Jump to content

Talk:Baháʼí Faith and Native Americans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images

[edit]

Requesting some images for the article. I intend to upload some myself, where appropriate, but we should have some more. Peter Deer (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely and thanks for that one! Unfortunately I have none myself. I was hoping to find one of Kevin Locke but I couldn't find any.Smkolins (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I bet we could probably email him and get him to upload one to commons himself. Dunno if that violates policy though. I might contact some other folks from NABI, they have an extensive collection of old photographs, but I don't think many have been converted to digital format. Peter Deer (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more refs to include....

[edit]

Another ref to plumb and include!

  • Buck, Christopher (2002). Fazel, Seena; Danesh, John (eds.). "Bahá'í Universalism & Native Prophets" (PDF). Studies in the Bábí and Bahá'í Religions. 13, Reason and Revelation: New Directions in Bahá’í Thought. Los Angeles: Kalimát Press: 172–201.

And more to come I'm sure! Smkolins (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. I'll get to work sorting through some of these. Peter Deer (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that the first goes through something of a retelling of the story of The Great Peacemaker so it may serve to supplement that article. Smkolins (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More....


Smkolins (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not comparing the two bilaterally

[edit]

I saw the articles and archived through to compare it to all the other comparative religion articles. All articles comparing Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Theospohy, etc. has similarities, differences, each religions relationship to the other, each religion intereactions with the other, each religions influence on the other, etc. But this article only present a one sided Bahai dominated article unlike all the other religion comparison articles. It's not bad enough to be put up for deletion, but is heavily in need of reform. --149.162.123.183 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually very little about the Native American religion in the page. It's all about the Bahai Faith rather than anything remotely close to a comparison of the two religions. Maybe, deletion should be on the table.--149.162.123.183 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which Native American religion are you talking about here? As there is not one, and instead are probably dozens, in different variations over the centuries, how could you compare and contrast the Baha'i Faith to (plural) Native American religions? This article is about the Baha'i Faith and Native American, that is, people, not their faith, and how people of different tribes across North America have became Baha'is. It is an article about integration, not Native American religion.I'm Nonpartisan 04:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)

Just because there are multiple Native American religions, doens't make comparison impossible. Also, it's not categorized as an article about Native America people, but categorized under Native American religion. Native American religion along with Buddhism, Hinudism, and Zoroastirianism are listed together as religion comparison articles. I have provided examples for comparing and contrasting. You should focus on the Judaism articles as well, since Jews as a people and Judaism as a religion are intertwined. Those article arne't about Jews and whatever religion and how Jews converted to that religion. Those articles actually compare Judaism to wahtever religion. --70.194.69.100 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good examples of religions being compared:

Comparisons above. --70.194.69.100 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Again I'll point out that a religion-to-religion is not the core of this article. The parallels you see are at best a fraction of the article. And in particular any work in wikipedia really needs reliable sources, not supposition and opinion. --Smkolins (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd agree. This article is not primarily about comparative religion issues. It's probably only categorized under that because it happens to contain a bit of comparative material at the beginning. @anon: note that those articles "X and Judaism" are called just that -- "X and Judaism", not "X and Jews". In other words, they're specifically about the comparative religion aspects. So with this, why should it be dominated by comparative-religion stuff? mike4ty4 (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an article, simply speaking, about the religion and it's encounter with Native Americans through relevant appropriate sources. Native American people and religions are diverse. Material relevant to the discussion… just needs to be gathered. --Smkolins (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No authority for section on Native Religion

[edit]

The section of the page entitled "Native Religion" largely contains the views of one person, Christopher Buck. While any Baha'i may freely express their understanding of spiritual matters and their temporal outcomes, the authoritative teachings of the Baha'i Faith are matters of record residing in the the explicit words of either the Manifestations of God, Abdu'l-Baha, or their interpretation by Shoghi Effendi or the Universal House of Justice.

The section on Native Religion is completely without support within the Writings of the Baha'i Faith and represents the convoluted misinterpretation of a few statements found in a tablet from Abdu'l-Baha; a tablet which is yet to receive an authorized translation from the original language.

I would suggest the elimination of the entire section "Native Religion". The rest of the page is largely historical fact and doesn't represent the wishful opining of individuals. TwentyThreeSkiddoo (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand Wikipedia policies. Primary religious sources are, mostly, not considered reliable sources, because there can be multiple different understandings and interpretations of it. And because of that Wikipedia is mostly referenced by secondary sources published in non-self-published sources. The spectrum of reliability starts at University presses, and goes down from there. In this cause Christopher Buck is a secondary source, and it's reliability is higher than any primary source, such as Abdu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah's writings which are considered primary sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then, one would consider the Universal House of Justice documents referenced by Christopher Buck as valid secondary sources. In Buck's (2007). Messengers of God in North America Revisited: An Exegesis of "Abdu'l-Bahá's Tablet to Amír Khán. Online Journal of Bahá‘í Studies (London: Association for Bahá'í Studies English-Speaking Europe) 01: 180–270. ISSN 1177-8547, which you cite, on pages 249-254, the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice roundly refutes Buck's premises, even noting that Buck attempts to use the same verse to support two opposing views. --
"Two Conflicting Views?
Mr. Buck refers to Research Department memoranda dated 24 May 1988 and 22 October 1995, which, he believes, use the statement from the
Tablet of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá about the “Call of God” to support two opposing points of view. He states that, while, in one memorandum the passage argues the possibility of two Manifestations of God on earth at the same time, in the second, it is used to argue against the possibility of Native Manifestations in the Americas."
TwentyThreeSkiddoo (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Jeff3000, does not Wikipedia choose its secondary sources with some view toward a scholarly, reasonable presentation of fact? If so, Buck's work would never pass muster. For example, Buck constructs statements to imply or insinuate that those statements support his thesis, e.g., "In principle, a Bahá’í can certainly affirm that Messengers of God have indeed been sent to all peoples". It is true that a Baha'i is entitled to affirm that, just as any Baha'i is free to affirm that the moon is made of Gorgonzola cheese (not Roquefort as some suppose). Buck's statement has the appearance of significance, but it is only a truism regarding religious freedom in the Baha'i Faith. Then Buck states Thus, Bahá’í authorities may consider adding the category of (rather than names of) Messengers of God to First Nations, or Messengers of God to Indigenous Peoples. That is, firstly, a non sequitur, and secondly, suggests that Baha'i authorities base their understanding of truth upon common consensus.
However, Buck knows, as it is recorded in his thesis[8], that the Baha'i authorities have considered that and decided that the Writings did not justify such a conclusion. Yet, in his next statement Buck alleges that the matter of Manifestations of God to the First Nation having been decided "The problem now is no longer the principle, but rather the question of names.[8]"
TwentyThreeSkiddoo (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, another Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith. I didn't write this article, so please refrain your statements that say I'm citing this or that. All I'm telling you what Wikipedia policy is. The House's messages are considered self-published, and not permissible. Your own statements and research while interesting, are considered original research and also not permissible. That you don't think Buck's statements are scholarly, are your own opinion. The point is that it is a valid non-self-published secondary source, and that's what counts. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, Jeff, for suggesting that you wrote the article. I didn't intend to offend.
Would it be possible under Wikipedia rules to preface the Native Religion section of the article with a statement indicating that the following section represents the opinions of one person and are not indicative, either in form or substance, of the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. I believe I have seen similar caveats on other pages. Thank you. Best regards, TwentyThreeSkiddoo (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would need a published secondary source that states that for a statement like that to appear, and if it did you probably wouldn't state it that way; you would instead say one person says this and another person says that. In absence of such a secondary source the above is your own opinion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the small disclaimer in the Buck source noted above would be a start -- This time, the centerpiece of the discussion is ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Tablet to Amír Khán which, in part, declares: “Undoubtedly in those regions [America] the Call of God must have been raised in ancient times, but it hath been forgotten now.” By way of disclaimer, the authors admit that this text is susceptible of multiple interpretations, both for and against the existence of Native Messengers. Best regards, TwentyThreeSkiddoo (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're interpreting that source; I don't read his statement at all in the same way. You could use that statement to source a statement such as "Buck, quoting Abdu'l-Baha, has noted that there may of been messengers of God who were sent to Americas in earlier times". I would caution you against using the word disclaimer, because you are taking preference of one source versus another, and that would not be neutral. There shouldn't be a disclaimer anywhere. It should only be a noting that there are multiple views, but until you have a secondary source which disagrees with Buck, I can't see that happening either. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing why

Individual Bahá'ís are free to express their own understanding, but this does not imply endorsement by the institutions of the religion though such recognition has been supported by local Bahá’í policy validating the concept of First Nations Manifestations of God. Explicit recognition of individual native messengers of God has yet to be formalised in Bahá’í doctrine. The quote from an authenticated source most directly reflecting on the issue is…

In this particular context, the expression "Call of God" (nidá-yi iláhí) is a transparent, according to Christopher Buck,[8] reference to Prophets of God and who give revelation. Scholars like Susan Maneck[9] and William Collins[10] have taken note of the strength of this quote. However the language is not specific. The Universal House of Justice notes that "The Bahá’í Teachings do not explicitly confirm, nor do they rule out, the possibility that Messengers of God have appeared in the Americas. In the absence of a clear Text the Universal House of Justice has no basis for issuing the kind of statement you propose which would confirm, “in principle, that God sent Manifestations to the indigenous peoples of the Americas.”"[8]

doesn't address your concerns User:TwentyThreeSkiddoo. It qualifies several times that this is a matter of individual understanding but on the basis that Buck is proposing this, it notes other scholars have taken note of the quote, (in favor of Buck's views), but that it does not make the House take the position suggested so it remains a significant idea but not a standard/binding view. --Smkolins (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smkolins, the reason I find that unsatisfying is that it is a paragon of equivocation and obfuscation. Look at the first sentence: Individual Bahá'ís are free to express their own understanding... does not imply endorsement... though such recognition has been supported by local Bahá’í policy validating the concept. Do you see how that sentence suggests that "local Baha'i policy" is validating (endorsing) the individual interpretation? It surely doesn't indicate that the entire presentation in the Native Religion section of the page is the personal opinion of an individual Baha'i. "Explicit recognition of individual native messengers of God has yet to be formalised in Bahá’í doctrine." implies that it is simply a matter of time before the Universal House of Justice comes to the writer's understanding; which has no basis in fact as the House has already told Buck that it disagrees with his interpretation.
The quote you omitted actually proves that none of the "individual native messengers of God" Buck documents later in the article could, in fact, have been Manifestations of God. Recall the line "Undoubtedly in those regions the Call of God must have been raised in ancient times, but it hath been forgotten now." Buck states in the next sentence that "the Call of God" refers to Prophets (Manifestations) of God. Buck later tells us that Deganawida is probably one of these Prophets. However, Deganawida was a name known and not forgotten at the time that Abdu'l-Baha wrote this tablet. Ergo, neither Deganawida nor White Buffalo Calf Woman nor any other figure known could have been a "Call of God"; as the "it" (the Call of God) "hath been forgotten now."
The writer of this article, or Buck, further shows the impossibility of any Native American cultural and religious values having survived from any Manifestation of God to North America; yet, the writer of this article doesn't highlight the flawed logic.

Attach great importance to the indigenous population of America. For these souls may be likened unto the ancient inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula, who, prior to the Mission of Muḥammad, were like unto savages. When the light of Muḥammad shone forth in their midst, however, they became so radiant as to illumine the world. Likewise, these Indians, should they be educated and guided, there can be no doubt that they will become so illumined as to enlighten the whole world....[24]

In this quote we have the Indians compared to savages, like the peninsular Arabs before Muhammad. In other words, the Indians at the time Abdu'l-Baha said this, were destitute of a knowledge of God through a Manifestation of God. (However, with education and guidance the indigenous people may "become so illumined as to enlighten the whole world.") Best regards, TwentyThreeSkiddoo (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your analysis is it inherently original thought. You are critiquing the article and calling it flawed logic. That is not the realm of wikipedia. Wikipedia's process, as outlined above, is to note what reliable sources say. Apparently the article was felt to be useful enough through its publication in a journal that your criticisms aren't inherently so.
More particularly in your analysis, for the sake of discussion, I'm not aware any Baha'i knew the names of Deganawida or White Buffalo Woman when Abdu'l-Baha referred to the Call of God. So your interpretation that they could not be part of what was referred to is itself debatable. But the article is not the place for such debate unless reliable sources discuss it. I'm not aware of any such debate. What seems clear is that individual and somewhat on a collective level, Baha'is are, and have been as noted in the case of some action in Canada, to engage in positive engagement with Native Religion, cautioning that they are not making statements all Baha'is must recognize. You call it obfuscation and equivocation but the truth is that it is a complex situation - the true status of such figures cannot be defined in a Baha'i context at a fully official level so far. But there are affirmative statements that can and have been made. As for the other quote interpreting things at face value within a specific cultural context is prone to error. Buddhists are also noted as missing the original teachings - this doesn't mean Buddha is not a Manifestation or that his station/identity was lost. There are other Manifestations even more obscure but still acknowledged. Heard of Adam? Zoroastrian culture was almost wiped out, scriptures stolen, and acculturation with others was extensive. That doesn't mean Zoroaster - surely not his original name as is widely understood - wasn't a Manifestation. Fortunately we are in a context that the Baha'is are in a position to positively identify him as such. --Smkolins (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree that my expressions are original thought and I do not have supportive secondary sources, only primary. However, I strongly deny that Buck represents a "reliable source". But, this is not the venue for criticism, as you and Jeff have informed me.
I suppose I could try the ol' Erasmus comma ploy. But that is too much work.
Regarding your statement "for the sake of discussion, I'm not aware any Baha'i knew the names of Deganawida or White Buffalo (sic) Woman when Abdu'l-Baha referred to the Call of God." It is not necessary that any Baha'is needed to know of them at that time; those names were known within the Native community. Abdu'l-Baha stated that "the Call of God... is forgotten now." But Deganawida was not forgotten, as noted by Buck

"... the version known as the Code of Dekanahwideh together with the Tradition of the Origin of the Five Nations' League, "Prepared by the committee of chiefs appointed by the Six Nations' Council of Grand River, Canada, and adopted by Council of Chiefs, July 3, 1900,"..." [Native Messengers of God...]

Ach well, clearly I have no means for altering this page. Thanks to all for the education in Wikipedia rationale. Best regards,

TwentyThreeSkiddoo (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bahá'í Faith and Native Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bahá'í Faith and Native Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk at the Maxwell's Home in Montreal

[edit]

During his tour of North America, `Abdu'l-Bahá gave a talk on September 2, 1912 in the Montreal home of William Sutherland Maxwell (later named a Hand of the Cause by Shoghi Effendi in 1951) and May Maxwell, the parents of Mary Maxwell, the future Amatu'l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khánum, wife of Shoghi Effendi.[1]

Consider this Canadian country during the early history of Montreal when the land was in its wild, uncultivated and natural condition. The soil was unproductive, rocky and almost uninhabitable—vast forests stretching in every direction. What invisible power caused this great metropolis to spring up amid such savage and forbidding conditions? It was the human mind. Therefore, nature and the effect of nature’s laws were imperfect. The mind of man remedied and removed this imperfect condition, until now we behold a great city instead of a savage unbroken wilderness. Before the coming of Columbus America itself was a wild, uncultivated expanse of primeval forest, mountains and rivers—a very world of nature. Now it has become the world of man. It was dark, forbidding and savage; now it has become illumined with a great civilization and prosperity. Instead of forests, we behold productive farms, beautiful gardens and prolific orchards. Instead of thorns and useless vegetation, we find flowers, domestic animals and fields awaiting harvest. If the world of nature were perfect, the condition of this great country would have been left unchanged.

This passage is directly relevant to native North Americans. `Abdu'l-Bahá's asserts that pre-Columbian North America "was in its wild, uncultivated and natural condition" that "the mind of man remedied" so "it has become the world of man." The passage is unambiguously pertinent. A35821361 (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't see the unambiguousness. I think you are reading into the statement a commentary on native cultures?? BTW, please "sign" your comments with ~~~~ Smkolins (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put these remarks onto "Mr. A's" talk page - not realising that HIS remarks referred to this article - even so, they largely remain relevant.

I am as sympathetic to the plight of dispossessed indigenous people as anyone (I actually have relatives in that category) - but pre-Columbian North America WAS in a comparitively "wild, uncultivated and natural condition" (that is the very virtue of any land inhabited by its "natural" or indigenous inhabitants, of course - they don't stuff it up like us (so-called) "civilised" types). Remembering the extemporaneous nature of the translation one cannot be too sure about the "remedied" either - without a Persian text of `Abdu'l-Bahá's original talk he may very well have used a word without the precise connotations of the English. Taking the passage as an intended belittling of indigenous people is in any case very highly strained, and (which is perhaps the point anyway) very contradictory of Baha'i teaching (and specifically that of `Abdu'l-Bahá himself) on the unity of humankind and the great importance, especially in a spiritual sense, of indigenous peoples. BUT none of this is the point in any case - the article is about "native North Americans". However you strain and stretch `Abdu'l-Bahá's remarks, they have pretty-well nothing to do with the subject. The very worst connotation you can put on them, after all, that `Abdu'l-Bahá was not an extreme "greenie", and saw some virtue in "civilisation". I must admit I'm less than totally convinced myself that the "works of man" are totally or invariably deletrious. Anyway IF all this belongs anywhere in Wikipedia at all it is very plainly in an article about (criticising?) the Baha'i Faith. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually missed the point here slightly (oops) - not so irrelevant as I thought, as the article IS about both the Native Americans and the Baha'i Faith!! Main point remains valid of course - this is a very highly strained (and partisan), not to say speculative, interpretation of a statement that does not even mention Nothe American native peoples at all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 'Abdu'l-Baha (1982). "2 September 1912, Talk at Home of Mr. and Mrs. William Sutherland Maxwell, 716 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, Canada". Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by Abdu'l Baha during His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912. Bahai Publishing Trust, 2nd Edition. ISBN 978-0877431725.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bahá'í Faith and Native Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bahá'í Faith and Native Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baháʼí_Faith_and_Native_Americans&oldid=1205622234"