Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New Format and Changes

I just completely redid the page. Several sections are commented out instead of deleted, so things can be put back in easily.

I also started using the quote format found here... Quotation Cunado19 6 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)

OK I'm pretty much done with grammar and link edits. I'll leave the commented out portions in there for another few weeks in case someone wants to merge parts in.
It appears to me that a lot of the "objective" sources used here are just people that read the Baha'i history books and made their own comments. I don't see them as a unique source of information. The Ahmadiyya web site, which is quoted all over the Baha'i pages, is a group who wrote "history and doctrines of the Babi movement" in an attempt to argue away the Baha'i Faith and establish their own prophet as the true Mihdi. They are not even from the same area, their movement began in Pakistan in the late 19th century. Their best arguments are just making accusations and have no historical foundation. Feel free to quote it all you want, but don't present it as some objective source revealing the true story of Baha'u'llah. Cunado19 8 July 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Some, such as Dr. Suheil Bushrui, feel that His writings in Persian and in Arabic are of excellent literary quality [2], while e.g. Ahmad Kasravi, a renowned (but not uncontroversial) Iranian scholar and linguist, posits Bahá'u'lláh has poor grammar and style in his Arabic writings. - Uhmm with the reference to the last bit, how can a Iranian be a judge on Arabic writing? maybe at the time of Baha'ullah since back then Farsi had more Arabic, and in what proof does he have? --Aryan 12:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

He's entitled to his opinion. I imagine that he may well have been fluent in Arabic? Don't forget Baha'u'llah was Iranian too... As for the second part of your question....... Ahmad Kasravi wrote in Farci and I don't know anyone who's ever read his stuff (so we've had a hard time scrubbing that quote). He was rather secular and spent much of his life slating everything and anything that wasn't mainstream Islam (and even some of that too). He hated sufiism and therefore also Baha'u'llah and Babi writings. He is however rather well known in Iranian circles so its a little hard to just discredit him. He was assassinated after annoying just about every religious person in Iran at the time...... -- Tomhab 21:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Was able to change the old and very unclear image of the Shrine to a new picture with better color. Nmentha 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Just an idea, if anyone knows how to do this, we should put a link at the top that makes a sound pronouncing "Baha'u'llah". Most people can't pronounce it from seeing how it's spelled. Here is an example of another wiki page doing it. Cunado19 00:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting thought - Its quite easy though - simply record your voice saying the name to an "ogg vorbis" format sound file and link it. In my opinion I think it might be good for a native Persian speaker to say it however as I'm well aware that the pronounciation gets slurred by the rest of us.
Why use ogg vorbis? read the page and you'll see. Its all to do with licencing (strictly speaking if wikipedia were to use mp3 then they'd have to pay around 2-3c every time a file is saved I believe. Vorbis is available under "free" licence (and is also better). -- Tomhab 21:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Use of non-English languages in naming

Basically what's got me writing this is the line:

"most notably the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and the Book of Certitude"

in the first paragraph. Its fine, except it uses the Farci for Aqdas and the English for the Iqan. First off the Aqdas was written in the Arabic anyway (and formally called the "Kitab-al-Aqdas" which is how it is said in Arabic), but thats not the point.

My proposal is to have some sort of scheme for this type of thing. I offer my personal favourites, but only insist on consistency (for obvious reasons of one confusing between the Kitab-i-Iqan and the Book of Certitude).

I propose sticking to the Farci (as they're best known as) of "Kitab-i-Aqdas" and "Kitab-i-Iqan" and references to their English meanings are only added afterwards. Thats because "Most Holy Book" sounds odd, and not too many people know what the Arabic name. For other books use the name which they are most commonly known by (no need to dig up how to say "Hidden words" in Farci.

Please let me know your thoughts. -- Tomhab 17:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion. --Occamy 21:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. As long as they're linked it doesn't matter too much I think. Cunado19 03:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
How about we take this further and remove all diacritical marks. English does not use diacritical marks. It seems silly to have the French spelling of a name on an English page. That goes for all Baha'i and Bayani pages.
English does use diacritical marks, just not in every day language. Since these pages go for factual accuracy, then it is necessary to introduce the entire offical spellings.

I went ahead and changed both names to the non-English, as it seems that it is more consistent. What do you think? --Twilightsojourn 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Azal's claim of `He Who God Shall Make Manifest` (HWGSMM)

About Subh-i-Azal making a claim... There are a number of things that Bayanis claim that are contrary to Baha'i history books. The murders, the poison, the character of Baha'u'llah, the character of Azal, the successor of Azal, and I'm sure many others.

As I've come to understand, the only real external source was EG Browne. The fact that he didn't record Azal making his claim doesn't mean anything. If Azal did make the claim, he eventually gave it up, that's obvious now. But Baha'i history books say that he did make the claim, and as a Baha'i, I have some confidence in those that I don't have in Bayanis. I don't expect others to feel the same, but I wouldn't exactly call it a Baha'i myth. I'll take out any references that he did order murders, poison Bah'u'llah, and claim to be HWGSMM. And I'll make them Baha'i references instead.

The following is interesting on the subject...

"The name of E. G. Browne stands very high among orientalists of this or any age. His fame is supported by solid, enduring achievement. But in the works of this renowned scholar Mirza Yahya is given a prominence which is misleading. It has actually misled some whose sincerity is above reproach, and has also provided argument to men obviously hostile to the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh... it is also a fact that Edward Browne was tragically mistaken, that his considerable prestige aided the furtherance of the designs of the adversaries of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh."
"It is strange to see Mr H. Kamshad presenting Bahá’u’lláh and Subh-i-Azal as ‘descendants’ of the Báb, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as the ‘founder of Bahaism’. Also strange is Mr Peter Avery’s statement that Bahá’u’lláh was the ‘chosen successor’ to the Báb. Stranger is Mme Vera Kubickova’s reference to Haji Mirza Yahya Dawlatabadi as a member of ‘the Bahá’í sect’—proficient man-of-letters and a famous politician, who was in no way favourably inclined towards the Bahá’í Faith. Prof. Joseph M. Upton states that it was Subh-i-Azal who was ‘transferred to Adrianople at the request of the Shah’. Mr John Marlowe in a footnote asserts that ‘Bahai’ism is a heretical variant of Islam’. Mr Donald N. Wilber mentions that some 40,000 Bábís were massacred about two years after the martyrdom of the Báb, and that Mirza Yahya ‘settled at Adrianople’. These are only a few instances chosen at random from more recent works."
(H.M. Balyuzi, E.G. Browne and The Baha'i Faith, p. 5)

Cunado19 03:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I am looking for accademic claims that Subh-i-Azal claimed to be Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest (will use HWGSMM from here). I have read quite a lot on the history of the era and on the topic of those claiming to be HWGSMM but can't remember seeing anything about Subh-i-Azal claiming to be it. I am fully aware of the various claims and counter claims of the two Babi 'sects'. If you can remember where you've read it then we can put it in, but it doesn't appear to come up often in the stuff I've read.
I called it a Baha'i myth, but perhaps meant an urban legend - something that is mentioned in children's classes and during uninformed Baha'i banter, but not in accademic literature (as they know better).
Having said this, I would be happy to be proven wrong -- Tomhab 23:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
From my research, I've found no solid claims that Azal ever thought he was HWGSMM. However, in the years following the Bab's death, more than 20 of Azal's closest relatives and friends claimed to be HWGSMM before Baha'u'llah ever proclaimed that he was the one. Whenever I think of what Azal had to go through, I understand completely the anguish he must have felt in trying to find HWGSMM. He was given a responsibility by the Bab and it seemed like the people closest to him all tried to trick him and take that responsibility.
Anyway, when we look at the Azalis today, it becomes quite clear that Azal never openly claimed that he was HWGSMM to his followers. The Azalis, or Bayanis, seem to be an extension of the Babis, with no strong definitive scripture that builds on the original Bayan. Anonymous 14:32, 15 October 2005
Well said, but there is still no scripture that seems to say he didn't ever make the claim. As you've noted a great many people made the claim - what is there to make one say that Shoghi Effendi was wrong? Nabil who wrote the Dawn Breaker's claimed to have been HWGSMM, before retracting it and supporting Baha'u'llah.
As for "strong difinitive scripture that builds on the original Bayan" you've forgotten the Motammem Al-Bayan which Azal wrote personally and is now considered as significant as the Bayan by Azalis/Bayanis. He is revered seemingly in much the same was as Abdul'Baha is to Baha'is - quite a lot - and his teachings (from what I've noticed) are pretty gospel binding. -- Tomhab 22:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The quote about all the academic sources making wildly inaccurate statements was kind of the point. EG Browne is the most accurate as far as I can tell, but even he made some mistakes. When he interviewed Azal, of course he didn't record him claiming to be HWGSMM, but that doesn't prove or disprove it, since one "academic" source said that he was a Baha'i.

Baha'i sources report his claim in God Passes By and The Dawn-breakers, which are the two primary sources of history.

So really there's no way to academically prove it that I know of. If he did, for obvious reasons he stopped, and his followers hid any trace of it to keep their movement alive. Like I said, I think it falls into the category of disputed claims, like the poison, that have no external academic sources on the subject. Report it however you want, I'm really not as opinionated as I'm sounding. As long as you don't call it a Baha'i myth/legend, cause it is stated in Baha'i history books. Cunado19 15:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


The point is that academic sources are based on primary sources anyway, and the primary sources here come from two groups that are entirely opposed to each other, and whose accounts differ in most respects - something that's very hard for a historian to later put together a certain account of - they all have to deal with the questions of *which* accounts they're going to trust. Hmm - I can't remember GPB and Dawn Breakers mentioning Azal making a claim to anything other than being the Bab's appointed successor. Cunado, can you give us the extracts from those two sources that say that? Bahá'í (it's a long time since I read them, and they are both long books - still I thought I would have remembered something as important as that about Azal's claims!) PaulHammond 11:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry but God Passes By and the Dawn-breakers are *not* the two primary source of history. First of all, they were writen many decades after the events they purport to portray. Secondly, we have many many sources that pre-date these. It is relatively clear from Azal's own efforts that he never claimed to be HWGSMM, since if he had, then he would have simply responded to all those others, "No it's me!" and he didn't. He responded by saying, "No you're not" or effectively similar actions. And I echo Paul, post quotes that say that he claimed to be HWGSMM with the page numbers so we can read it for ourselves. Thanks. Wjhonson 19:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Baha'i references to Azal's claim

At the instigation of Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani, Mirza Yahya betrayed the trust of the Báb, claimed to be His successor, and intrigued against Bahá’u’lláh, even attempting to have Him murdered. When Bahá’u’lláh formally declared His Mission to him in Adrianople, Mirza Yahya responded by going to the length of putting forward his own claim to be the recipient of an independent revelation. His pretensions were eventually rejected by all but a few, who became known as Azalis

(note 190 of The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 248)

Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani, who is described by Shoghi Effendi as the “Antichrist of the Bahá’í Revelation”. He was a man of corrupt character and great personal ambition who induced Mirza Yahya to oppose Bahá’u’lláh and to claim prophethood for himself...

(note 192 of The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 249)

Mirza Aqa Jan was accordingly commissioned to bear to Mirza Yahya the newly revealed Suriy-i-Amr, which unmistakably affirmed those claims, to read aloud to him its contents, and demand an unequivocal and conclusive reply. Mirza Yahya’s request for a one day respite, during which he could meditate his answer, was granted. The only reply, however, that was forthcoming was a counter-declaration, specifying the hour and the minute in which he had been made the recipient of an independent Revelation, necessitating the unqualified submission to him of the peoples of the earth in both the East and the West.

(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 167)

The conduct of Mirza Yahya, who claimed to be the successor of the Báb...

(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 114)
I know this isn't specific, depends how you see 'successor'.

for he longed to take the place of Bahá’u’lláh and, indeed, when formally apprised in Adrianople of Bahá’u’lláh’s claim, made his counter-claim and declared himself to be the bearer of a new revelation.

(Adib Taherzadeh, The Child of the Covenant, p. 34)

In order to communicate this message to Mirza Yahya, Bahá’u’lláh revealed the Suriy-i-Amr (Surih of Command) in His own handwriting and instructed His amanuensis Mirza Aqa Jan to take the Tablet to Mirza Yahya, read it aloud and demand a conclusive reply from him. On being apprised of the contents of the Tablet and the claims of Bahá’u’lláh, Mirza Yahya indicated that he needed some time during which to meditate on the subject. The following day he sent a message to Bahá’u’lláh that he himself had become the recipient of divine Revelation and it was incumbent upon all to obey and follow him.

(Adib Taherzadeh, The Child of the Covenant, p. 120)

The crisis was caused by Mirza Yahya, Bahá’u’lláh’s half-brother, whose covetousness and jealousy of Bahá’u’lláh prompted him to openly challenge Bahá’u’lláh’s authority and to issue his own claim to be the Promised One.

(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 113)
Couldn't find it in Dawnbreakers. I think cause that book is mostly about earlier events. Now I'm not sure if you're arguing that it was not actually stated, or that it was originally made up and got passed down in the Baha'i history books. I don't really care how the article puts it, cause like everyone said, there's no academic way to positively prove or disprove it. But it is claimed in Baha'i texts. Cunado19 14:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I take it all back :). Having said that, I think it should be important to say that Baha'is believe that, but I'm sure Bayanis don't. It would be quite a damning acknowledgement for them. -- Tomhab 16:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's most likely that Bayani's do not believe that he claimed to be HWGSMM. I'll email that Bayani group and ask them. Wjhonson 19:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

something from ru.wikipedia

I found this image on ru.wikipedia

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Shrine_of_Bahaullah.jpg

I think it is of the shrine but i'm not sure. Could it be useful?Geni 11:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It's of the shrine. This is the corner where his body is. The picture usually used is of the door on the left of this picture. The house where he died is in the background. Go ahead and add it. Why are you on the Russian page? (I think it's Russian) Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 12:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I was seeing which wikis the person I protected this page against had been active on.Geni 13:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
You are diligent. I edited the picture on the top. Might I suggest you just protect the page for awhile? The only edits for awhile have been involving the picture. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk
there will always be fights over the picture and I don't want to keep this page protected forever so I just keep it on my watchlist and hope for the best.Geni 15:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Recommend replacing ref. to "Orthodox Baha'i Faith" with one to "Baha'i divisions"

This link represents a biased POV here. The "Baha'i Divisions" ariticle lists membership at one thousand. The "Orthodox Baha'i Faith" article states "Total membership is estimated at up to a few thousand." If this represents say 5,000 at the outside, then this is 0.1%± of the membership of the mainstream Baha'i community, taken here at 5M members. Having a link to this organization on this page makes less sense than linking to the Baha'i Faith on the Jesus Christ bio article. 5M members vs. 2.1B is 0.2% --MARussellPESE 17:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

you can try, but I think there's a guy whose mission is to add this link to all Baha'i pages, going back to when Rick Boatright was involved in editing the Baha'i Faith article about a year before I joined. The person who most recently added this link back in may not be the same person, but his edit comments suggest he'd be willing to revert war over keeping that link in. I'm not bothered enough about it to go that far to keep it out! PaulHammond 23:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I've just made one effort at a solution - if it's relevant to have a link to the Orthodox article in that section, it's much more relevant to have a link back to the mainstream Baha'i article, don't you think? PaulHammond 23:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Jawohl! An elegant approach. I'll browse Archive 1 to see what consensus, if any, there was on the subject. I don't want (Read: have time) for a revert war over this, but this link seems most irrelevant. --MARussellPESE 12:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Really, there never has been a concensus. The simple reality is, the OBF exists, and as to numeric ratios, there are other standards. The OBF is the only heretical Baha'i division to manage to as yet, survive the loss of its founder. (Well, in a sense. In the sense to which Marangella was the one who convinced Remey to make his statements, who played on his depression and sense of loss, who manipulated the tragedy, then they have NOT yet survived the loss of their founder, but that's a technicality and a nit.) They are the largest Baha'i division by far, and deserve the link about as much as say the Coptic church deserves a link off the Jesus Christ page. (There are no exact parallels, don't let's get started there.) -- the simple reality is, that by constantly fighting the existance of these minor links, we draw attention to them. Instead, the FAR FAR BETTER SOLUTION is a rich web of dozens and dozens of Baha'i pages with deep content interlinking in a rich way. There are, for example, much of the explication of the administractive order, lots of history, links to promemnant Baha'i Communities, etc, which do not yet exist. There is, for example, no link to the oldest Baha'i community in the nation off the Wisconson page. Let's focus on the important stuff. Comments which focus on suppressing heresy, instead make the mainline Baha'i community look like a bunch of religious zealots attempting to emulate the inquisition. Let's not do that. Rick Boatright 13:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Rick's got a valid point on suppression. Baha'is can, and sometimes do, look like stormtroopers on this. I personally think that any edit made by an anonymous IP address should automatically be a candidate for speedy deletion.
- The question I raised, and has been raised previously in the Archives, was one of relevance, not dogmatic orthodoxy. In point of fact, today's "Jesus Christ" and "Joseph Smith" do not link to Copts or the Reorganized LDS. Also, I think that folks from Wisconsin would likewise be cheesed off (Sorry, couldn't resist.) about a link to the Baha'i Faith off the "Wisconsin" article.
- Paul's solution of adding a link back to the main "Baha'i" article dovetails nicely with Rick's excellent point that the comparison of mainstream Baha'is to these groups is striking. That's why I'm now suggesting replacing the OBF link with one to "Baha'i divisions."
- As the OBF has itself splintered wouldn't it be more NPOV, and in-line with and encyclopedia to link to an article that discusses these divisions neutrally?
- I appreciate the thoughtful discussion all around. --MARussellPESE 13:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, ok, but Kenosha, Wisconsin sure needs the word Baha'i to appear there. I mean, Don Amiche, Danial Tavanti, Orsen Wells, sure, all deserve their place as hometown boys, but surely SOMEONE can make a note of the oldest Baha'i community in North AMerica. Not to mention Enterprise, Kansas as number two. Rick Boatright 19:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I definitely disagree with your point #1 - and you'd find many other wikipedians would disagree on principle. Granted that sometimes an anon edit is someone trying to avoid, say, a 24 hour lock on their account, or falling foul of the 3 revert rule - but then there are anon edits who are newbies making spelling corrections. The fact that *anyone* can edit Wikipedia, and you don't have to sign up to do it is a big point of principle for some - not so much for me - but I'd say you have to take each edit on its merits, and not just assume things about the author because they haven't signed in. Sure, it can be a warning sign of an active vandal - but very often something else is going on. PaulHammond 22:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that anonymous edits should be speedy deleted, just that they should be candidates. I've been around enough online flame-wars myself to view online anonymity with a jaundiced eye. These Baha'i pages seem to suffer a lot from anonymous edits undoing work that you regulars have put into this. Removing the picture seems to regularly be executed anonymously. I'm getting the picture though that the price of wikipedian freedom is eternal vigilance. MARussellPESE 12:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Back to the point you originally brought up, how to deal with a link to OBF on every page... well there are 20 other links that could be relevant on any given page under the "see also" section. The link to OBF under 'see also' is because it is not allowed on the template, so you could simply repeat a bunch of template links there, or add relevant non-Baha'i links. For example, on the Administrative Order page, also link to World government or Messianism. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 04:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not just link a page to every Baha'i page on the orthodox Baha'i pages? How about Bahá'í Faith, Universal House of Justice, International Teaching Centre, Bahá'í World Centre and the like? -- Tomhab 21:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Name is spelt wrongly

Dear Author,

In the section, Early Life, in subsection Background, Bahá'u'lláh's father's name appears thrice. Twice it is spelt in one way, (Mirza Buzurg), and once it is spelt in another, (Mirza Burzurg). One of them has to be correct.

I would have made the change myself. But I don't know the correct name, and I don't want to commit further errors. So you please correct the error.


Pranesh Bhargava 10:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Pranesh Bhargava IIT Bombay, India.

Thanks, it's fixed now. -- Jeff3000 13:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Messenger of God

From the article: "He [Bahá'u'llá] claimed to fulfill the Bábí prophecy of 'He whom God shall make manifest', but in a broader sense he also claimed to be the Messenger of God prophesied in all great religious traditions." In what sense do all "great" religions have a messenger of god? Off the top of my head, take Buddhism. I'm sure there are other examples. 129.44.216.105 01:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In Baha'i belief, Buddha was a Messenger of God, and founder of Buddhism. The Baha'i writings talk about the concept of the Manifestation of God (which are Messengers of God who is God's mouthpiece) . In the Baha'i writings the founders of other religions are Manifestations of which include among others, Krishna, who Baha'is see as the founder of Hinduism, Moses, as the founder of Judaism, Jesus Christ, as the founder of Christianity, Muhammad, as the founder of Islam, and Zoroaster, as the founder of Zorastrianism. Baha'i scripture also sees Adam and Noah as Manifestations of God. Buddhists of course don't see the Buddha in the same manner as Baha'is do. Also Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah fulfilled the prophecies regarding the Fifth Buddha. -- Jeff3000 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It might also be noted that Baha'i concepts of God (in his essence) are much more abstract than are traditional western monotheisms, and are more sympathetic to notions of abstract divine principle that can be found in some forms of Buddhism. Furthermore, Buddha didn't go to the trouble of disputing the existance of God, he merely told the people that he wasn't going to talk about it, and that they shouldn't worry about it - rather they shoudl worry about the four noble truths. This is not incompatible with being God's messenger, if God decided that the people were in the midst of superstition about this or that family god and they needed to get back to spiritual principle. Progressive revelation posits that religious truth may be presented in an incomplete form, or framed in a way that would seem inaccurate to another people, if the recipients need to hear it a certain way. Focusing the people away from a certain mental image of God or gods, in order to better orient them toward God's purpose is entirely within the perrogatives of a Manifestation of God, even if it's not to the taste of one or another group of people. In education, it's sometimes called pedagogically motivated misrepresentation. --Christian Edward Gruber 19:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

Discussion moved to Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo#Compromise. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 06:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

User:83.222.153.143 and User:Alex0072 (which I believe are the same person) have changed the article so that Persia and the Islamic Republic of Iran is used intead of the Persian Empire and Iran respectively. Both of the links are redirects, and there is no use for them. In Wikipedia of all the links to Iran, only around 60 of more than 7000 are through the Islamic Republic of Iran, and there is no need for the redirect here. I will be reverting tomorrow, unless there is a good reason for the redirects to be in place. -- Jeff3000 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it, since, as you say, it's wasteful and unnecessary. Tehran is the Capital of Iran, and has been throughout centuries of various regimes. It was the capital of Iran under the Shah, and is capital under the Islamic Republic. The Islamic Republic didn't rename the country, the Shah did, so I'm not clear why this fellow keeps reverting. It's Iran, whether it's an islamic republic or not. It feels very "chip on the shoulder" POV-ish to me. Also, it's clear use of sock-puppetry to avoid Wikipedia:3RR and should probably be forwarded to an admin to look into. --Christian Edward Gruber 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Terminology

It's absolutely wrong to mention Persian Empire while referring to the 19th century Persia during the Qajar dynasty. Second of all the correct name of Iran is the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, Just like it's not America, but the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or not China but either the PEOPLE's REPUBLIC OF CHINA or REPUBLIC OF CHINA. So even if the redirects are named wrongly, please have the decency to write the article with respect to the current events. A.

Wikipedia policy is that you should use the most common name, and the most common name is Iran. Go ahead and try to change the article names for the Iran article and the Persian Empire article, and see if it other editors don't complain, and revert you back to the most common name. Also try and change the more that 98% of all other articles in Wikipedia that use Iran (see [1]). If that works, then we can discuss it here. -- Jeff3000 22:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
At last, some actual content to respond to. Thanks Alex. I'm not entirely clear on your point about Persian Empire, but to take the last part about IRI vs. Iran, people often refer to the USA as America, and more especially China as China, not the PRC or the ROC. We speak often of Germany, not the Federal Republic of Germany, Burundi, not Republika y'u Burundi, etc. Also, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is the current name of the state on the soil of ancient Persia, Iran is how most Iranians refer to Iran. They don't say... I'm going home to IRI to visit my relatives. They say, I'm going back to Iran. America is a bad example, because it's both the name of a continental grouping and the nickname of the USA. Iran is the historical name of that territory, and was the name of the kingdom under the Shah, is the name of the territory under the IRI, and is universally understood. Tehran is the capital of the IRI, but it is also the capital of Iran historically, and calling out the IRI is, while accurate, irrelevant to the article and needlessly confusing to the reader. Now that's my POV, and I'll bend to the will of the editors here, but I would need more than "it's the official name of the state" to change the link.
I would like to know more about what you mean by Persian Empire. I presume that the Qajar dynasty was not imperial? What, if any, was the name of Iran under the Qajars? Most of the history books that I have read that refer to 18th and 19th century persia refer to the Persian Empire. I would, however, appreciate correction on that point, if scholars generally see it otherwise. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I just looked at the Persian Empire article, and it covers the Qajar period, all the way up to the interrebellum. Just FYI for the discussion. At the very least, I think that suggests that this particular wiki link shouldn't be removed. Thoughts? --Christian Edward Gruber 00:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind everyone: "Dispensation" is not something to have a "jargon alert" about. It is not specifically used by Baha'is only. It is used in many Christian services especially Catholic and is found in smaller amounts in Islam and Hinduism (at least this is what their followers tell me). Nmentha 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Claim of Baha'u'llah and religious cycle

The article states that Baha'u'llah: "claimed to be the "Supreme Manifestation of God"[1] of a religious cycle beginning with Adam". While the title of Supreme Manifestation of God is correctly given, the religious cycle is not only the one begun by Adam, but the one begun by the Bab. They are two seperate cycles. Perhaps it should be rewritten to convey the same historical process of progressive revelation without placing Baha'u'llah merely within the same cycle as all Manifestations of God from Adam to Mohammad. Nmentha 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "prophetic advents" stretch far beyond just that of Christianity and Islam. Nmentha 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Abdu'l-Baha wrote in Some Answered Questions:
"We are in the cycle which began with Adam, and its universal Manifestation is Bahá'u'lláh."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 161)
The same question was asked to him in Promulgation of Universal Peace, and Abdu'l-Baha reiterates it.
Also in Lights of Guidance, Shoghi Effendi says the same thing:
"There are no Prophets, so far, in the same category as Bahá'u'lláh, as He culminates a great cycle begun by Adam."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to the National Spiritual Assembly of Australia and New Zealand, December 26, 1941: Letter from the Guardian to Australia and New Zealand, p. 41)
Finally, the Universal House of Justice writes
"The Adamic Cycle inaugurated 6000 years ago by the Manifestation of God called Adam is only one of the many bygone cycles. Bahá'u'lláh, as you say, is the culmination of the Adamic Cycle. He is also the Inaugurator of the Bahá'í Cycle."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, March 13, 1986)
So I believe the current statement is true regarding Baha'i belief. -- Jeff3000 00:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the last quotation indicated from the House is the most accurate representation becaue it addresses both concepts. My intention is not to ignore the culminating fulfillment of the Adamic cycle. But I believe that these quotations are taken out of context. The quotation from the Some Answered Questions refers to several different forms of cycles stating that there are universal cycles, plentary cycles, the cycls of the Supreme Manifestation as well as individual cycles of each past Manifestations. While it is true that Baha'u'llah is the culmination of the Adamic cycle as referenced in two of the above quotations, the concept that He is the Supreme Manifestation of God of a religious cycle beginning with Adam is a reductionist approach and fails to address the New Cycle that He inaugorated or the individual cycle of the Bab before Him. It can lead to the researcher believing that Baha'u'llah does not have a role in formulating a new cycle but that He is simply part of the last cycle. I believe that key words are "culmination" and "Inaugurator" and that the sentence should be revised to reflect this.

Care should be given not to ignore the New Cycle:

This is a new cycle of human power.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 19)
It is for this reason that, in this New Cycle, education and training are recorded in the Book of God as obligatory and not voluntary
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 398)
XXV. It is evident that every age in which a Manifestation of God hath lived is divinely ordained, and may, in a sense, be characterized as God's appointed Day. This Day, however, is unique, and is to be distinguished from those that have preceded it. The designation "Seal of the Prophets" fully revealeth its high station. The Prophetic Cycle hath, verily, ended. The Eternal Truth is now come. He hath lifted up the Ensign of Power, and is now shedding upon the world the unclouded splendor of His Revelation.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 60)
In The Dawn-Breakers, Nabil states that this letter "symbolized for the Báb the advent of a new cycle of Divine Revelation, and has since been alluded to by Bahá'u'lláh in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas in such passages as 'the mystery of the Great Reversal' and 'the Sign of the Sovereign'".
(Notes, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 240)
"The Adamic Cycle inaugurated 6000 years ago by the Manifestation of God called Adam is only one of the many bygone cycles. Bahá'u'lláh, as you say, is the culmination of the Adamic Cycle. He is also the Inaugurator of the Bahá'í Cycle.
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 500)
A Revelation, hailed as the promise and crowning glory of past ages and centuries, as the consummation of all the Dispensations within the Adamic Cycle, inaugurating an era of at least a thousand years' duration, and a cycle destined to last no less than five thousand centuries, signalizing the end of the Prophetic Era and the beginning of the Era of Fulfillment, unsurpassed alike in the duration of its Author's ministry and the fecundity and splendor of His mission
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 100)

Hope that this helps. Nmentha 00:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that level of detail is needed in this article. -- Jeff3000 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll add a phrase. -- Jeff3000 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Beat you to it. :) I took a shot at a rephrase. Feel free to modify or revert... it's just an attempt to make it readable and accurate. --Christian Edward Gruber 05:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I like our work so far, but may still need some revision for clarity and sentence fluency. Nmentha 12:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reword it. I think this version is better for non-Baha'is, but feel free to change it. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 16:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fulfillment claim

I really don't think that section should be in here. First of all, it doesn't fit in the location it's placed, and secondly the paragraph is a straight quote from a Baha'i source, and is not neutral in any sense. This page should not look like a Baha'i pamphlet. I will be commenting it out, until some discussion is made. -- Jeff3000 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we should discuss this. In any case, this article seems to be entirely about the life of Baha'u'llah and nothing about the person that he claimed to be. There is extreme depth on one channel of thought and no introduction to any other aspects of his personage. Perhaps we can find a better place to put it in. We do not have to use a Baha'i quote but it is very neutral because it is a quote. If the article stated it on its own then we might have an issue, but when it quotes a Baha'i source and says what he claims to fulfill then this is not a matter of bias at all, it is a fact. Where should we put this information in and how should we present it? Nmentha 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
While a section may be appropriate, it doesn't fit in the middle of Baha'u'llah's life. Secondly, we should always strive to use secondary sources for statements. The quote by Shoghi Effendi is a primary source (in addition to being a Baha'i source), and Wikipedia prefers using secondary sources. Secondly any such quote should be paraphrised and then included in the article with the accompanying references. Try to find an academic/secondary source for Baha'u'llah's claims, and then include it. This page is inherently controversial because of the image, and utmost effort has to be made to keep it neutral. -- Jeff3000 22:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I might just add that academic institutions always value primary sources over secondary ones so I am not certain that wikipedia would have a different standard. Personally I like to use an even balance of primary and secondary sources for what I do. Also, it could be argued that it fits best in the middle of Baha'u'llahs life because this is when his declaration on Ridvan occured and thus this would be an apporopriate time to bring up his claims. There may in fact not be a better place. The researcher will inevitably question to him or herself what in fact is the nature of his claims after reading about the declaration. This also provides a good lead into the imprisonment section, to help the reader understand that these claims may have lead to his persecution.

Also, may I just say that all this "neutral" stuff that is being marshaled at people (hey, I would say that I have done it too) is really over excessive, I understand the concern about the image. But fact is fact, Baha'is are allowed to view the picture and are asked to do so in reverance. Displaying the picture but at the bottom of the page is indicates respect and reverance and does not remove the right of people to view it if they please or not view it if they please. I view that as a separate issue and not in any way impacting the content of the article, everyword is a seperate issue in its own right. Neutrality is important, but the article must present the beliefs of the Baha'is because that is what the article is about. If it did not present their beliefs but some other scholarly conjectures then the article would become bias. I am however, very glad that we Baha'is are concerned about the neutrality of the articles, the Baha'i writings do ask us to present the Baha'i teachings in an objective manner. Nmentha 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

From WP:RS, "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." So secondary sources are very much preferred; in fact if you look at the link, primary source material is not looked upon very well. Secondly, neutrality in the presentation cannot be excessive; it is a primary policy in Wikipedia, and it is not related to the image, except that because of the image more people look at this page, and thus scrutinize the page; thus neutrality becomes more important. Finally, this page is about Baha'u'llah, not the Baha'i view of Baha'u'llah. There is a big difference, and to remain neutral those things should be clearly differentiated. The place to present Baha'i belief is in the main Baha'i pages, like Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity. As a side note, Cunado19 is right that the descendecy is disputed, and I wouldn't place too much effort to put it in the article; in my mind it's not a primary concern. -- Jeff3000 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue was discussed in detail earlier, and whether or not he is a descendant of David is disputed. He was a descendant of David's father Jesse, and Yazdigird III of Persia, and some other noteworthy people. There is a green book called "Our beloved Gaurdian" which has a lineage chart of Shoghi Effendi. If anyone has that it might help. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am more concerned about Baha'u'llahs claims which I believe should be more detailed than simply the intro. I am not too concerned with King David (although the Sasanian King Yazdigird III is noticably missing from the article). The discussion regarding descent of Baha'u'llah was treated in my previous additions as "the line of david" and not anything necessarily direct. I do have a lineage chart as well. Regarding the wikipedia policy, the purpose of that policy is to avoid inserting primary source material from individual authors that want to advance their ideals or anything that may be questionable (anyone can say anything). However, the conern is related to secondary source material as well (anyone can say anything and anyone can say that anyone said anything).

The Baha'i view of Baha'u'llah claims to be an objective view of Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah claims that the Baha'i view is an accurate view of Baha'u'llah. Most Historians support a view of Baha'u'llah that is almost identical to the Baha'i view (unless it is a radical and controversial scholar which in that case their view is also claimed as biased on wikipedia). Therefore, the majority of information regarding Baha'u'llah seems to agree most of the time even from enemies of Baha'u'llah. If the evidence supports the facts, then we should not be afraid of saying that it is possible that the Baha'i view is generally objective.

Now, there are definitly things that some people disagree on. My understanding is that the Baha'i view wishes to present the unbiased facts, believing that those facts support the claim of Baha'u'llah. And if certain facts are given that seem to support otherwise, the Baha'is are responcible for explaining in an objective way why they the belief actually does work despite outward seeming. Think about the Christians, they only have the Bible regarding the history of Jesus, not more than a few words anywhere else describing him by his contemporaries. All secondary sources are either using the Bible or disagreeing with it. But on what basis do they disagree: no basis! Some times there is some modern science or historians that come up with legitamate stuff but most of it is based on the Bible. Are we supposed to call this bias? No, because we are presenting what Christians believe. There is noting wrong with presenting what Baha'is think of Baha'u'llah because that is a part of who he is and there is verifiable fact of what they believe.

Anyways, I don't need to get into philosophy, since I am comfortable with what everyone is doing here and I have confidence in our collective abilities, I just don't think it is wise to leave out vital facts in the name of neutrality. Nevertheless, I am looking for secondary sources. May I also state that the objection against using Shoghi Effendi is misplaced as many articles quote from Baha'i sources. Nmentha 00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think omitting the "Claims" section obscures the issue. It's dealt with in the opening section.
I think that there's a problem with Wikipedia's developing style on biographical articles. There's a very strong bias towards making these little more than dates/places/works articles. Some are very particualar about this and consider anything outside of that pattern POV no matter how robustly sourced. Compare Kierkegaard with Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard for an example of this very strange pattern. But look at Avicenna and Al-Ghazali and you'll find nicely integrated articles.
I didn't like the first sentence of that section at all. Nowhere do either the Báb or Bahá-u-lláh make a connection that royal descent, much less one from David, is a pre-requisite to being the Qaim. It's irrelevant.
The bias against using primary sources is parallel to the "Wikipedia:No original research" policy. This is a self-imposed limitation — most encyclopedias are not so limited — but it is an attempt by WP to achieve neutrality overall. The effect is that Wikipedia as a source will never be as strong as anything it cites. MARussellPESE 14:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a section in here about prophecies and Baha'u'llah's claim to fulfillment. It included a quote from Shoghi Effendi about who Baha'is see Baha'u'llah as in terms of the prophecies of past religions and revelations. There was a student who told me that they came on here to check about Baha'u'llah's claims and what Baha'is believe about him and they could not find the answer other than the few general things mentioned in the opening summary. Even if someone wished to know that Baha'u'llah is seen as fulfilling the prophecies of Christ's return, they would be unable to find that on this page. Please return or add a section regarding prophecies and claim to fulfillment, include that quote and make it clear rather than only mentioning the events in his life. It is not complete without stating why Baha'u'llah is seen as so important. Also, I noticed that the re-write that was mentioned about regarding the cycle of Adam and the Supreme Manifestation was changed and reflects more the original than the new version. Did it get changed back? 68.98.11.237 08:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I saw that the re-write that some contributors did is still in there. I also whent back to last year and found the claims section. If it needs to be edited then we should do it. I put it after his life, as a legacy/claims section. 68.98.11.237 08:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

References?

There seems to be something funky going on with the references here -- I've noticed it on other pages, too (though not all). It seems that the references have been doubled, so that all citations are starting with the second set, making it look like there is no footnote #1, etc., and that the first footnote is instead #16. I don't think I'm being very articulate in trying to explain this, but if you take a look at the citations, you should see what I mean. How can we fix this? --Twilightsojourn 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The references look fine to me. What browser/OS are you using? -- Jeff3000 21:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm using Mozilla Firefox, with Windows XP Home. As you saw on the Four Valleys page, sometimes there seems to be a problem, and then other times, it seems to have fixed itself. Any ideas as to what is going on? (I've referenced web addresses before, with no trouble (as in, without naming the hyperlinks).) --Twilightsojourn 22:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I really don't know what's going on in the Four Valleys page. I can't figure it out, but at least this page seems fine. -- Jeff3000 23:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories

What do you think about putting the categories at the end of the article before the photograph, instead of after? I don't know if this is possible from a formatting standpoint or not, but as everything else is before the photograph, I thought it might be good to put those before the photograph as well, so that those individuals who are avoiding the photograph don't have to see it to get to the categories listing. What do you think? --Twilightsojourn 23:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

can't be done -- Jeff3000 02:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)