Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 13

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

Beliefs Intro

Three underlying core assertions are often simply referred to as the unity of God, the unity of religion, and the unity of mankind.[2] This formulation is often helpful in understanding Bahá'í approaches to a variety of religious topics, though it belies much of the complexity found in the hundreds of books and letters that form the Bahá'í texts. Much of Bahá'í practice and social teachings are rooted in these priorities.

I find this paragraph a bit awkward, especially the first sentence. The term "underlying core assertions" doesn't mean much to me. If you get rid of the adjectives in the sentence the overall meaning is weak: "Three assertions are referred to as the unity of God, etc." Perhaps it would sound better to keep it simple, something like: "The core beliefs of the Baha'i Faith can be summarized by three "unities": the unity of God, the unity of religion, and the unity of humankind. Shoghi Effendi called "unity in diversity" the watchword of the Baha'i Faith. The principle of unity permeates the Baha'i sacred writings, and is the foundation for all other spiritual and administrative principles." I'm an advocate of "Baha'u'llah-centered" discussions of the Faith. Shoghi Effendi continually stressed the centrality of Baha'u'llah in his summary of the Baha'i Faith to the UN special committee on Palestine:

The fundamental principle enunciated by Baha’u’llah, the

followers of His Faith firmly believe, is that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the non-essential aspects of their doctrines, and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution

of human society.

-- Parsa 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with "Baha'u'llah-centred" discussions of the Faith as you call it. The presentation has to academic based as to look non-promotional and remain neutral point of view. Already there are complaints that the page has too much of a Baha'i view. Using statements like "Shoghi Effendi called 'unity in diversity' the watchword of the Baha'i Faith" are seen to be as promotional. I think the current wording is just fine. -- Jeff3000 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still thinking that the viewpoint of an adherent of a religion to their own religion is not necessarily non-neutral. If I wanted to know what a Theravadic Buddhist believed, I could go to a professor of Buddhism and ask about the religion, but would I be wrong to go to a Theravadic Buddhist and say "Hey, what do you believe?" It reflects actual beliefs and practice rather than a theoretical standpoint. I can see the argument against quoting Shoghi Effendi from the standpoint of the BUPC or OB folks, but Shoghi Effendi was indeed the head of the Faith for the vast majority of Baha'is. Isn't a clear definition of a faith from the leader of the religion an important item to feature when explaining the beliefs of the religion? As long as the source is stated, it can better illustrate the beliefs of the adherents. I could say "Thomas Aquinas defined Christian beliefs as...". Would this be wrong in helping readers in their understanding of what Christians believe? Can we only define what a religion actually believes by how non-adherents see the faith? There are non-polemic historians and social scientists that write about the Baha'i Faith, but they can't be called numerous. Even academics can come with pre-conceived ideas, prejudices, etc. They can also misinterpet the intent of statements made in the sacred writings, and one academic can disagree with the views of another.

All that aside, I still find the sentence "Three underlying core assertions are often simply referred to as the unity of God, the unity of religion, and the unity of mankind" gramatically awkward. First of all, "underlying" and "core" are redunant. I've never seen an overlying core. How about saying: "Three beliefs make up the core of Baha'i teachings: the unity of God, the unity of religion, and the unity of humankind." Or perhaps word it in reverse: "Belief in the unity of God, the unity of religion, and the unity of humankind define the core principles of Baha'i teachings." This is much more clear in my view. -- Parsa 16:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from scripture can be problematic because it can be interpreted differently. Using a book such as Hatcher's and Martin's to reference a statement is a much better route. -- Jeff3000 17:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, although the writings of Shoghi Effendi are considered authoritative, they are not considered to be in the same category as scripture itself. 68.98.236.175 06:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Jeff3000, because these are secondary sources. Using SE directly would be to use a primary source, and there is a clear, justifiable, drive to rely on responsible secondary sources for Wikipedia.
However, Parsa has a point that that paragraph doesn't flow. May I offer this:
Three core principles of Bahá'í teachings are often referred to simply as: the unity of God, the unity of religion, and the unity of mankind.[2] Many Bahá'í beliefs and practice are rooted in these priorities; but taken alone these are an over-simplification of Bahá'í teachings.
MARussellPESE 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. -- Jeff3000 01:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a serious problem with the neutrality of this ariticle

Wikipedia is said to be a neutral source of information. This article is far from neutral, as a matter of fact 90% of it is word for word what is on Baha'i sites! This is not neutral other than the one blurp. Many controveries and problems are not mentioned nor are many historical facts. This isn't an entry that is neutral, this is propoganda! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.242.33.104 (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

The nature of wikipedia is that deleters have to provide little reasons for the delete, however when the material is returned to the page it is group work that keeps it present. Any person can contribute and watch their work get deleted. That work that remains has unique qualities and is expressed in the growth of wikipedia. Suggestions are to write in another language to make your point, but the problem here is that readership falls off, or to craft your edits so that in the clash of differing opinions the spark of truth comes out. Historical facts as you put them are always in a context. The page has a context and with in that context the facts are placed. What you are seeing is the development of a page that many minds accept and the page is a reflection of what these minds believed and understand. Wikipedia is about group concensus. So is propoganda, however many people in the past did not have control of broadcast media and propoganda frustrated them, today the web 2.0 community is more consultative and democratic. Wikipedia shows off the light of unity. Wikipedia is a stage that broadcasts information and each person who edits is an actor on that stage. This page is neutral as far as concensus thinking goes. 90% shows that wikipedia is a good refection of the majority expression of what is on the web and as to what Baha'i Faith is about on those sites is reflected here. Good luck with getting any edits past Jeff3000. He has a good edit/delete on him. He floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee. But many would miss him if he stopped editing on our behalf and many would step up to take his place if we saw that he was not making the calls. Wikipedia is big enough for every one including the 10% you refer to Philosophical understanding and Religious context. RoddyYoung 13:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Jeff3000, like most editors, watches many pages. Like some editors he actively encourages folks contributions with discussions. A few more moments thoughts, or awareness of various qualities and aims of wikipedia often clarifies what is/should be in wikipedia. Drive by edits are discouraged everywhere, especially where articles have been through a lot of editing and contributions. The accolades of the article speak for the efforts of many (featured article, foreign language featured article....) --Smkolins 14:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Human Beings

This section, I believe, has many inaccuracies. If someone can edit this article to cause the Human Beings section to become accurite, I would greatly appreciate that. If I do it myself without letting anyone know, it will most likely be reverted.--eskimospy(talk) 14:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean it inaccuratly expresses what Baha'is believe? I looked at it and the only thing I could come up with was that the reader could think that we believe we can know God. But then I thought that the God section tells the reader that we believe God is unknowable and this section is just saying that we can know His station. Maybe this is innacurate in itself, in that we can't actually know His station, but I simply took it to mean that we know Him to be sovereign over everything. I did make one little change to reinforce that all we can know of God we know through His Manifestations, but I couldn't think of what else.
Is there something else? You can feel free to just change it and the other editors most likely won't revert it as long as they're good unbiased changes. But if you feel more comfortable here you can maybe explain more of what's innaccurate and someone will work on it. -LambaJan 14:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see large inaccuracies - but I do wonder about "Every human is seen to have a duty to recognize God through his manifestations, and to conform to their teachings" - it sounds like "his manifestations" refers to some vague generic things, perhaps even pantheism. I think it would be better to say "Every human is seen to have a duty to recognize God through his prophets, and to conform to their teachings." or even Manifestation of God - though it is referred to earlier in the article....--Smkolins 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't get that impression, but I can appreciate it once you point it out. Either one of those would be just fine IMO. -LambaJan 04:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see it was already changed. Wonderful! -LambaJan 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture at the top of the page

Why don't we stop using an image of the UHJ which changes every few months, and use either;

A. The shine of the Bab, probably the most known part of the faith outside of the faith itself.

B. The portrait of Abdul Baha, The man who made the faith what it is today.

What do you think? Zazaban 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the most appropriate picture is the House. The reason why the picture changed, was that they were not free. The current image is under the GFDL, and can be used without a problem. -- Jeff3000 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the Other articles for major religions, we seem to be the only article to have a picture at the top of the page. Why do we even have it? Zazaban 02:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the picture of the House on the top. If for no other reason, it clearly identifies the article with the Universal House of Justice, as opposed to Covenant-breakers. Cuñado - Talk 08:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I just don't like THAT picture, it's a very weird angle. Zazaban 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, After reading over the TOS of the Baha'i Media Bank, it seems I can use a picture from there as long as I credit them. Zazaban 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No the media bank pictures of buildings cannot be used when a free one is available. Images from the media bank have already been deleted for not abiding by the fair use policy. Please do not upload any other media bank images. -- Jeff3000 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we change the angle of this picture, find a nicer, better, and clearer one. This picture does not show the true shape of the building with the dome and the sea green tiles. Nmentha 05:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we seem to be sacrificing quality in attempting to make all the pictures free-use. I disagree with this, just because there is a free picture available doesn't make it necessarily any good. Many of the free pictures look horrible, and this has really made me disappointed to see the Baha'i pages recently. We need to worry about quality. High resolution, clear images, realistic colors, and nothing older than the year 2000 unless it is a historical picture. This is why I am struggling so much. None of the free pictures (and I have hundreds) are really anything I would like to see on here. In any case, I hope that this note has only to make us search a little harder (and this applies to all Baha'i pages). Nmentha 05:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see fair use criteria. This is official policy on Wikipedia, and cannot be compromised. Non-free images of buildings that still exist have been deleted on hundreds of pages, and will be deleted. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide a free encyclopedia, and that is why the admins have deleted non-free images, and we must work in the same vein. If you have a better photo, that can be released under a free license (GFDL, CC) upload one. -- Jeff3000 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I am fully aware of this. However, my comment still stands. We should not sacrifice image quality. Therefore, I will attempt to note every free-use image that is bad quality so that we can find a better one. I do not advocate not using free images. This would be an incorrect assessment of my comment. Once again, I am simply asking all of us to search a little harder. Nmentha 16:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we change the angle of this picture, find a nicer, better, and clearer one. This picture does not show the true shape of the building with the dome and the sea green tiles. Nmentha 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

equality question

I noticed that it is stated that the faith preaches equality between men and women. Yet Many times "God" is refered to as He or Him, why not simply it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.158.133.194 (talk • contribs).

Bahá'ís do not regard God as having a gender. More precisely, the Baha'i perspective on the nature of God is that the "Essence" of God is "unknowable" and that the "Reality of Divinity ... is invisible, incomprehensible, inaccessible, a pure essence which cannot be described ..."; and that God is "exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence..." Thus the Godhead has no physical form and does not in any way resemble a human being, male or female.
The reason for the word "He" being used in the English language translations of the Baha'i writings, which are originally written in Arabic or Persian, is mainly because of convention in the original languages that the texts were written in. Many of the original writings of the Baha'i Faith were composed in Arabic, a language, by its nature, which necessitated the use of the male gender when referring to God and collectives. In order to preserve the integrity of the text, Shoghi Effendi translated the pronoun from the Arabic into the English. The use of the masculine pronoun, however, should not be seen as implying God is masculine, as noted above, but instead is used in the generic sense.
You may also want to read this talk by Abdu'l-Baha which goes over in more detail the station of women, and discusses the uses of pronouns as well. -- Regards, -- Jeff3000 13:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The argument is bit irrelevant. This isn't the place to attack or defend this faith. Just state that this faith claim that men and women are equal. Then add criticism which say this isn't the case. Wikipedia does not seek truth. Rather it seek proper attribution of POVs and facts to the verifiable sources. I have noticed that lot of material in the article is sourced to in-house material. This should be corrected. If we allow sourcing from, for example, Greenpeace website in the article about Greenpeace, then it is an open invitation for soapboxing. In house material is acceptable only for mandane facts (such as date of establishment or location of the headquater). Sourcing of POV from in-house material is not NPOV and violate verifiability criteria. Vapour

Actually the article is mostly sourced from other encyclopedias and secondary sources, and primary sources are appropriate for stating beliefs, and that's what they're used for. Your attitude is that of an attacker trying to defame the religion, which is just as POV as a Baha'i trying to promote it. The editors here have tried very hard for a NPOV article, so please be more familiar with the content before throwing around accusations. Cuñado - Talk 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As it appeared to me, Jeff3000 was not attacking or defending the Faith. He gave a focused and logical answer to the question that was asked. How could this be irrelevant? The question was about a Baha'i belief. What source outside of the Baha'i Faith could provide an answer for why Shoghi Effendi translated certain words they way he did? -LambaJan 16:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Vapour, I disagree, respectfully. These sources are perfectly legitimate under WP:V#SELF as these are on-point, and meets all five points. Please note that the overwhelming majority of sources are not "in-house". MARussellPESE 20:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not make reference in regard to the overall proportion of unverified source within the entire sources. Rather I mentioned the existence of in house source. Obviously the extent of such source being "a lot" or "quite few" or "few/little" is a subjective matter so no point arguing over this. The primary source, such as quotes from scripture or the the founders or the subsequent leader of the faith are not kosher in term of verification criteria. One could easily soapbox this site if this kind of loophole is allowed. Please remember that original reseach (i.e. direct reference to primarly material) is strictly ruled out by the main policy. Primary source must be quoted in reliable third-party source to cross the threshold of inclusion. Usual rule of thumb is that material have to be mentioned in mass media, academic journal (including encycropedia) or books published under major publisher (such as Cambridge University Press). I really don't care whether the argument of attacker or apologist is fair, accurate or reflection of truth/bias. What matter is that such POV are attributed properly and that they cross the threshold of inclusion/verifiability. Moreover, wikipedia's talk page is not not to be used as a forum or Q&A/FAQ. Since the original question (Isn't refering God as he sexist?) has no relevance to the editing of this page, it is irrelevant as far as wikipedia is concerned. The right quetion to ask was "Does anyone from verifiable source raised the issue of gender equality in regard to Baha'i refering God as he?". If you want to be anal, the article ought to say "Baha'i claim/state they teach equality of men and women."[citation needed] I hear that women aren't allowed to be in the top position. I appreciate if anyone can add verifiable content in regard to this matter. Btw, Bahá'í Faith and gender equality article have only one verifiable source, that is the one by van den Hoonaard. The article is basically an an original-research promo piece, likely to be written by a follower of this faith. Vapour
I agree with Vapour, and feel that all Bible, Qur'an, and other scriptural references should be removed from Wikipedia. Ok, I'm obviously being sarcastic here, and I apologize if it seems unkind. However, stating "The Baha'i Faith Believes X" and then linking it to an official document that sais "The Baha'i Faith believes X" seems entirely appropriate, and is not in the least original research. In fact, it's much more verifiable than quoting William Miller's Kingdom of the Cults, for example. Additionally, it's reasonable to consider Shoghi Effendi's material secondary sources, or even Abd'ul-Baha's material by normal academic standards, since they're "derivative" works that refer to, and explain Baha'i theology based on Baha'u'llah's and hte Bab's scripture. The point here is that what is primary and what is secondar/tertiary is really a matter of perspective. By one view they are primary "in house". By another, they are secondary.
As to citing the greenpeace site on greenpeace, I can see Vapour's concern about soapboxing. However, it's just intellectually lazy to suggest that it's an abuse of wikipedia to cite an organization's statements when asserting in an article THAT the organization made such statements. It is merely the "proof" of the verifiability of the assertion. And if there is soap-boxing, then someone like Vapour will certainly come along and cry foul. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. --Christian Edward Gruber 01:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No criticism allowed?

Why is there only a link to apologetic (i.e. response to criticism)? This kind of POV forking of criticism is specifically and explicitly banned by this site. At least the summary of criticism have to be present in this main page for this article to adhere to NPOV. If no policy valid response turns up, then I will unfork the criticism/apologetic in a form of summary. Vapour

The major points of criticism are already in the article, stated as facts. This method is much less POV. Cuñado - Talk 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes the criticisms are already on the page: that only men are allowed on the House of Justice, that there are divisions, that covenant-breakers are shunned, and that homosexual acts are not allowed. They are stated as facts, and it allows the reader to make their own value judgement of it's its good or bad; that is the real NPOV way of doing it. -- Jeff3000 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It appear that some fail to see the reason behind explicit prohibition against POV forking, which is to negate this kind of "it's still accessible" or "it's there if you bother to look" argument. To reduce visibility of particular material due to one's partisant POV is explictly described as the prime example of POV forking. So none of the above argument, IMO, is valid. Criticism should be visible in index. One should not presume that everyone must read the entire article.

"Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others."[1] Vapour
There is no forking here; the negative aspects of the religion (as seen by some people) are in the article. The point is not to make value-judgements on the different aspects. You present the facts, some which are seen as negative and some which are seen as positive, without saying what is negative and positive (which is a certain person's POV) and place that in the article, and let the reader make that judgement that is NPOV. For example, some people may think that because alcohol ingestion is not allowed, that is a negative, but others may think that is a good thing. You place the fact in the article, and let the reader decide, which is the way that has been dealt with this page. -- Jeff3000 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the criticsim section is forked out "and deleted" into another article without leaving a summary of such criticism. This is explicitly described as POV fork. And do you really believe that, if this goes to arbitration, then people would accept "it's still accessible" or "it's there if you bother to look" argument? This guideline specifically state that opposing view have to be equally "visible" and not buried in different part of the article. Burying the criticism within different section of the article is same as forking opposing view out to other page. I should also mention that Christianity and Islam do have criticism section. I have already made suggestion in Judaism article that they should restore Criticism section. I'm required by the policy to assume good faith of other wikipedians. But if you are a member of this faith, please be more alert about inherent potential for believer to be more biased. Because this is blatantly in contradiction to the explict written statement of the guideline, I don't like to waste my time. Vapour
There aren't any sources of criticism that are reliable sources. For example, Christianity has criticism from a nobel prize laureate, and that individual's viewpoints can be easily referenced in published material. Whent the issue of criticism came up earlier on this page, editors tried to use blogs and other unverifiable sources to support criticism. Christianity and Islam are the two biggest religions in the world, so they have had centuries of prominence and criticism. The Baha'i Faith has only been around in the United States in significant numbers for 50 years, and still has a public recognition of less than 50%. There are no unbiased third party observers that have done studies of the religion. The actual points of criticism mentioned above are just the teachings, and many people would see them as either positive or negative. Chastity is considered by some observers to be positive, and to others negative. How can we add a criticism section without also adding a "praise" section? Cuñado - Talk 15:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not switch the subject. You are free to invoke verifiability for each specific content in the criticism section by adding [citation needed]. Then anyone who wish to defend that content must find source from verifiable sources. This, however, is not a valid reason/excuse for content-fork the criticism section as a whole, which is exactly what is going on here. I should also add that fair amount of contents in other Baha'i related articles are not properly sourced or sourced from Baha'i faith (which amount to soapboxing). As you said, Baha'i is a minority faith in Engilish speaking world and there aren't a lot of material one can pull. So, from strictly techinical point of view, Baha'i may not deserve as extensive coverage in wikipedia as they currently have. However, when contents appear to be neutral, people do not generally invoke verifiability criteiria unless something obviously fishy is going on. Still, this would never provide defense when someone do invoke verifiability. We are all supposed to assume good faith of other editors. You are free to invoke verifiability criteria and so am I, but this is not the issue here. I say it again. Content forking the whole section, especially criticism section, without leaving such section and summary in the main page is an explicit violation of guideline. Lastly, it is fairly standard practice in the wikipedia that criticism (or controversy) section usually include both pro/anti POV. So you are free to add apologist counter arguments in the criticism section. Your concern, however, provide no valid argument for what is going on here. By the way, I'm quite sure it's not that difficult to find Islamic (more specifically Shite) criticism of Baha'i interpretation of Islam. Vapour
You're still missing a point here. You keep referring to WP:Content forking, and that article doesn't address the issue that you're raising. There are no guidelines on when/how/where to include criticism, and there are tons of editors that consider any criticism section to be POV by its very nature. The closest thing to a guideline on criticism comes from WP:Criticism, which doesn't support your argument. The criticism section was not forked, it was never here, and attempts to add a section were shot down per WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability, WP:Cite sources, and others. It wasn't just Baha'is trying to promote their religion - as you insinuate -, several non-Baha'i contributors have agreed that the points of criticism brought up should be mentioned as facts in the article, because stating them as either positive or negative aspects is incredibly POV. When it comes down to it, you haven't actually promoted any specific points to be mentioned, so I feel this debate will go on ad nauseam without any results. If you want to debate the formatting and inclusion of criticism on wikipedia, you should be having this debate at WP:criticism. Unless you want to discuss content of the Baha'i article, I won't respond to any more posts. The article is currently conforming to all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cuñado - Talk 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I beg to differ. "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article and ""A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." [2] Moreover, please read my previous comment. WP:Criticism is an essay and not guideline or policy document. It's has not gone through vetting process so it has zero relevance in term of validity. Moreover, it has zero force of persuasion in saying that past debate turned out in your favour. This place isn't popularity contents or majoritarian democracy. Please quote policy and guideline document as I do. So far, you haven't quoted a single policy which say that the existence of "ciriticism section" itself is a violation of policy or guideline. It appear to be the case that fair bit of criticism of this faith can be sourced from verifiable sources. So on what policy/guideline ground are you objecting to the existence of "Criticism" section? Btw, isn't the purpose of a section is to highlight particular topic? So history section highlight historical aspect while criticism section highlight the POVs of critiques and apologists? What practical effect does it serve to delete criticism section except to reduce the visibility of view unfavourable to this faith? What this site care is not the truth of the claim. Rather, what important is the attribution and verifiability of such claim. Vapour

>The Baha'i Faith has only been around in the United States in significant numbers for 50 years.... More like 110, in fact! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.216.11.5 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2007 January 16.

Criticism debate

Just for reference, User:Vapour made an insinuation about POV forking in this article. The actual article that was quoted is content forking, and the section is designed to avoid adding POV to forked articles, and does not address the issue that was raised (i.e. avoiding summaries on main articles) The actual relevant page is Criticism (though not policy), which says that criticism can be either written into its own section, or "incorporated throughout the text". As was mentioned already several times, the current article has the main points of criticism incorporated in the text, in a manner that is NPOV. Cuñado - Talk 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. The article you are citing is not even a guideline but an essay, while the one I cited (Wikipedia:Content forking) is a long extablished guideline which specifically and explicitly describe what is going on here as undesirable. And from the point of view of logic, yes, you can incoporate criticism throughout the text. However, this provide no excuse to content fork the criticism section. I think your argument is based somewhat on logical fallacy. Moreover, please understand that this article should not be a promotion article for Baha'i and forking out criticism into different article do exactly that. Existence of bit of criticism here and there in the main article is not good enough. The existence of criticism section doesn not prohibit incoporation of criticism in other part of article if it is relevant. But guideline still explicitly and specifically state that content fork is undesirable and the fact that some criticism exist in other section doesn't provide valid defense. And I say it again. If you are a member of this faith, please be more alert of potential for believer to be biased. This is quite obvious example of guideline violation. Come on. The guideline specifically say not to fork out the criticism section into different article without leaving the criticism section with a summary in the main article. What more do you want? Vapour
Once again, there is no forking here. The criticisms are in the page for everyone to see; they are presented as facts in the page. -- Jeff3000 06:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately, I don't have to convince you. The guideline is quite explicit in stating that content fork occur when the content of a section is moved to a separate page without leaving the section itself intact with a summary. Forking of "criticism section" is explicitly mentioned as the typical and most common example involving POV fork. Having bit of criticism here and there, IMO, is not going to give a valid defence as such defence is equivelant to "a link to forked page is still there" defence which entirely miss the the point of the content-fork guideline. We can move to arbitration process and get this over with. Feel free to add other arguments if you have any. It only help to make arbitration process much easier (and shorter) to conclude. Given that this is a faith related aritlce, I'm not at all suprised that this affair has ended in this way. Vapour
The criticisms of the Baha'i Faith was never moved to a separate page (and thus never forked), it was placed in the article, in the relevant sections. -- Jeff3000 15:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, unfortunatelly for you and few Baha'i editor in this page, there exist Bahá'í apologetics article. And, as MARussellPESE indicate, there appear to be whole lot of criticism from verifiable sources. Let say, those criticism in other section are not forked, though it is certainly buried and not NPOV, imo. Anyway, it logically follow that those criticisms which is not in this page are forked. IMO, this page provide a textbook description of POV fork. No where in any policy or guideline documents mention that your argument (some critique are here and there in other sections) being good excuse to delete criticism section which summarise opposing POV. The foundamental principel of this site is editorial liberalism, that is any editing which doesn't violate policy and guideline will stay. Burden of proof is on you to show that existence of criticis section, itself, is a violatone of any one of policy and guideline. Moreover, your argument seem to imply that if I create criticism section with few mention of content or argument in other sections, then I can proceed to delete all other section provided that I leave links to it in "See also" section. Such argument sound awfully unfair and unNPOV to me. Unless you can cite policy/guideline which oppose creation of "criticism section", which I wil be suprised if you can do so, leave it alone. Vapour
Very bad form, Vapour, to mis-characterize another's points to score your own. I did not say "there appea(s) to be whole lot of criticism from verifiable sources". Nonsense. I said that there are criticisms from verifible sources, just very few, if any, that merit inclusion as they're not notable or would introduce undue weight. MARussellPESE 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Um... what do you mean by "unfortunately for you and few Baha'i editor in this page?" This actually makes it sound like you have an actual bias towards including criticisms, rather than having an overall concern for policy. I have read this whole discussion, and what you are presenting strikes me as entirely more POV than the current situation, which is to avoid either praise or criticism, but rather tease out verifiable facts and present them in an encyclopedic way. Baha'is are not in control of that process in this article, as plenty of non-Baha'i editors have shown up and corrected, improved, and fixed the various inaccuracies or POV errors made along the way. I invite you to do the same, but collecting criticisms in a section (or praise) merely lumps POV content in one place rather than improving the article in an NPOV way. --Christian Edward Gruber 01:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You are making a very pointless semantic argument which has been dealt with already. As NPOV page state, "Neutral Point of View is a point of view". It is perfectly legitimate to be biased for NPOV. "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article and ""A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." [3] Yes, I'm biased in favour of NPOV and you should too. Just imagine yourself arguing in front of non Baha'i for the deletion of the criticism section. Do you seriously believe that (non Baha'i) people don't think your editorial stance has something to do with your faith? This kind of things happen all the time in wikipedia and every ideologues and true believers seems to think that they have a special case. My creation of the criticism section in Judaism article so far hasn't met any objection despite the fact that Judaism page are viewed far more often than this article. Vapour
Actually, there is a point to the thing, and it isn't just semantics. Yes, NPOV is a POV, and I support it. I'm arguing that your POV is one of anti-religion, and that your advocacy of "criticism" pages amounts to an attempt to stir things up, rather than improve the NPOV-ness of articles. You may not intend it that way, but it comes across that way, to be sure. Also, I believe that my editorial stance has little to do with my faith, because I take this stance on every page, including those of views I disagree with. I'm not saying I have no bias, but that this particular issue is one that is irrelevant to the belief of the page in question. I would hold this view for Christian, Buddhist, or Atheist pages. I don't think "criticism" pages are the slightest bit NPOV. They collect POV, rather than trending the article under discussion towards a more NPOV. Also, your notions of POV-forking should address the actual policy which states that "major POVs" need to be addressed on the page. Undue weight applies, and on this article, among others, non-Baha'i editors, Baha'i editors, and self-described opponents of the Baha'is have all come to consensus on which POVs have due weight. If you disagree, you are free to fix that, or to address your concern to an admin. --Christian Edward Gruber 06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Observing your comments, Vapour, it would appear that you had your mind made up from the beginning. (Ultimately, I don't have to convince you?)

You're by no means the only one to have come to this topic. It would have helped if someone had directed you to the archives much earlier. Please take a look at:

These only go back a year, and hopefully demonstrate that the editors here have demonstrated WP:AGF.

While I disagree with Cuñado on this point — there are criticisms of the Baha'i Faith from reliable sources — it's vital to note both WP:Undue Weight and WP:Notability. Most, if not all, so-called criticisms of the Baha'i faith don't merit inclusion under these.

Considering these, and noting that there are 5M - 7M Baha'is:

  • Bábí/Bahá'í split - there are perhaps a few thousand Azalis
  • Bahá'í divisions - there are perhaps a few hundred members of the various Remeyite groups
  • Bahá'í review - there are perhaps scores of academics affected and only a minority have objected openly (Cole & MacEoin being the most vocal, but not by any stretch representing the mainstream of Baha'i academics.)
  • Expulsion of so-called dissidents - again this involves perhaps a dozen former Baha'is. And what religion doesn't have the last word on the membership rolls?

That these points are neglected is not a POV Fork because their exclusion adheres to these other guidelines.

These items are scriptural in nature and are widely accepted inside the community:

Niether of these are addressed on any of the main articles of any of the movements noted below beyond either a statement of what they believe, or a link to another article. Are those POV forks?

If these kinds of questions are included in any religion article, they will inevitably turn them into theological debates on the page. That's apologia; hardly encyclopedic. Do we really want detailed sections in the Christianity article stating that "Judaism rejects the Trinity for these reasons, Islam rejects it for these, Hinduism has these takes on it, Buddhism thinks the subject is meaningless", etc. ad nauseum?

If an argument is to be made that "all religion articles (should) have 'Criticism' sections" and pointing to Christianity and/or Islam as examples, one would have to address these points:

  • There's no policy or guideline on that point.
  • Those two religions are probably the most controversial topics of all time.
  • WP:NPOV does not require every last voice a hearing, no matter how verifiable.
  • Several religion articles don't have "Criticism" sections, even though they do have controversial aspects internally.
See Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism
The "Debates" in Confucianism seem to legitimately revolve around ambiguities in/about that school of thought.
Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses have some spectacular ambiguities, and hold some strong positions, which almost invite criticism. Similar ambiguities are absent in Baha'i: e.g. homosexuality. We are hardly off the religious scale on that point.
  • Which "criticisms" of Baha'i actually do get over Undue Weight and Notability.

Both Chrisitanity and Islam have criticism articles. If those aren't POV forks, why is linking to "Baha'i apologetics" one? Because, what must be borne in mind is that while WP:NOT#PAPER neither does it have to have every last notion on a topic in it's main article. We are trying to make an encyclopedia that's readable, ¿no? Each of these topics is addressed in a rather robust (even disproportionate) suite of articles on the subject, which are readily accessed with less than two clicks — fully conforming to "After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style)." MARussellPESE 15:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My mind was not made up, as you say. Reducing the visibility of opposing view is such an obvious example of NPOV violation that my personal interest was more about how Baha'i believers behave in response to my innocent insertion of "Criticism Section". Unfortunately, as I stated before, "I wasn't suprised how this turned out". The way many believers of any faith tend to behave does turn me off from whatever claims (e.g. "Islam is peace") they make. It's still interesting to observe the stability of religiou articles in wikipedia. Suprisingly, the most stable and well organised main article, IMO, is Islam while most unstable and messy one is Buddhism. I guess Buddah's teaching doesn't extend to wikipedia edit war. :) I don't intend to generalise whole Baha'i but this certainly became part of my statistics.
I have alread discussed the issue of verifiability so your insuniation that I'm trying to get any and all anti-Baha'i contents in this page is patently false. Moreover, it is stated explicitly that "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." and "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article." [4] I really don't know how one can justify an entire deletion of criticism section which provide summary and gateway to opposing POV. Afterall, the deleted criticism section only had a "sectstub" tag and one wikilink. If critical view point isn't relevanat, I don't know what is. I sholuld also mention that adhering to other guidelines but not adhering to this particular guideline is not kosher. Any one violation of policy or guideline is a ground for revision. Otherwise, what the point of having many policies or guidelines. If this goes to arbitration process, my point is quite simply. I don't want the faithfull to delete the criticim section itself. IMO, it's patently non NPOV to turf out the opposing view of Baha'i from the main page withou giving full and visilbile access in the form of criticism section. If you want to make a valid defence, you must give positive argument, that having a criticism section with verifiable content violate wikipedia guideline and policy. Lastly, you are supposed to quote policy document and guideline, not the past debate. You are free to reference past debate if you wish, but it is not requirement for anyone to go through the past debate. Vapour
I don't think this is as notable as you're claiming it is. There are around 6-8 million Baha'is, and maybe 1-2 THOUSAND anti-Baha'is (not counting Iran.) And probably less than a dozen anti-Baha'i sites that are not blogs or Personal websites (I.E. Original research.) That's hardly notable enough to be given a spot on the summary article. Zazaban 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
ah, firstly, it's not the number of follower which matter. Question is whether opposing POV of 1-2 thousand of so called "anti-Baha'i's" (how sectarian, never mind) are commited to verifiable sources. I believe there are number of verifiable published source which mention their existence and their argument. If the are mentioned in verifiable sources, then their view as described in the verifiable source count in wikipedia irrespective of their number. However, you are perfectly entitled to state that such opposing view is followed by 1-2 thousand people, provided that you can back up your statistics from verifiable source. To be honest, I'm not sure it is kosher to take stance that one sect is Bahai and the other sect is anti Bahai. That sound awfully NPOV to me. We are supposed to descirbe different POV and are not supposed to advocate one over another. I have noticed that this article take your stance, which is another issue I should raise once this is over. Moreover, as you indicated, I think there are quite few verifiable content one can pull in regard to Islamic (or Shiite Islamic) refutation of Baha'i interpretation of Islam. People who subscribed to Islamic POV about Baha'i vastly outnumber Bahai followers. Should I censor Baha'i POV about Baha'i simply because they are vastly outnumbered by Islamic POV? Lastly, i think I can now guess what is going on here. Isn't the existence of schism a bit of thelogically sensitive matter to Baha'i? I really don't have time for this kind of thing. I just want to have a section titled "criticism". And strictly speaking, POV argument of so called "anti Bahai" are not criticism of Baha'i faith per se. They are opposing argument of one sect of Baha'i against another. How interesting to discover that I was thinking of criticism in term of something from non Bahai' while you are thinking in term of something from opposing sect. Again, I'm not suprised to discover that sectarism is often more intense that inter-religous dispute. Vapour
Vapour, First of all, congratulations for spelling your name right. (I'm Canadian, so Vapor would have been just... well... wrong.) On a more serious note, I don't ACTUALLY think that you're trying to be POV here, so please don't take any of my comments in that light. I assume good faith. However, please understand that the Baha'is here are not trying to hide elements of thier religion they don't want others to see. The editors who are Baha'is and contribute to this page have shown great courage in restoring things that they would otherwise have been uncomfortable with, in an effort to be fair, NPOV, and to conform to Wikipedia policies. Your views on a criticism section, however, have been already dealt with through consensus that has included non-Baha'i editors.
You are right - content-forking is a problem, if it is intended to get around NPOV. However, that's not what has happened. Criticisms were not removed, but embedded as facts. That is the only NPOV way to do things. To lump praise or criticisms into sections is merely to co-ordinate POV - it doesn't make the article NPOV. Note, it's not "All Points of View", it's "Neutral Points of View", which means that all relevant, verifiable, and notable points of view need to be expressed in a neutral way. This has been done. If it hasn't, then please suggest specifics. However, in examining your commentary, I haven't seen specific criticisms that were not adequately represented in the main page, but an overall critique of the article's format. I hope you can help to offset any Baha'i bias among the authors/editors by finding such bias and helping us make the article more neutral, but the a POV section in favour or in opposition isn't NPOV at all. If there are notable criticisms of, for example, Baha'i views on homosexuality, then where that is mentioned, references to specific criticisms and responses to such criticisms can be made, and if there is enough of such, then you summarize the points, and link to a daughter article. This is all very standard Wikipedia.
I hear your concern about religious pages, and your "unsurprisedness" so to speak at this situation. Unfortunately, that comment actually indicates an anti-religion bias on your part, which, towards brutal intellectual self-honesty, you need to examine for yourself. None of the editors I've met on these pages is guilty of the kind of un-checked bias you're stressed about, and the history shows, as I mentioned, great restraint and balance. Your reaction to the situation is as instructive as is the reaction of the Baha'is. And if you have disagreement with the style of the article, then you need to create a consensus, because this has already been agreed upon by a consensus process, per Wikipedia policy, as referenced by MARusselPESE. --Christian Edward Gruber 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I merely making an observation in regard to some people's behaviour in a setting like wikipedia. The fact that Christian evangelical, Opus Dei members, Salafist, and so far in this page, Baha'i affiliated editors, tend to fail in this regard, in this instance, by objecting to the creation of a section titled "Criticism", does not mean I don't take notice of others with faith who don't behave in this way. Consensus in this site refered to consensus based on policy/guideline. Argument not based on policy document don't count in the consensus. Moreover, the consensus ultimately refer to the whole wikipedia community and are not limited to this talk page. I'm free to take this dispute outside of this page where arbitrator(s) is unlikely to be a member of this faith. I'm making very simple NPOV edit, which is to creat a section titled "Criticism", which is usually a standard section in article about idea. When creation of a section titled "criticism" cause an edit dispute to this extent, I believe that the problem lies not with me but elsewhere. Still, I'm not suprised that this kind of NPOV behaviour take place in the article like this one. It just that some nonNPOV edit is more blatant that the other. Deleting a section titled "criticism" with just "sectstub" tag with one single wikilink, IMO, amout to just that. Reducing visibility of opposing view is still violation of NPOV. Anyone who come to this page should have easy access to it. Having a section titled criticism achieve just that. I also request you and others to make positive policy/guideline case against the creation of this particular section. You seems to argue that coordinating the critical POV into criticim section is non NPOV. I don't believe this is ever mention in policy page. Afterall, criticism section is sort of standard in many article. If your argument is valid, we should start deleting any criticism section in other articles and start dispersing it elsewhere. I personally find this argument ridiculous but if you don't think so, that is o.k. It will help the dispute resolution process as long as we know what the difference of our opinion regarding the policy is. Vapour
Actually, I guess I AM starting a policy debate about "criticism" sections. I don't find them at all NPOV, either here or on any other pages. And I'm getting a little tired of this, Vapour. I was assuming goodwill, but your "observations" are certainly anti-religious, in that they are "anti-religous-people" in character. Just re-examine your statements. They drip with bias towards religious people. Leaving that aside, however, I repeat (and you haven't answered the claim) that the criticisms here have not been hidden, nor made less accessible - they've been moved into the article text so it is more encyclopedic. Separating them out from the topical sections merely focuses on specific POVs, which is itself POV. Rather, a more encyclopedic approach is to take things topic by topic, and include relevant views (yes, all relevant views, whether I like them or not) in the topical sections. Otherwise it's all just a big "he said, she said" kind of page - not interesting, readable, nor informative.
You've got a chip on your shoulder, Vapour my friend, and it's showing. If you can point to specific criticisms which are being obscured, or given less promience than verifiability, notability, etc. would suggest, then please offer those critiques of the article. If you have a policy-oriented change to make, then you have to make your own policy-based-argument that criticism sections are mandatory by policy. They are done some places, and not done others. They are not done here, and this was reached by consensus which included non-Baha'is, Baha'is, and those who expressly oppose the Baha'is (which is what was meant above by anti-Baha'i by the way). The current consensus does NOT violate policy, and if you think it does, then I beg you to take this to external arbitration. This article has been through that process before and it has survived, because it is generally quite neutral and includes compromises by people of varying points of view to make as balanced an article as possible, within Wikipedia policy.
Lastly, your earlier comments about "Shi'ih views of hte Baha'is" and all are well taken, but to do this, you would end up making unreadable articles all over wikipedia, because you would have to introduce every criticism of every religion of every other religion on every relevant page. It would be crazy. There is some room for organizing things so that information is readable and clear. By introducing a mass of opposition, outside of summary form, on any page, you reduce readability. Each page needs to have relevant, verifiable, and notable views adequately expressed and/or summarized, with additional information on said views available in daughter articles. What you are advocating amounts to chaos. Please recognize the character of the disagreement in this thread (something you continue to ignore). Baha'is are not seeking to prevent other views to be present, as you assert, but are trying to keep this article readable, clean, organized, and NPOV. You are actually disrupting that, though that is clearly not your intent. I guess I will just re-iterate my view that "criticism" sections per-se are POV and unhelpful, and I'll take that thought to the relevant admin pages and propose alternative policy. In that regard, I have to thank you for starting this, because I think that changing policy like this might actually improve all the articles on various beliefs. --Christian Edward Gruber 06:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Vapour, please note that I did note guidelines and policies in this: WP:Undue Weight (which is WP:NPOV) and WP:Notability. Others have been arguing from policy and guidelines as well. Your argument about WP:NPOV#FORK and a criticism section have been asked and answered — from two different directions: significant points are embedded per WP:NPOV & Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts and insignificant ones left out per WP:Undue Weight. C.E. Gruber's points are on target here.

Nobody's "insinuating" anything about your motives or objectives. But could you get specific about what your concerns are. I can't get a handle on what you're trying to accomplish here. The only point I can see you're making is that this article "needs a criticism section". What criticisms? What's missing? You seem to be presuming that there are notable criticisms. Isn't that POV? MARussellPESE 06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note I am not taking a position on whether there should be a criticism section or not. But points going back and forth seem to question the basic validity of the article or not - "obvious violations" vs references to consensuses and such. Does the status as a Featured Article establish any facts on whether "obvious violations" are here in practice? --Smkolins 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This version was the one immediately prior to the day it was the page one FA. (I haven't cited any particular one on that date because these are often subjected to a lot of vandalism.)
Note: No "Criticism" section. When these are added, they usually don't stand up. MARussellPESE 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

List of prophets in intro

Hey all. The list of prophets was fleshed out to the closer to full list of known, accepted prophets. I knwo this list has been kept short by agreement way back, so i'm putting this topic here to allow people to discuss which prophets should be listed, if any, and how many. I believe there's a more comprehensive list elsewhere in the Baha'i articles which mention Hud, the prophet to the Sabeans, Noah, etc. all prophets that would have to go into a full list of "prophets accepted by Baha'is". I think it's all two long.

My own view is that Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad make sense, because these are central prophets to religions that are typically seen as "Abrahamic" religions. Buddha is added (I suspect) to clarify that the religion is not outside of connection to Dharmic traditions either. Obviously a full treatment of prophets, the nature thereof, and the relationships between them would be inappropriate in the lead paragraph. Anybody have a bright idea for better summarization of the point without toasting off the lead paragraph as unreadable? --Christian Edward Gruber 08:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you mentioned what I was thinking. I would be happy to shorten it to Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. Those are basically the three biggest religions in the world. A belief in Buddha implies a belief in the Hindu books, as does a belief in Jesus imply an acceptance of the Jewish prophets. Mentioning those three keeps it to the point and doesn't distract the reader. Cuñado - Talk 09:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, Buddhism does NOT accept the Hindu canon. Zazaban 15:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't want to get into a conversation about Buddha, but he came from a predominantly Hindu society, and his teachings were a counterweight to the corruption of the Hindu teachings. He frequently commented on the abuse of power of the caste system. Cuñado - Talk 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
And the point is rather moot. No one is arguing that Baha'i teachings do not accept the validity of these, just what would be easiest in the article to summarize the point without becoming too long and unreadable. --Christian Edward Gruber 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm rethinking this, especially since it's not really in the intro, but in a section on beliefs. I have no problems summarizing, especially if there's a main article on "Manifestsations" linked in, but if we're really summarizing, then adding in Adam, Hud, and Noah in that location is just adding lists of trivia, which are more encyclopoedically included elsewhere. --Christian Edward Gruber 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not tie the prophets mentioned to the religions mentioned that they founded? It says "He claimed to be the expected redeemer and teacher prophesied in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions," - or combine the two threads of information - "the founders and religions they founded" or some such....--Smkolins 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I went the extra mile and removed both the list and the follow up list. The list of which prophets isn't important to make the point, and it distracts people into the "but do you accept this or that one?" discussion. The list is available on Progressive Revelation which has been made a see-also there, so it's close at hand --Christian Edward Gruber 18:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject, the intro mentions "Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions." Why not mention "Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and other religions." Note the link to progressive revelation. The three religions mentioned are the most relevant and recent, as mentioned above. Cuñado - Talk 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that people want to be inclusive out of either habit or just simple courtesy. But the list is not exhaustive, and cannot be taken as such. I don't think people except Baha'is will care if the summary list is not complete, so long as it's not incomplete in a POV or distorting way. I would tend to keep Hinduism in, not so much for niceness, but because between the largest four they constitute the vast majority of the planet - espscially now that we don't have a second list makign this one redundant. I think four + "other" is good. So for me, it's: "Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other religions." I put in many because not all religions match the criteria of independent revelation in Baha'i terms. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder, now that you've changed it, Cunado19, whether it doesn't make sense to completely eliminate that list too, replacing it wtih seomthing like most of the world's religions. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is that a short list is useful to the article, but can see the problems since it won't be all inclusive. I think the current list is fine, and so would be replacing Hinduism with Buddhism. -- Jeff3000 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

for citation needed of more than 200 killed...

Where "Bahá'ís continue to be persecuted in Islamic countries, especially Iran, where over 200 believers were executed between 1978 and 1998[citation needed]." It would be nice to go for the best citation of course. Briefly a couple turn up but perhaps a better one can be found - this is what I have so far -

Maybe this one? World Wide Religious News - "Shiite regime's persecution keeps Baha'i faith in shadows of Iran" by Robert Collier ("LA Chronicle," December 4, 2003) --Smkolins 04:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've already added the citation, it comes from International Federation for Human Rights (2003-08-01). "Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran" (PDF). fdih.org. Retrieved 2006-10-20.. 201 Baha'is killed from 1979 to 1998. -- Jeff3000 05:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bahá'í Art

I think would someone can put some article about Bahá'í Art, involving many types of works like musics, verses, films... or famous bahá'ís artists. Just an idea, i wont create any article because my english is bad.. thanks! Alláh'u'abhá! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.2.37.138 (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

There are plenty of bio's of several artists who are Bahá'ís - and many of them have some comment about how the religion affected them. Many profiled are Jazz musicians and a few do other art including some actors. Check the list of Bahá'í individuals].--Smkolins 11:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion and Politics

I started the Religion and politics page as a hub article to go with the Christianity and politics page. The Bahá'í Faith and politics section is large enough to stand alone as a separate page - can someone check the information and create the page with appropriate links please. Jackiespeel 14:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at sometime this weekend when I have more time. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baháʼí_Faith/Archive_13&oldid=1090272555"