. So I agree that we should use that standard for the numerous quotes on the Baha'i pages. Here's an example again to make sure it's clear:

"There was an old woman who swallowed a fly. I don't know why she swallowed a fly. I guess she'll die."

(Ayatollah Khomeini, Children's stories, pg. 23)

Agreed?

And since we're talking about style, I just read over Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing which we should be familiar with. Basically it means after writing a paragraph summarized from a book, follow it with parenthesis and the author's name, and year if possible. Then at the bottom under references have the full publishing information for the book. Cuñado - Talk 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not like to see us use Harvard referencing for the Central Figures. We don't see selections from the Bible read "(Jesus, 3 AD)" or "(Solomon, King, 980 BCE)" — we see (John 5:19), or (23rd Psalm). I don't know any Bahá'í who'd recognize (Bahá'u'lláh, 1992), but we'd all recognize Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

My preference is the parenthetical Author, Title, & page reference in the text and the full reference in the References section. MARussellPESE 04:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a little unclear of me. I meant for non-scriptural references. I tried to use that type of referencing and someone didn't understand, so I thought I'd mention it. It's used on several articles already. Cuñado - Talk 04:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Charter

I remember reading that there are three charter documents of the administration. The article currently mentions two of them. I think Shoghi Effendi is the source for that. Can someone check on that? It should be easy to find, and for the next few days I won't have a computer with both Ocean and the internet (long story). Cuñado - Talk 01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Tablets of the Divine Plan
2. Tablet of Carmel
3. Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha -- Jeff3000 02:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. How's it read now? MARussellPESE 04:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be four charter documents of the administration:

1. The Kitáb-i-Aqdas
2. Tablet of Carmel
3. Tablets of the Divine Plan
4. Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá

Support is as follows:

1.) '"To build anew the whole world" is the claim and challenge of His Message, and the Kitáb-i-Aqdas is the Charter of the future world civilization that Bahá'u'lláh has come to raise up...The Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice can thus be seen to be, in the words of Shoghi Effendi, the "Twin Successors" of Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá. They are the supreme institutions of the Administrative Order which was founded and anticipated in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and elaborated by 'Abdu'l-Bahá in His Will. During the thirty-six years of his ministry, Shoghi Effendi raised up the structure of elected Spiritual Assemblies--the Houses of Justice referred to in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, now in their embryonic stage."

--(Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 1-3)

~And again:~

"In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (The Most Holy Book), that priceless treasury enshrining for all time the brightest emanations of the mind of Bahá'u'lláh, the Charter of His World Order, the chief repository of His laws, the Harbinger of His Covenant, the Pivotal Work containing some of His noblest exhortations, weightiest pronouncements, and portentous prophecies, and revealed during the full tide of His tribulations, at a time when the rulers of the earth had definitely forsaken Him..."

--(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 24)

2.) "The construction work now in progress on Mount Carmel should be seen as a major historic thrust in the development of the first of these three mighty processes -- a process which was launched more than one hundred years ago by Bahá'u'lláh Himself when He pitched His tent on this Holy Mountain [Mount Carmel] and revealed the Tablet [Tablet of Carmel] described by the Guardian as "the Charter of the World Spiritual and Administrative Centers of the Faith.'"

--(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Bahá'í Communities)

~And again:~

"Shortly before his passing, the Guardian completed the structure of the International Bahá'í Archives, "the first stately Edifice destined to usher in the establishment of the World Administrative Center of the Faith on Mount Carmel -- the Ark referred to by Bahá'u'lláh in the closing passages of His Tablet of Carmel."'

--(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Bahá'í Communities)

3.) "As you are no doubt aware, the Tablets of the Divine Plan, which were revealed by 'Abdu'l-Bahá during the First World War, are the Charter for the teaching of the Faith. All the teaching plans launched by the beloved Guardian, as well as implementation of this master plan conceived by the Centre of the Covenant for the diffusion of the Message of Bahá'u'lláh."

--(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, September 29, 1977)(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 487)

4.) "The Charter which called into being, outlined the features and set in motion the processes of, this Administrative Order is none other than the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, His greatest legacy to posterity, the brightest emanation of His mind and the mightiest instrument forged to insure the continuity of the three ages which constitute the component parts of His Father's Dispensation...."

--(Compilations, The Compilation of Compilations vol II, p. 289)

These are the only references to "charter" in terms of the administration and order of the Bahá'í Faith. Nmentha 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you are right, even though I had always thought there were three charter documents. -- Jeff3000 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, there are another 2 or 3 tablets that mention the House of Justice in the book, Tablets of Baha'u'llah. These are also foundational for the administrative order but I don't know if they are refered to as "charters". Nmentha 05:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

wikisource

Is it totally necessary to have the wikisource link on a bunch of documents like Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá? The actual text is linked under references, and the wikisource link is not pleasant to the eyes. Cuñado - Talk 01:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Covenant / NPOV

The current version seems to me to give excessive weight to what is clearly the minority position. I agree that a section on the Covenant would not be complete without reference to covenant breaking and divisions, but as currently worded the minority view appears to have more weight than the majority view. Can we try to develop a consensus here rather than have endless revisions and reversions on the main page. AndrewRT 13:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the main group as stated in the first sentence. This is precisely what a disambiguation link is for. If an editor want to expand that page then they're perfectly free to do so.

The "Bahá'í administration" section already discusses Remey and contains several links, including one to "Bahá'í divisions" which discuss every sectarian group whether functional or not. That makes two places where the article points away from the main group.

The "Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh" article also links to "Bahá'í divisions". So does "Covenant-breaker". It's not as if these groups are not discussed or linked to.

As the combined total of all the Remeyite groups (D. MacEoin's term by the way.) is 15,000 at the outside (Allowing each extant group's claim of roughly two to three thousand stand without criticism.) then this is an insignificant issue indeed when compared to the 2,000,000 Bahá'ís (Using the most critical estimate of the Bahá'ís.).

MARussellPESE 14:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In the archives this issue was hashed out for a long time. The discussion was ended by demonstrating several places where the term "Baha'i Faith" is legally determined to be the House of Justice in Haifa. The entire point was to avoid confusion, and in 1966 Mason Remey's group was forced in a court to adopt a name other than "Baha'i Faith". I think having the disambiguation link and linking to the divisions page once or twice is relevant in passing, but Andrew is correct to say that their value was outweighted on the page relative to their size and importance. Cuñado - Talk 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I clarify the point I was trying to make. I agree that this article should be concerned with the mainstream Baha'i Faith and not any breakaway group. However, the concept of "covenant-breaking" is an important issue when looking at the Baha'i Faith. It is referred to extensively in Baha'i scriptures and other texts. I have heard it many times being raised in Baha'i Conferences and letters from the House. I can't see how you can read the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha and say that the issue is "not important". This section should be a summary of what is stated in the main article and at the moment does not include reference to an important element. AndrewRT 21:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. In the shuffling around it got deleted. I just added the reference back under the 'Covenant' section. Cuñado - Talk 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template

Does anyone object to adding this template to the page? Not all the links are filled in yet, but I'm in the middle of doing that. Cuñado - Talk 17:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be in "Bahá'í history", and a good addition. There's an awful lot on this page already. MARussellPESE 18:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MARussellPESE that the template makes the page too busy. I would remove it. A better place could be Baha'i history or Baha'u'llah. -- Jeff3000 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I know this is against what others have said but I think it'll be alright - Although it would be nice if you could make it smaller (two columns?). Would be better as more compact. -- Tomhab 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to Abrahamic Religion

On the article on Abrahamic religion, Bahá'í is listed as one of the Abrahamic religions as follows: "generally held to include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Bahá'í" I think someone would need to elaborate more on the link, it's quite a valuable bit of information, if anything.--202.156.6.54 07:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Attempt on Shah

I've removed this edit by an anon. I think the description in the main article is complete and that the wording of the text I removed is biased. John Reid 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Its unsourced and generally accepted as false. -- Tomhab 22:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you claim it is false? My understanding is that He was arrested, accused of involvement in the attempt. Whether He was actually involved is another matter. If someone wants to include this information, what is the objection? AndrewRT 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My objection would be that they'd need a source, don't you think? See Tomhab's research below.MARussellPESE 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The edit said "He was in the centre of plan to kill the King (Nasereddin Shah), and take refugee to the consulate of Great Britain as the terror plan failed." This is not supported by any historical text, and was added to the article unreferenced. Available references contradict it. The attempt on the Shah was by two individuals acting on their own accord, and the result was a wholesale killing of Babis all over the country.

Aside from the references, if the attack on the Shah was a well organized effort, they would not have used a make-shift pistol which proved completely ineffective in harming the Shah. Cuñado - Talk 17:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read a fair few books on the topic - none of them put any suggestion towards this.

"... about two years after the execution of hte Bab some Babis [made] an attempt on the life of the Shah. ... The leaders of the movement in all probability had nothing to do with this attempt"

Maulana Muhammad Ali, (1933) History and Doctrines of The Bábí Movement, Lahore, India.

Miller doesn't even mention Baha'u'llah when it comes to the assassination. The closest is about his release: "Five of the arrested persons, including Mirza Husayn Ali Baha, were kept in prison pending further investigation., there not being sufficient evidence to incriminate them."

William McElwee Miller The Bahá'í Faith: Its History and Teachings (1974) William Carey Libray pub.

Both of these books are described as polemics so not particularly pro-Baha'i. They are a little co-dependent when it comes to sources however. I don't have books around at the mo (Baha'i or not). -- Tomhab 20:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

1000 years

I changed this:

Rather, they believe that, in time, a new Manifestation of God will appear to guide mankind in its continued maturation.

to this

Rather, they believe that a new Manifestation of God will continue to appear about every thousand years to guide mankind in its continued maturation.

And Tomhab changed it back. I agree that mine was not very good, but neither was the first one. "in time" is very vague, and could imply that we're expecting another prophet any day now. The 1000 comes from the mention that 500 Prophets will come over the next 500 thousand years. Cuñado - Talk 06:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How bout we just say the next prophet will not come for at least 1000 years after Baha'u'llah. -- Jeff3000 07:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to state a reminder that 500 prophets in the next 500,000 years does not imply that there will be one every 1,000 years. There could be periods without them and some with more than one. Even the prophecy regarding the next Manifestation of God states 'no less than a thousand years' for all we know, it could be more than just equal to a thousand years. It is safer to simply state no more or no less than what is in the writings. Nmentha 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Entry by masses

I haven't heard this phrase, but I have heard of "mass conversion" in the same context. AndrewRT 10:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The editor must have confused "entry by troops" with "mass conversion". These are two different stages as discussed by Shoghi Effendi in Citadel of Faith. MARussellPESE 14:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what I have found in this regard:

"This flow, moreover, will presage and hasten the advent of the day which,

as prophesied by 'Abdu'l-Bahá, will witness the entry by troops of peoples of

divers nations and races into the Bahá'í world -- a day which, viewed in its

proper perspective, will be the prelude to that long-awaited hour when a mass

conversion on the part of these same nations and races, and as a direct result

of a chain of events, momentous and possibly catastrophic in nature and which

cannot as yet be even dimly visualized, will suddenly revolutionize the

fortunes of the Faith, derange the equilibrium of the world, and reinforce

a thousandfold the numerical strength as well as the material power and the

spiritual authority of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh."

(25 June 1953, written by Shoghi Effendi, published in "Citadel of Faith: Messages to America 1947-1957" (Wilmette: Bahá'í ::Publishing) (Compilations, Promoting Entry by Troops, p. 5) ::--Nmentha 22:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Reogarnisation of sections

I'm suggesting a better organisation of the article's sections for a better reading: Teachings - Demographics - History - Current plans and focus - Laws - Places of worship - Symbols - Calendar - Involvement in society - Relation to other religions.

What do you think? CG 20:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, sort of. The current layout:

• • Relation to other religions
  • Demographics
  • Teachings
  • History
  • Current plans and focus
  • Laws
  • Places of worship
  • Calendar
  • Symbols
  • Involvement in society

Seems fine to me. What you're proposing essentially is to move "demographics" and "calendar" down a notch, and move "other religions" from top to bottom.

I think "demographics" should remain first, because it gives the scope and spread of the religion. The "calendar" move is fine, and I think the "other religions" section could go after "teachings", but not at the bottom. Cuñado - Talk 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the current organization better than the one you present. Demographics is important for exactly Cunado19 reason, and other religions is important as well due to the teaching of Progressive revelation which is a fundamental teaching of the Baha'i Faith. Invovlement in Society could move up, and symbols and calendar can be switched. -- Jeff3000 01:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The new sectioning I suggested was inspired nmostly by the article Hinduism (also an FA). An article about a religion or an ideology should feature its core concepts first. I think readers will be interested in finding out What is Bahá'í Faith before examining its spread. Plus all religions article have "Beliefs", "concept" or "ideology" as their first section (see Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism...). I don't really care about the other sections, just why is "Relation to other religions" the first section? doesn't it come with "Involvement in society" as consequence? So shouldn't it be at the end of the article? Finally, why is the image of the Universal House of Justice put at the top of the article? Is it a holy place or a core concept or a symbol of the faith? In Christianity, it's the cross (in the template) used at the top of the article, in Islam it's the mosque, in Buddhism, it's a buddha statue, in Judaism it's the Menorah and in Hinduism, it's the Aum, so give me a reason why is this picture relevant at the top of the article since there is a section talking about it. CG 15:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason why "Relation to other religions" is at the top, as I mentioned before, is because it is one of the core teachings of the Baha'i Faith, see Progressive revelation. The Covenent which is also in that section is of utmost importance. The reason why the Universal House of Justice is at the top is to differentiate the "Baha'i Faith", which is a trademark, which represents the Baha'is that have their administration in Haifa, from the other smaller groups that follow Baha'u'llah; this article is about the largest group. Regarding the demographics section I still think it needs to be at the top due to the obscurity of the Baha'i Faith to the general public; most people don't know about it and the demographics section makes it clear that it is not a sect/cult but a global religion, which is what all the teachings of the Baha'i Faith talk about. -- Jeff3000 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the demographics section, if you want to make it clear that this faith is not a small sect, you should instead put a little information (maybe the number of followers) in the introduction. As for the photo, my reason of moving it down is because it's misleading. When I first read the article (I didn't know anything about Baha'i) seeing first the picture, I thought it was like a sanctuary or a holy place, a because of its location, I thought it had to do with Israel or Judaism (Much like the Qabaa of Islam is located in their holy city Mecca). I prefer it to be moved down to avoid such misconceptions, and it would be more relevant next to the paragraph that describes it. As for the "Relation to other religions", I understand that the "Distinction" and "The convenant" subsection are very important, by what does this faith ideology has to do with its persecution? I even think it's POV to feature at the top of a religion-article this kind of section. I insist that the "Persecution" part should go at the end of the article. I also suggest that the sections "Distinction", "The Covenant", "Teachings" and maybe "Laws" and "Current plans and focus" should go together and not be separated since they all go under the big title of "Baha'i faith ideology or beliefs or concept" (name it as you like). CG 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

photo

Finally, why is the image of the Universal House of Justice put at the top of the article? Is it a holy place or a core concept or a symbol of the faith? In Christianity, it's the cross (in the template) used at the top of the article, in Islam it's the mosque, in Buddhism, it's a buddha statue, in Judaism it's the Menorah and in Hinduism, it's the Aum, so give me a reason why is this picture relevant at the top of the article since there is a section talking about it. CG 15:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the Universal House of Justice is at the top is to differentiate the "Baha'i Faith", which is a trademark, which represents the Baha'is that have their administration in Haifa, from the other smaller groups that follow Baha'u'llah; this article is about the largest group. -- Jeff3000 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the photo, my reason of moving it down is because it's misleading. When I first read the article (I didn't know anything about Baha'i) seeing first the picture, I thought it was like a sanctuary or a holy place, a because of its location, I thought it had to do with Israel or Judaism (Much like the Qabaa of Islam is located in their holy city Mecca). I prefer it to be moved down to avoid such misconceptions, and it would be more relevant next to the paragraph that describes it. CG 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The photo caption clearly says "Seat of the Universal House of Justice, governing body of the Bahá'ís in Haifa Israel" If you read the caption, I don't see how you can get confused and think it's a holy temple. The most recognizable symbol of the religion is the 9 pointed star, which is at the top of the template. I don't see how there are any disambiguation issues here. Cuñado - Talk 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I can now argue only about style issues. The image looks bad in the intro, it is large compared to the very thin box template below it. It's not a very strong argument, but since you made clear in the intro which community this article deals with, the image would really be better in the section talking about it. CG 16:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, any photo in the intro will have a wider aspect ratio that the template, and thus will look the same (and anyways I don't think it looks bad). This particular photo has to be at the top to distinguish "The Baha'i Faith" from other followers of Baha'u'llah. -- Jeff3000 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jeff3000 that any picture would be wider than the template. I would really like to see a nice picture here right at the top, but the Canada article provides a very nice example with the template at the top and then a metric-ton of pictures. I'm not so sure that the Seat is the best picture at the top. How about the entrance to the Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh or the Shrine of the Báb down the page? I don't think that we need to differentiate the 5M followers from the 1k others by putting the Seat at the top of the article. Cedar-Guardian's points are valid here I think. MARussellPESE 16:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind moving it down and leaving no picture (besides the template). This is an asthetic problem that is on tons of articles, see Shoghi Effendi, even Bahá'u'lláh, which has the same layout with a picture followed by the template. An attempt to resolve this issue resulted in the layout of Martha Root, with a similar template made and put at the bottom, with the picture on the top. Cuñado - Talk 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There definitely should be a photo at the top of the page; this is one of the strong suggestions for an article to be "featured". Change the photo if you find a better one, but I think the current photo is quite nice, and I see no aesthetic problem with the template being below the image, it's all whitespace anyways due to the table of contents. -- Jeff3000 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, am image in the intro is not a criterion for FA, a nice template like this one could easily replace it, especially when this template has itself an image. CG 21:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some options [1] [2] and [3]. These picture can be used as the promotional images given the Baha'i mediabank licence. I still prefer the current photo. -- Jeff3000 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is no objective reason to take the photo out, (your reasons are completely subjective where the photo doesn't fit well with the template (I disagree, and I think it looks great)), it should remain, unless a better photo is found. -- Jeff3000 21:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I like Jeff's third photo, or perhaps a clearer nicer version of that shot if we can find one. I also like the picture of the Universal House of Justice (there might also be a nicer-clearer picture but anyways). However, I would like to raise issue with something that was stated above. This is concerning distinguishing the Baha'i Faith with other "followers of Baha'u'llah". Any objective observer who, with an eye of neutrality, reads the Baha'i scriptures, will know that being a follower of Baha'u'llah is contingent upon keeping His Covenant. Keeping His Covenant is contingent upon remaining united and following the lineage of succession from Baha'u'llah, which was very clearly followed through Abdu'l-Baha, and then since Abdu'l-Baha's brother had broken the Covenant, it went very clearly to the Gaurdianship of Shoghi Effendi. Based on the laws of Baha'u'llah and the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha, it was very clear that the Universal House of Justice had to be formed. It was also very clear...to all but one individual...that there would not be a second Guardian. Even that individual had agreed than none had been appointed by Shoghi Effendi. According to the laws of Baha'u'llah, when a decision is reached by majority (in this case by all the appointed Hands of the Cause, and 9 elected Custodians, except for one individual) that decision is supposed to be followed through with full support and effort by all members. This is a principle of consultation and a requirement of the Covenant. This amoung several other things led to the expulsion of Covenant-breakers. Any objective scholar also knows that among the many definitions of a Baha'i is to follow the laws of the Manifestation of God. Included in this is the House of Justice which is to guide the Baha'is of the World. Devoid of any one of these laws or parameters, it is impossible to be considered a follower of Baha'u'llah. Whether one considers Himself a follower or not is up to them. However, the definition of a follower of Baha'u'llah is defined within the legislative scope of the House of Justice. Therefore, these other alleged groups are not followers of Baha'u'llah, they are something else. This may sound pro-Baha'i, but it is not meant to be...it is solely based on the parameters set forth by the Founder of the Faith. If the Founder says, that one is not His follower if they do or follow certain things contrary to His teachings, then who are we to say that someone is. Nmentha 06:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to exibit NPOV, No Point Of View, we must explain what happens and how the Baha'i Faith regards the issue, same with those separate groups. In terms of identification, we can say that the other groups call themselves 'Baha'is' and that the parameters of the Baha'i Faith do not reciprocate. Nmentha 06:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

True enough, and your argument is backed up, at least in part, by certain law cases (such as the use of the name "National Spiritual Assembly" in the US - I'll find a reference if you really need it), but since there are non-"Haifan" Baha'i groups still around, there are still several thousand people who disagree with you. The easiest way to sum up "NPOV" is something everybody agrees with.

So yes - whilst many readers of this will probably agree with you, it's not good enough really. The present level of mentioning "covenant breaker" groups and separating us from them seems to have struck a balance - they don't really want to be associated with us either. -- Tomhab 06:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

order

For the same reason that you got confused about what the religion represents, is why the first part of the article needs a "demographics" and "relation to other religions". Those first two sections are an extension of the introduction, and necessary since more than half of the people in the world have never heard of the Baha'i Faith. However, I agree that some of the contents of the "other religions" section could be moved, since they don't all address that subject, but "persecution" does, since it deals directly with the relation to the Islamic world.

The demographics section can't be replaced with a mention in the intro, because there is more than a sentence, and the issue of how many Baha'is there are in the world has been a huge debate, and needs a careful explanation. See Baha'i statistics.

I'm going to try some moving around and re-titling, according to the discussion so far. If you don't like it just change it. Cuñado - Talk 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The page as it stands right now seems a little funny. I'm thinking of expanding the section after the intro into a section about what is now called the Three Onenesses, and the distinction and relation to other religions can fit into that. But if I do that, then the difference between that section and the section on the teachings gets a little blurred. What do you think? -- Jeff3000 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the persecution part should remain under "other religions" and not under "social practices". As to the expansion, I'd say just do it and see how it works out. Cuñado - Talk 20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Great work with the new sectioning. Now it makes more sense. CG 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Baha'i Teachings and NPOV

When we describe Baha'i teachings it can be difficult to achieve a neutral point of view, and we need to make a particular effort. This doesn't mean that Baha'i teachings should not be fully and accurately described. What it means is that, when teachings are described, we must take account of:

• Positive and negative impact of teachings
• The effect of teachings in practice
• Any internal contradictions / tensions within the body of teachings

For example, the Baha'i Faith teaches tolerance, but this doesn't extend to accepting practicing homsexuality. We shouldn't make bland statements about tolerance without having a more detailed, and critical, evaluation of what that means in practice.

Another example, Baha'i Faith teaches about the unity of religion - all religion comes from the same source. Yet it also says that the teachings within the New Testament have been superceded and that the Old Testament was factually wrong about certain details - e.g. Isaac being the sacrificial lamb.

This is what I understand by NPOV in this context. AndrewRT 12:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The positive and negative impact of teachings is definitely POV. Just state the teaching, and people can come up with what they believe is a positive or negative. For example, state that Homosexuality is not allowed in the Baha'i Faith (as it is in the article), and people can regard that to be positive or negative (they come up with their own POV). Putting the impact is a POV because I'm sure there are many people who would consider the impact as good, and others bad. Regarding Homosexuality, the Baha'i teachings don't go against tolerance; much of the statements released by the House and the NSA of the US (compilations of writings) clearly indicate that Baha'is should not discriminate against Baha'is or non-Baha'is that are homosexual. For example:

"They (homosexuals) should be treated just like any other people seeking admittance to the Faith, and be accepted on the same basis. Our teachings, as outlined in “The Advent of Divine Justice” on the subject of living a chaste life, should be emphasized to them just as to every other applicant, but certainly no ruling whatsoever should be laid down in this matter. The Bahá'ís have certainly not yet reached that stage of moral perfection where they are in a position to too harshly scrutinize the private lives of other souls, and each individual should be accepted on the basis of his faith, and sincere willingness to try to live up to the Divine standards"

(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi to a National Spiritual Assembly, 11 April 1948)

"This law is no reason for Bahá’ís to consider homosexuals as outcasts. If they are not Bahá’ís there is also no reason to expect them to obey the Bahá’í law in this respect any more than we would expect a non-Bahá’í to abstain from drinking alcohol. (16 March 1992)

(Letters of The Universal House of Justice, 5 June 1993, Homosexuality, p. 11)

Thus the Baha'i teaching of tolerance exists towards homosexuals. It's another thing if some Baha'is don't follow it, but some Baha'is also drink. We as other Baha'is cannot criticise the individual lives of other Baha'is (either in performing homosexual acts, or in not being tolerant of homosexuals), so we just state the teachings; tolerance is one of them (towards everyone), and chastity is another (which includes heterosexuality). There is no contradiction in them.

Regarding the statement "Baha'i Faith teaches about the unity of religion - all religion comes from the same source. Yet it also says that the teachings within the New Testament have been superceded and that the Old Testament was factually wrong about certain details" again I do not see anything that is contracticted in the Baha'i writings. Baha'u'llah clearly writes that was is appropriate in one time and place may not be appropriate in another, and thus that is one of the main teachings of Baha'u'llah as expounded by Shoghi Effendi in Dispensation of Baha'u'llah that religion is progressive and changes. That does not mean that what was appropriate before was wrong at that time and place, and may even be factually incorrect because it was better understood that way at the time. Baha'u'llah clearly states that each manifestation Doeth Whatever He Willeth, and it is not for us to criticize their motives and reasons for giving those teachings and statements at those times. Regardless there is already and article that deals with these issues, and it's at Bahá'í Faith and world religions. -- Jeff3000 13:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point entirely. This is not the place to have a discussion on homosexuality or the unity of religions. However, I do want to stimulate debate here above the concept of NPOV as applied to these pages.

This is from the NPOV pages:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

A significant number of people believe, for instance, that Baha'i teachings on homosexuality conflict with those on tolerance. Regardless of whether or not you agree with this view, it should be fairly presented. AndrewRT 15:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is about the Baha'i Faith and what it states and teaches, not on what other people think about the Baha'i Faith. See the Islam article, for example, which states the teachings of Islam, and not what people think about Islam or it's effects. -- Jeff3000 15:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jeff3000 on all points. Cuñado - Talk 17:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is owned by an independent organisation that is governed by its policies. Something is not a fact just because Baha'is think it is. The Baha'i pages are not owned by the Baha'i Faith, and I would wish that Baha'is would stop acting like they are. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped editing Baha'i pages. AndrewRT 19:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that an article about an object writes about that object, and not what some people think about that object. This is NPOV, because facts are written about and not opinions. (In this article facts related to what are the Baha'i teachings because it's an article about the Baha'i Faith). Where multiple views about facts are at issue that is when both views should be presented and that is the case in this article. For example some Baha'is don't follow the UHJ, and that is indicated in the article. People thinking that Baha'is are not tolerant of homosexuals because homosexuality is forbidden in the Baha'i teachings is not a fact about the Baha'i Faith, it is a view of it, and is thus POV. People thinking that the idea of Progressive Relevation is stupid and there are problems with it (which there may well be) is an opinion, but what is a fact is that the Baha'i teachings (which this page is about) teaches that there is progressive revelation. The reader does not have to agree with it, but the article should be on what the Baha'i Faith states. -- Jeff3000 19:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

diacritics

A conversation was going on at Talk:Bahá'í orthography, which I would like to propose here. It involves the issue of the proper transliteration of Arabic names on the Baha'i pages. Basically, there are four levels of transliterating Arabic, and most Baha'i books use the highest level of transliteration, which is common among academics, and standardized by Shoghi Effendi. At this level, a reader could take the English word and render perfectly the original Arabic. At the lowest level, most of the useful information is lost, but it's much easier to type and use for electronic purposes. I'll use `Abdu'l-Bahá as an example, to show the levels.

1. Best - ‘Abdu’l-Bahá - notice that those are not apostrophes (') or grave accents (`) which are located on the keyboard, but they are located on the clickable characters beneath the edit window. This level would also include underscores and dots ( Ḥají Ákhúnd )
2. Just as good - `Abdu'l-Bahá - using the apostrophe and grave accent, which are on the keyboard. Without underscores and dots.
3. lazy - `Abdu'l-Baha - ignoring the accents above long vowels. All characters are found on the keyboard.
4. electronic - Abdul-Baha - ignoring accents and apostrophes.
5. Other - a combination of these.

The only available wiki standard is only a proposal, and itself is unclear.

As far as I can tell, there are three places where these can be applied separately, that is the page title, the introductory paragraph, and the rest of the page. For example, a page title could use one form, another form could be used once alongside the original Arabic, and another form could be used in the article. Currently the first three forms are used throughout all of the Baha'i articles. Jeff3000 and I both agree that a change is in order. I suggest we vote for consensus. Cuñado - Talk 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the academic standards on transliteration have evolved. The one that Bahá'ís use was at one time the standard but it isn't anymore. I do prefer ours, but I'm used to it. We shouldn't argue that it's "the academic standard". MARussellPESE 13:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. See Arabic transliteration for more on standards. Baha'is use a system resembling ALA-LC (Library of Congress), except with á instead of ā. As far as I can tell, this is the standard used across Wikipedia. Cuñado - Talk 17:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Page titles

• Use #3, just because it's easier to link. Cuñado - Talk
• Use #3, per above. Gene Nygaard 11:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong #2. Getting the accented letters is not at all hard with the insert section at the bottom of the edit page, and this is an acceptable transliteration. MARussellPESE 13:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Use #2. It's the title and should be correct, but number #1 looks too wierd. -- Jeff3000 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Use #2. It's how most of the pages are located now anyway, and I'm not sure but what letters requiring (HTML or other) code (i.e. those with underdots and underscores) might cause problems in page titles. Keldan 21:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

• Use #1, just once, so that the academic value of the proper Arabic is not lost. Cuñado - Talk
• Strong #2, for consistency. MARussellPESE 13:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Use #2. Go with MARussessPESE. -- Jeff3000 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong #1. As a linguist who works with several languages with differing writings systems, having a reliable transcription standard is absolutely key to being able to move from one medium to another. No objection, however, to using [`] for ayin and ['] for the hamza, since [‘] and [’] are not on the special character set. Keldan 21:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Article text

• Use #3 for ease of use to readers and people unfamiliar with the Arabic transliteration. #2 would be fine as well. Cuñado - Talk
• Strong #2, again for consistency. MARussellPESE 13:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'm open to #3 here. -- Jeff3000 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Again, for consistency, #1. I'd be open to #2 on the condition of mass consensus, but it seems like it might just prompt questions from readers as to why the difference. To help reduce the "foreignness" factor, I think it might be prudent to use English titles whenever they are common, or at least as common as the analogous Arabic or Persian, giving their original script form and official transcription parenthetically afterward, as in the opening line of Great Bitter Lake. Keldan 21:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Category indexing sort key

• Use #4, strip diacritics (they still show up in category list), be sure to use initial capital letter (not lowercase, not an accent character) for the very first letter of the sort key in any people category. (Since you've already started referring to the options you've listed by number, it's best to fix (as in set permanently) those numbers.) Gene Nygaard 11:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• #4 per Gene. MARussellPESE 13:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• #4 per Gene Cuñado - Talk
• As I'm not exactly sure how this function works, I won't take any strong stand, but my inclination is toward option #3. Keldan 21:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

A NPOV warning has been added because the article only includes the official presentation of the Baha'i Faith, with no room for contrasting views, no balanced presentation of beliefs and activities, and no inclusion of differing or critical opinions. --Jdemarcos 08:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. This is the same problem I have with the people who insist on the Criticism section in anime articles. I actually think adding contrary perspectives violates the NPOV ideal, and have not heard a non-laughable argument suggesting otherwise. Danny Lilithborne 08:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Having critical views in an article is not necessarily NPOV. The article is about the Baha'i Faith and has what people can consider both positive and negative apsects of it (i.e. Homosexuality, shunning of covenant-breakers, women not being on the House of justice). Things are justed stated, and people make up their own opinion on what they believe is good or bad. This is not like an article on Heaven or Hell where Heaven and Hell cannot be seen and thus there are different ideas of what Heaven and Hell is, it is an article on the Baha'i Faith, and thus it must indicate what the Baha'i Faith is, and not views on it. Please go see the Islam article to see that no views (critical or non-critical) are in it. Gren who has dealth with what is NPOV on the Islam page has commented that "So, before we start making value judgment we must discuss the Bahai position on issues in a coherent and neutral manner. That means that a bunch of the criticism section should be broken down and explained as law." and that is what has happened. The criticisms include that Homosexuality is not allowed (included in the article), that Covenant-breakers are shunned (included in the article) that women are not allowed to be elected in the article (included) that there are divisions which go against the Covenant (included), that there are different numbers for the number of members (included), that the Baha'i Faith was a schism from the Babi Faith (included). So in a couple hours I will remove the NPOV tag as the criticisms are already in the article. -- Jeff3000 13:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff3000, if you think that the Islam or the Christianity article need more critical views to be included, please go ahead. That is the not the point. The point is that this article seems a brochure edited by the UHJ itself. A more balanced view, from a more neutral and detached POV, is required in explaining the teachings of this religion. See the Discussion page and the history of Humanity's Team for an example of another Wiki article that, IMO, deserved a NPOV tag and how an article may be changed (even by an insider) to make it a bit more balanced.

--Jdemarcos 14:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Jdemarcos, the point is that through consensus the editors of the Islam page (both muslim and non-muslim, protagonists and antogonists) have determined what NPOV is regarding an article on religion; the page states what the religion teaches, and not what other people think about the religion, and the criticisms are included as facts, and not POVs. If you can show me anything that is factually wrong about the article go ahead and change the article, but everything in the article is true, has been referenced, and furthermore the criticisms are included as facts and not POVs. The style and tone of this page follows the Islam article, which has been agreed upon by consensus. If you don't agree, you should bring it up on the Islam talk page. The burden on not on me to change the consensus, because I agree with the consensus. You don't agree with it, and thus you shouldbring it up on the Islam talk page. The criticisms are included in this page, and there is nothing factually wrong with the content of this page, and thus I'm taking down the NPOV tag -- Jeff3000 14:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Baha'i Faith is an independent religion and not a branch of Islam, so I do not quite understand your insistence to use the Islam page as a model for the Baha'i page. Anyway, feel free to take down the NPOV if you wish, but if I add serious and reasonable corrections to the text of the article, I also expect that they will be respected by the pro-Baha'i editors of this article. (And please notice that I am not anti-Baha'i, I just want to see Religion articles in the Wikipedia with quality and balance.) --Jdemarcos 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest, the page is only bettered through multiple editors commenting. -- Jeff3000 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is a accurate representation of the Baha'i Faith and what it stands for and, as such, is NPOV. It has been subject to vigorous editorial debate, which is good. However, to be truly NPOV, this and similar articles should display a clear link to sub-articles that discuss what some may perceive as "problem" issues. Surely I am not alone in seeking contrary viewpoints (and the mainstream responses) when reading up on sensitive or controversial subjects? As the article stands, the only visible link to contrary viewpoints is the *Bahá'í apologetics under the See Also heading. Maybe all that is needed is to supplement it with a brief explanation:

• Bahá'í apologetics for discussion of contrary points of view.

Accurate or not, the article will always be subject to taunts of being the official POV unless it includes a clear link to contrarian POVs. --Occamy 15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Occamy, I am currently reviewing the article to increase its neutrality, please feel free to include your own editing as well. Sometimes it is more of a matter of removing the brochure-like style of some paragraphs and add contextual information or a more distanced evaluation of facts and doctrines. --Jdemarcos 16:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your changes Jdemarcos, they are quite good, and better the article. -- Jeff3000 16:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Jdemarcos, it might help to know that we had a bad experience with an editor who constantly put his personal opinion in as facts. He kept changing the worldwide figures to 2 million and then quoted his personal experience as a reference. He created a page called "Criticism of the Baha'i Faith", which was rightfully voted for deletion as very POV. He then waged a campaign of adding a list of why the Baha'i Faith is wrong and corrupt, and used web blogs as sources. Then he requested that Baha'is stop editing his section and claimed that it's a big Baha'i conspiracy.

I think your edits were very reasonable and only improved the article. Cuñado - Talk 17:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Subh-i-Azal in this page

Subh-i-Azal does not belong in this page. He is not a figure in the Baha'i Faith, but of the Babi Faith. The Bab, however, has a central role for Baha'is, as Baha'is believe he foretold of the Baha'u'llah and in that spirit he is included as a central figure (and that is why he is in the page, as one who Baha'i claim foretold of the coming of Baha'u'llah). You might believe that it should not be the case, and Baha'is should see Subh-i-Azal as a central figure, but I don't believe you'll find a verifiable source that states that Baha'is (not Babis) see him as a central figure. As for the Bab, I would say almost all sources state that he is a central figure for Baha'is. The Bahá'í/Bábí split article is indicated as the main link for the Bab section as this is a summary style page. -- Jeff3000 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As of now the treatment of Mirza Yahya here is brief and highlights the time period of the greatest tension between the two. This episode was a significant crisis in the religion's history as the community was in transition. Its mention does not give undue weight in my opinion. However, that mention should not be any more than in passing as Jeff3000 is right, he made no contribution to the Bahá'í Faith. MARussellPESE 15:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

He is mentioned in the article in the Baha'u'llah section. What I meant that having him as a subsection like Wjhonson's edit is not appropriate, because he is not a central figure in the Baha'i Faith as the Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha are. I don't disagree that more mention of him can be made in either the Bab or Baha'u'llah section, I disagree with making a complete new section for him, as he did not help develop the Baha'i Faith as the four others (I'm including Baha'i administration here) did. -- Jeff3000 15:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad Jeff. I'd not looked at the article history to see that Wjhonson had added an entire section on him. That's well wide of the mark. Azal was never considered a "leader" in the Bahá'í Faith. He was rarely even considered an effective one in the Babi faith either, but that's a discussion for his page. MARussellPESE 15:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry these sections are on the History of the movement. He was indeed the leader for 16 years, undisputed, as standard Baha'i texts (if you'll just read them) make clear. The fact that you don't want to read them, is not my concern. He was the leader of the Baha'is as much as the Bab was and so belongs in this section about the leaders of the movement. If you only want to list the leaders of the Baha'is proper, then you should remove the Bab as he was not a leader of the Baha'is either. If this section is about the leadership of the Movement, then he belongs here as much as the Bab does. Wjhonson 02:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please show one verifiable source that he was the leader of the Baha'i Faith, he arguably was a leader of the Babi Faith. This is not an article about the Babi Faith. And as I mentioned above the reason why the Bab is mentioned is because Baha'is claim that Baha'u'llah is the one fortold by the Bab. -- Jeff3000 02:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bab was not a leader of the Baha'is. You can't have it both ways. Subh-i Azal was very important in the movements formation, you can't ignore what he did or didn't do just because you feel like it. Wjhonson 02:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry your're not understanding my reasoning, the Bab is included as context for Baha'u'llah claiming to be Him whom God made manifest and his role as a Babi and his imprisonments and exile. He is not being included because he was a leader of the Baha'i Faith. -- Jeff3000 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson said "as standard Baha'i texts make clear". Baha'i sources indicate that Baha'u'llah was in fact the leader of the community all along. The appointment of Azal was to distract the authorities, and when Baha'u'llah left for two years the community fell apart. Subh-i-Azal was supported in every way by Mirza Musa and Baha'u'llah, both spiritually and financially. An expansion of his role should be dealt with in Baha'i/Babi split, or the Subhi-i-Azal page, but no Baha'i text considers him a major figure in the Faith, except for his role in being a Covenant-breaker. You can call it what you want, but an expansion of his role in this page is giving undue weight to anti-Baha'i polemic.

Currently the article states that he was the appointed leader of the Babis and that there were tensions between him and Baha'u'llah. This is in a section that gives hardly any detail about Baha'u'llah's own life. Cuñado - Talk 06:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Subh-i-Azal section again. Subh-i-Azal was never a leader of the Baha'i Faith. This is not a page about the Babi Faith or He whom God shall make manifest (HWGSMM); but a page about the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith starts at the claiming of Baha'u'llah to be HWGSMM. The reason why the Bab is in the history section of the page is to give context to the Baha'u'llah section which talks about Babis, imprisonment, and HWGSMM. (There is always a backward trend to include more context, perhaps in this case the Shayki teachings, and there might be an argument to add those, but given that Islam in general is known by the public, I don't think this summary article needs them, but the general public does not know about Babism) Subh-i-Azal claiming to be HWGSMM does not add to context of the Baha'u'llah section where the history of the Baha'i Faith starts. Subh-i-Azal's claim has been expounded greatly in other pages (one whole page is directed to his claim to HWGSMM, Bahá'í/Bábí split, and not accepting Baha'u'llah's claim, and that page is linked through the main section). You don't see a mention of Mandaeism (followers of John the Baptist who did not accept Jesus) in the Christianity and Jesus articles because they were not Christians who followed Jesus. Now I know that Subh-i-Azal is not exactly the same, as there was no leader after John the Baptist who became the leader before Jesus, but the point stands that Subh-i-Azal was never a leader of the Baha'i Faith, and that the Bab section is there to provide context. The Subh-i-Azal section does not provide any more context, and he is also mentioned in the Baha'u'llah section, where it states "Subh-i-Azal, the appointed leader of the Bábís." -- Jeff3000 13:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Baha'i Faith. Not the Babi Faith. Not the Azali creed. Mirza Yahya was never a Baha'i leader. The Browne citation clearly identifies him as a Babi figure. This is so obvious I can't understand why this section was added in good faith. His conflict with Baha'u'llah is duly noted and a link to his biographical article provided. Links to the Bab, Babism, and Babi/Baha'i split are all provided. It's not as if anything's being hidden here. Just proper weight in the proper article.

Wjhonson, you're not reading the article. Nothing in this section says that these figures were "leaders" except referring to Yayha as leader of the Babis. How much more clear can it get? The Bab is not identified as such. Frankly, neither are the others. These are principle historical figures of the Baha'i Faith. MARussellPESE 15:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This section is obviously about the HISTORY of the movement. If the Bab was the *leader* before Baha, then Subh was, in exactly the same way, the *leader* between the Bab and Baha. Otherwise you leave a 16 year gap that is not accounted for. That makes no sense. In no other page with a section called "History" would a gap like this be allowed to go unexplained. Wjhonson 17:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Baha" and "Subh" are not the equivalent of first names. Cuñado - Talk 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this more clear. The history of the Baha'i Faith is traced to Baha'u'llah's declaration in 1863, not the Bab's in 1844. The Bab is universally viewed as the forerunner who innaugurated his own, distinct, stand-alone, independent, separate, religion. The Bab, Himself, is important. So were the Babi figures who struggled to launch that religion. Many Baha'i trace their roots to those people. But in the end, these are as venerable as the founders and early heroes of every faith. MARussellPESE 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in many previous comments, the Baha'i Faith starts with Baha'u'llah's claimed declaration, and the Bab section is to provide context. -- Jeff3000 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And in the same way Subh-i-Azal provides content as well. When someone reads the "History" section they are given the false impression that for 16 years the movement simply vanished. Instead any observant Baha'i should be interested in what happened during that time period. I imagine that none of you three can tell me one single thing that happened to anyone except Baha himself. Wjhonson 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Baha'i editors here, especially MARussellPESE, are pretty well versed in what happened to Mirza Yahya during the time from the Bab's death to Baha'u'llah's declaration and beyond. That's not the point, the Baha'i Faith's history starts from Baha'u'llah claiming he knew he was the HWGSMM prophecized by the Bab. Context needed for this is what/who is HWGSMM; the answer to that is a figure predicted by the Bab. The next question is who is the Bab, since that is not common knowledge, and so that has to be explained. There were many claimants to be HWGSMM, including Mirza Yahya; these people started their own faiths/movements/religions, but they were not Baha'is. These people were either Babis (or previously Babis, depending on what they claimed), and are mentioned appropriately in the Babi related pages. The other thing is that Mirza Yahya is already mentioned in the article as the leader of the Babis, so the content is there. -- Jeff3000 05:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have trimmed the Báb's section in the article to adapt to these criteria for inclusion. Those who want to learn more about the Báb and Bábism should go to those articles, and here only information relevant for the Bahá'í Faith should be included. --Jdemarcos 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice, I've re-added one paragraph which is needed for context of the first sentence in the Baha'u'llah section (why he was imprisoned). Also cleared up why Baha'is see the Bab as Baha'u'llah's forerunner (because he claimed to be HWGSMM). -- Jeff3000 17:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Grazie Jdemarcos. MARussellPESE 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I also added in the mention that his tomb is a pilgrimage site for Baha'is. That seems pretty significant for an overview and gives an idea of how revered he is to Baha'is. Cuñado - Talk 20:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)