Talk:Bahá'í Faith/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

About capitalization, reaching consensus

The article seems to be bouncing back and forth between capitalizing and not capitalizing the pronouns (or should I say Pronouns :-) ). It appears that the advocates for capitalization are mainly Bahá'ís who feel that capitalization denotes a proper level of respect for the central figures of the Bahá'í Faith and that, in some but not all cases, the non-capitalization position seems to be taken by others within the Wikipedia audience who feel that capitalization is either unnecessary, inappropriate, or not in line with the general preferences of the Wikipedia audience. In the hopes of coming to some final consensus on this, I would like to address this comment mainly to the former group. This concerns how, in my personal reading experience, pronoun capitalization is used in other Bahá'í publications.


In the authorized English translations of the writings of the Bahá'í Faith, and in the English letters of Shoghi Effendi if memory serves, the pronouns are generally capitalized. (This should be checked in the documents Shoghi Effendi addressed to the League of Nations and in connection with the official recognition of the Faith at the United Nations, since these may not be capitalized. One of these passages can be found on the inside back cover of any issue of the Journal of Bahá'í Studies, but I don't have one handy.)


However, in the contemporary letters of the Universal House of Justice both approaches are used. For example, in the Peace Message of 1985, one of the first documents to be addressed to the Peoples of the World, the pronoun (he) referring to Bahá'u'lláh is NOT capitalized. In letters to the Bahá'í community, it usually is. In the more recent letter to the world's religious leaders (April 2002), any use of the pronouns referring to Bahá'u'lláh appears to have been avoided, as it seems to have been in the Prosperity of Humankind statement (1994). However, in the April 2002 letter God, the Divine, etc., are capitalized, although I cannot find the use of the pronoun in this sense.


It seems to me that this difference of usage depends on the context of the communication, or the different audience that is being addressed. When a communication is addressed primarily to Bahá'ís or within the context of a religious dialogue with a recognized religious audience, the pronouns tend to be capitalized. This is also the case when referring to any of the founders of the major religions, such as Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. When a more general or non-religious audience is addressed, capitalization is often avoided.


Such variances in how capitalization is used, even within writings of the same author or institution, should not come as a surprise to Bahá'ís since, in several important works, Bahá'u'lláh emphasizes the importance of paying careful attention to the outlook and perceptions of the particular audience with whom one is communicating at any particular time. For example:

Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-89.html#pg176


Referring directly to the above comment by Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá emphasizes the point as follows:

Such is the consummate wisdom to be observed in thy pursuits. Be not oblivious thereof, if thou wishest to be a man of action under all conditions. First diagnose the disease and identify the malady, then prescribe the remedy, for such is the perfect method of the skilful physician.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAB/sab-215.html#pg269


In another place, Bahá'u'lláh writes

Every word is endowed with a spirit, therefore the speaker or expounder should carefully deliver his words at the appropriate time and place, for the impression which each word maketh is clearly evident and perceptible. The Great Being saith: One word may be likened unto fire, another unto light, and the influence which both exert is manifest in the world. Therefore an enlightened man of wisdom should primarily speak with words as mild as milk, that the children of men may be nurtured and edified thereby and may attain the ultimate goal of human existence which is the station of true understanding and nobility."
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/TB/tb-12.html#pg172


From a Bahá'í perspective, then, a few important points emerge.

  • First, it does not appear that we need to worry about belittling the figures being referred to by using small letters in pronouns, since this usage is common in official communications to particular audiences.
  • Second, since the audience of the Wikipedia is similar to the worldwide audience of the Peace Message in 1985, literally everybody and not primarily a religiously-inclined audience, small letters in pronouns would seem to be not only acceptable, but appropriate.
  • Third, within this audience, there are undoubtedly many people who might be offended or uneasy about seeing capitalized pronouns used to refer to religious figures in general, and we must pay careful attention to such sensitivities.


Given all of the above, I would like to propose that the use of uncapitalized pronouns in this article is appropriate. If everyone feels that what I have written here is enough to reach an agreement on this point, then in future I suggest we gently refer new readers and contributors who raise this issue to the foregoing discussion and revert the article changes accordingly.


I look forward to your responses.


-- Jonathan

Jmenon 08:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for that thoughtful and thought-provoking insight, Jmenon. It'll be interesting to see how the other (please forgive my lack of apostrophes) Bahais here respond to this. To be honest with you, although I made the change, I'm not really beating the drum for anything other than consistency, both internal and with established policy. At some point, I'm gonna bounce over to Bab and sort out that article; a complete mess, incapable of any internal consistency, never mind consistency with WikiPolicy.

The main problem, as I see it, isn't about what the policy actually says--that's pretty clear. It's not even really if some people don't like the policy--take it up elsewhere. It's the fact that there are so darn many of these articles to make consistent! I think that keeping this disucssion here would be useful--it would seem that Christianity and Islam don't have the same level of concern being expressed about policy (despite a couple of glaring lapses in Xianity I'm about to fix). Wooster 18:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

what´s wrong with the Bab article? :) - --Cyprus2k1 14:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Try this paragraph.
Born on October 20 1819, in Shiraz to a well-known merchant of the city of Shiraz, his father died soon after his birth and the boy was raised by his uncle Hájí Mirzá Siyyid 'Ali, who was also a merchant. As a child He learned to read and write and was sent with other children to a teacher of religion. During these lessons the little boy showed uncommon wisdom and quickly attracted attention, since not only did He ask very difficult questions, but He answered them Himself. He did this so well that his teacher was dumbfounded. Upon reaching manhood, He joined his uncle in the family business, a trading house, and became a merchant. His integrity and piety won the esteem of the other merchants with whom He came in contact. He was also known for His generosity to the poor. In 1842 He married Khadíjih-Bagum and they had one son, Ahmad, who died in infancy.
Count the capitalisation errors. I make (ignoring beginnings of sentences) four pronouns and eight Pronouns. It's a mess and needs to be sorted out. However, I don't have time at the moment. Wooster 16:20, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
i agree. i was writing that, but i was more worried about writing the article and later fixing it (capitalization, NPOV, etc..) . anyway, in the meanwhile i got into a busy epoch, and then vacations :) will be back on september! - --Cyprus2k1 16:38, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More on schism

Brett9 removed the following:

Prior to the 1970s no such attempt survived beyond its founder's death.

This is simply historically true. The various Remeyite organizations were the first schismatic group of Baha'is to persist past the death of their founder. No followers of Mirza Yahya continued past his death, etc. Unless Brent can come up with an example, I'm going to keep reverting this one. Rick Boatright 21:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized my mistake. I had interpreted the statement for some reason as referring to no attempt surviving beyond the successive passing of authority in the Faith (e.g., the Muhammad 'Alí groups claiming authority from 'Abdu'l-Bahá's time outliving 'Abdu'l-Bahá and continuing their claims, which they did). My apologies. If you feel there is some reason to put it in, it is your prerogative. I don't think it is particularly remarkable given that any such movements would naturally try to find at least some remote, albeit unconvincing, connection to the times in which authority was passing. [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 16:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reverted to the earlier edition, as links were removed and to restore a more NPOV as user Saed removed links against Wiki rules, and removed any reference to any other point of view.

maybe the really question is, is really a matter of NPOV and wiki rules, or is wikipedia being victim of (just) one or two persons actively envolved in defamation?? - --Cyprus2k1 21:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


This entire article reeks of a Baha'i pamphlet or a press release. There is almost none of the controversial issues about the Baha'i faith, and when these have been added Baha'i apologists remove them. Scientology, anyone?

nonsense, your just pissed off because you really cant find any arguments to necessarly include obf reference in the other articles so now you turned to a personal attack with a very false analogy. - --Cyprus2k1 09:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Cypress is violating the norms of wikipedia by removing content. I am a former member of the Baha'i faith and am posting anonymously to avoid reprisals against my family who are still members of the Baha'i faith and could face consequences. I was driven out of the Baha'i faith by members of the local spiritual assembly who threatened to remove my administrative rights. I have a right to add factual information of relevance to the readers of this article, even if such information is not appreciated by the Baha'i religious authorities.

Cypress, please quit removing factual content. You are welcome to edit factual content, not revert or remove it in toto. Continued reversions or mass deletions will result in me escalating this dispute to Wikipedia mediation and arbitration processes if necessary. Thanks!

65.184.35.245 22:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


ok. first of all, please please please stop hipocritly using "wikipedia norms" as i way to state untrue(or twisted/misleading) facts on the articles .
if you were driven out, you probably did CONTINUOUSLY something VERY wrong(i.e endangering the community or trying to take control)
about the reprisals thing.., no one will come after you (on the contrary). this is obviously a Appeal to emotion and Appeal to fear(what is the use of posting anonymously if you then post your own website??)
__
ok. i absolutely hate edit wars, so lets discuss this:
__
things i deleted and why:
__
"Homosexual marriage and sexual activity is strictly forbidden." this is not tottaly factual and is misleading(read: twisted fact), sexual activity is forbidden BEFORE marriage, which is what "Chastity outside marriage is required. " means.
__
" -- the ultimate sanction to compel obedience and submission to Baha'i authority." is POV...
(see history for other POV to NPOV edits/added(added.. NOT deleted...))
__
"Some critics of the Baha'i Faith argue that the Baha'i religious authorities use the threat of declaration as a "covenant breaker" in order to stifle free speech"
what do you mean by "Baha'i religious authorities"? its a very weird thing to say since there is no clergy in the bahai faith and institutions are bahais themselves.
no one uses the "threat of declaration as a "covenant breaker" in order to stifle free speech" but since you say "some critics argue", hey, what can one do?
- --Cyprus2k1 11:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

65.184.35.245, I came here because of your note on Talk:Main Page.

  • If you pick a random username, you will be more anonymous than with your IP visible, which shows you are in the US
  • I find nothing scandalous in C2k1's reversion.

dab (ᛏ) 16:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dbachmann, maybe I'll go out and revert some of your edits I disagree with then, since you don't disapprove of blanket reverts from critics.

Cyprus, if you think there are no religious authorities in the Baha'i faith, you are mistaken. Who do you think the UHJ, 4 North American Continental Councillors, 50+ Auxiliary Board members and 4000+ assistants do? Not sure how many where you live, but I suspect it is comparable. Mostly those "assistants" spy on the believers and report back anything "questionable" they hear.

Thanks for making much more reasonable edits this time. 63.106.106.2 20:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

everyone mentioned are also bahais, they are not "priests".i know many of those members myself, there is no "persecution" or any weird conspiracy theory. i will not bother to discuss this further since wikipedia is not a forum... - --Cyprus2k1 20:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Independent religion

The beginning section of this article says more than once that Baha'i is an "independent" religion. What does that mean? Also it says "according to some" it is the newest such religion. Who are those "some"? IbnRushd 04:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Bah�'�_Faith#Independent_religions - --Cyprus2k1 08:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

eo: article images use

Is the Esperanto article's practice of direct incorporation of the remote images O.K. w.r.t. the copyrights and the Wikipedia policies? BACbKA 21:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Be more specific

This article does indeed look like an advertisement pamphlet in some places. I think that giving factual evidence for all that praise would surely help. One example: "Bahá'ís have also become increasingly involved in projects of social and economic development around the world." is absolutely not factual. It's just a statement that is quite biased. Is this a claim of some Bahai guy or is it a fact? And if it's a fact, you need to qualify it by saying "Bahais spent 10 zillions of dollars building hydroelectric plants in poor countries" or "Bahais printed 10 trillions of copies of multiplication tables and gave them to poor children", stuff like that. :) Any evidence that Bahais are in fact involved, preferably with some references.

I would not dive in editing this article, because my knowledge of Bahai religion is limited, so I could only go through the text and delete all such unstubstantiated claims. It would be better if someone more familiar with the subject would try to locate some facts and references first. Paranoid 14:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FAC

I think something needs to be done before it can be a featured article. I am not saying there are factual errors in this article, but I think lack of external perspective prevents it from being of a featured article. There is an inherent bias in writing an article from the position of an insider. What do people outside of this religion think about Bahai Faith? Paranoid 17:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i want to help, but im afraid i dont understand what you mean... i tryed comparing other religon articles like Buddhism( which was a featured article) and see nothing like "what people outside think" - --Cyprus2k1 18:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Check out Scientology instead. :))) Of course, in no way do I imply that Bahai is an evil totalitarian sect, I just think that it would help you understand my point. Buddhism, IMHO, is slightly more neutral and factual, it doesn't say that the religion is "good" as often. Also, it's an established (so it's well known) religion and relatively uncontroversial. I should clearly state that I don't see any significant problems in the article, it's more a matter of style and the feeling when reading it. I thought that it's caused by the fact that the Buddism article was (probably to a large extent) written from the position of outsiders (and what bias was initially there was probably removed by intensive editing), while Baha'i Faith article was probably written mostly by people connected with this religion and wasn't edited that much. For me the impression that it's a slightly sugary and PRy text was noticeable.
So I think that an unbiased editor could really help this article to improve. Paranoid 19:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But where does it say the religion is "good" :)? note that a religion does not necessary has to be or have something "bad" (a common view, at least in someparts of europe), if the article has something stating (as a fact) the religion is "good" (or "bad") that such is POV and should be corrected, so please point out... :)
i think that an article on independent religion could clarify things, since it seems to confuse people.
just to clarify something( this is not criticism..),the term "sect" is often confused with the term "cult", a sect is a branch from a main religion (so technically we could say the catholic church is one of the sects of christianity), the Bahai Faith is not considered a sect (of islam) the same way Christianity is not considered a sect of Judaism. (and thus the term "independent religion") - --Cyprus2k1 20:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As I said, there are no glaring POV errors, but it appears to me that there is bias (because the article was written by the supporters). BTW, personally I think that any religion is very bad and all believers should be reeducated (though, from what little I know about Bahai, it's much better than most religions), but that should not distract us. Let me say it again, there aren't glaring errors and most sections are actually fine. But overall the article looks to me like it could benefit from someone unrelated to Bahai carefully going through it and correcting the style (and possibly some content) slightly. Sorry, it's not very constructive. :(
Thanks for correcting my wrong use of "sect". In my native language the term "sekta" is usually used to mean cults like scientology, Moon's church, etc. Paranoid 22:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Changes made by 204.50.168.164

204.50.168.164 says he eliminated some unnecessary and very marginal information. Most of the information he removed regards the very small (tiny) division in the Faith and other negative attitudes towards the Baha'i Faith. Even though I'm a Baha'i and don't believe those negative viewpoints, I see them as necessary in the article to keep a NPOV. Thus in the spirit of being impartial I am reverting them. --Navidazizi 15:18, 06 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Picture request

I'd like to put this article on the main page, but I'd prefer someone add a copyleft (Creative common or GFDL licensed) picture first. →Raul654 22:47, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

There is a picture on the German Wikipedia article that is under the GFDL [1], how about using that. NavidAzizi 16:50, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Another picture is the one on the page for the Bab [2] which is released into public domain. It's of the Shrine of the Bab in the Baha'i world centre in Haifa, Israel NavidAzizi 19:01, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Both look good to me. When I get home from vacation next week, I'll add one or both to the article (unless someone beats me to it) and then schedule it for the main page. →Raul654 01:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Finnaly i found where i got the photo and its copyright status (when i uploaded it i was still a wikipedia newbie), its from the Bahai World News Website, and the copyright status of the photos can be found here: [3]
citing:
"All stories and photographs produced by the Bahá'í World News Service may be freely reprinted, re-emailed, re-posted to the World Wide Web and otherwise reproduced by any individual or organization, subject to the following restrictions:
1. They must at all times be attributed to the Bahá'í World News Service.
2. Photographs and stories cannot be used in any way (including, without limitation, suggesting an association with or endorsement of any product, service, opinion or cause) which conflicts with the intent and premise of the original source.
3. Photographs may be edited for size only. Captions must remain with the photographs at all times.
4. The Bahá'í World News Service will not be responsible to any person or organization for any liability for any direct, incidental, consequential, indirect, or punitive damages that may result from any access to or use of the stories and/or photographs on our site.
5. Although this blanket permission to reproduce BWNS stories is given freely such that no special permission is required, the Bahá'í World News Service retains full copyright protection for its stories and photographs under all applicable national and international laws. "
so, the current photo is finne i guess :)
p.s im currently very busy (exams, exams) , will be back on tuesday! - --Cyprus2k1 08:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

which empire?

"The machinations of the Persian and Ottoman authorities took Bahá'u'lláh further and further into exile, from Baghdad to Istanbul (Constantinople), then to Edirne (formerly Adrianople, also within the Ottoman Empire), and finally, in 1868, to the penal colony of Acre (in present-day Israel), on the very edge of the Empire."
Ottoman or Persian? -Lethe | Talk 08:33, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Actually both. Bahá'u'lláh's first exile was from Tehran to Baghdad and that was solely due to the Persian authorities banishing him from Persia (he was free to choose his destination, and he chose Baghdad). But them his exile from Baghdad to Constantinople was due mostly to the Persian authorities, even though Bahá'u'lláh was in Baghdad. According to Baha'i sources, the Persian authorities through the ministers of the Shah and the Persian Ambassador wanted Bahá'u'lláh to be moved further from the Persian empire. They succeeded in convincing the Ottomon authorities, especially the Grand Vizier, to send Bahá'u'lláh to Constantinople. Even in Constantinople, the Persian Ambassador persisted in arousing the hostility of the Ottoman authorities against Bahá'u'lláh, which led to his exile to Adrianople. The exile from Adrianople to Akka, however, was mainly due to the Ottoman empires. Fadeaway919 16:10, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
And there is not a single shred of reliable historical evidence for this claim. Edward Browne, as you may well know, was very sympathetic to both the Babis and Bahais (particularly to the Babis). He was (and is) a highly respected scholar. He personally met both Bahaullah and Subh-i Azal. He also, justifiably in my opinion, hated the Qajars (the ruling dynaty of Persia at that time). Why didn't Edward Browne say anything about Iran pressuring the Ottoman empire to move the Bahais farther away from Iran? This claim only exists in the Bahai literature. The fact that so many inaccuracies, falsehoods, contradictions, speculations and slanted interpretations and claims exist in the Bahai culture should be enough to make any intelligent person to think about this movement. --Amir 19:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Claim from authoritative Western source: 1988 Encyclopedia Brittannica, article Baha'i Faith: "He was released in January 1853 and exiled to Bag had. There Bahá'u'lláh's leadership revived the Bábí community, and an alarmed Persian government urged the Ottoman government to move both Bahá'u'lláh and the growing number of his followers farther away from Persia's borders." -- Fadeaway919 19:31, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that is based on Bahai literature. Can you point out to any hard authentic historical evidence to support that claim? Without existence of reliable evidence, it will be speculation at best. --Amir 21:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Akká was the penal colony of the Ottoman Empire. --Jmenon 19:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

pronunciation

I can't figure out how to say "Bahá'í". Can we get some guidance in this article? --Twinxor 19:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Bu-hi" - Bu as in but, and hi as in high. →Raul654 19:45, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
The first part is pretty close, remember it's a short "u" sound, not "oo". I would rather think it's like the "a" sound in "bar". The "hi" part is not one syllable, so it's more like "ha-ee". So in total "ba" "ha" "ee" -- Fadeaway919 19:52, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
And the stress is on the last syllable -- Fadeaway919 19:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

reasons

removed: "Bahá'u'lláh (meaning splendour or light of Allah) is the title that Mirza Husay Ali Nuri from Iran chose for himself as the new leader of the Bábí movement in Baghdad. His half brother, Mirza Yahya Nuri already had the title of Subh-i Azal (meaning Dawn of Eternity). These titles were not accidental. They both had to do with the Bábí symbolic concept and claim of "new light""

because this is already mentioned later.

removed: "Essentially, both Bábísm and Bahá'ísm are heavily based on an offshoot of the Shia branch of Islam."

it is POV.

"Baháism was one of the two sects of the Bábís when a split among the Bábís started, after Bahá'u'lláh challenged the leadership of the Bábí leader, his own half-brother, Subh-i Azal. The followers of Subh-i Azal became known as the Azali Bábís while the followers of Bahá'u'lláh became known as the Bahá'í Bábís or later just Bahá'ís."

this shouldnt be in the first paragraph but in "origins" or "history" or something. but still, its already mentioned in other related articles "Baháism" is a wrong term.

--Cyprus2k1 09:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1- I am going to put my contributions back into the article, because you decided on your own to remove them first, and then discuss (and even in discussion you are not discussing anything, just opining).
2- "Bahism" may be a "wrong" term in Bahai circles, but certainly in a historical context, put next to "babism" and "azalism" as a transitional movement, is valid and legitimate. This is a good example that you are incapable of divorcing from your mind the strictly bahai religious culture. This is why you have such a big problem accepting that wikipedia does not adhere to the language of a specific faith or culture, rather, it is a collaborative, open, online encyclopedia in which all people can contribute.
3- it is most certainly NOT POV to say that Babism, and by extension, Bahaism, came out of Shaykhi branch of Shia Islam. Please educate yourself on the origins of your faith. --Amir 09:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I want to take the opportunity to remind everyone of the Three-revert rule. If you revert more than three times in 24 hours, you will get blocked. Do not edit until you've sorted out your differences on the talk page. JRM 10:34, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)