Talk:Universal House of Justice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Bahá'í Faith (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Bahá'í Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shouldn't this article include a history of members of the Universal House of Justice?

Peter Khan[edit]

Peter Khan and past members should not forward to this page. They should have their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

restoring NPOV and links wheich were removed[edit]

Links to alternative groups or explanations are requried to maintain a NPOV neautral point of view by wiki and links are not permitted to be removed.

such "alternative" groups are very very small and are already mentioned in the main article, mentioning OBF everywhere is like mentioning "Potters of God" on every Chrstian related article - --Cyprus2k1 07:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe you should be the guranater of what should be on each page unless you are willoing to remove all the other repeated links that are contained on these same pages. What you afraid of?

the other references have been removed, and you know it..

I have replaced the link removed on Orbhtodox, both groups have very different views as tot he legitamacy of the Universal House of Justice that was established by the main group, and reference to those differences shuould remain. Continue to remove the links and you will begin a war on wiki you will not like.

You know keeping removing this shows the general public what a bunch of fanatic can try in censorship.

Isn't there a page, or a sub-link on the OBC page that describes their critique? The link to the main OBF page seems out of context, but a targetted link to something directly relevant to the House of Justice would be more appropriate, I think. -- Christian Edward Gruber 14:44, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

"Universal" house of justice term[edit]

The term "UHJ" was first used by Abdu'l Baha in a wide-variety of documents in order to distinguish between the supreme body and the local 'houses of justice'. As far as I know, the distinction was first raised in an attempt to explain a section regarding intestate distribution of property under the terms of the Aqdas, which required Abdu'l Baha to explain what administative level the funds went to, and to distinguish it from the Huqugullah. (The 'right of God'.) Martin is, as usual, just wrong. Rick Boatright 22:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Any reason why that paragraph was deleted in the introduction? For someone who doesn't know, the belief that the House has some kind of infallibility is pretty significant. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 01:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know I agree with your (cunado's) revert. Its an important point -- Tomhab 19:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Acronym UHJ[edit]

Not sure what the origin is of the statement saying Baha'is never refer to the Universal House of Justice as the UHJ. In my experience they often do.

By way of evidence:

  • Planet Baha'i: "Former UHJ Member David S. Ruhe Passes Away"[1]
  • BahaIndex.Com: "1995 UHJ letter" [2]
  • "Scottish Baha'i" No33 - numerous references to UHJ [3]

AndrewRT 20:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

While, Baha'is do use the term, I believe I have seen somewhere that we should not use the acronym. -- Jeff3000 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the reference, but I understand that we're encouraged not to use the acronym out of respect. The NSA just lost a case trying to get the rights to UHJ.NET based solely on the fact that UHJ is not an acronym used in the Faith. Other than that they had every right to take the domain name away from the Covenant-breaker who is using it. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not based on people's understandings - it's based on verifiable sources. The fact is, many Baha'is use UHJ as an acronym. I would be interested if you did have a source to back up your claim, but if not I will put it back in. AndrewRT 12:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The official website of the UHJ[4] uses the acronym in a meta tag, with the result that Facebook entries, RSS feeds, and the like, display the acronym.

<meta name="description" content="The official website for the Universal House of Justice. The Universal House of Justice guides the activities of the global Bahá’í community. This site is the official source of information about the UHJ."> (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

List of members[edit]

I don't know why we list all the members ever elected. This doesn't seem like the right place for that, especially as there's an external link. Could this be stricken without offense? MARussellPESE 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

done. It makes sense, since the individuals themselves have no power, and are not held in higher light than other Baha'is. It's the institution that is important. -- Jeff3000 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
OPPOSE. Wikipedia is not based on information that you think is appropriate to include. Try to be a bit more constructive when relating to other people's contributions. Thsi is factual information that others think is important to the article. AndrewRT 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The individuals are not well known people, and the link at the bottom still links to the list of members. It's not a suppression of information, it's deleting somewhat irrelevant information that takes up a lot of room on the page. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I refer to Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes and the section on deleting (my emphasis added):
Deleting useful content. "A piece of content may be written poorly, yet still have a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. If the material seems miscategorized or out of place, consider moving the wayward material to another page, or creating a new page for it. If all else fails, and you can't resist removing a good chunk of content, it's usually best to move it to the article's "Talk page", which can be accessed using the "discussion" button at the top of each page. The author of the text once thought it valuable, so it is polite to preserve it for later discussion
Not for the first time, you have been very quick to remove others' contributions. I feel that you are saying my contribution is unimportant. I can see that you don't think this is relevant to the article but I (and others) clearly do. I don't think you've gone about resolving this properly in accordance with wikipedia norms. AndrewRT 14:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also about consensus. Right now, three of four believe the information is not relevent. -- Jeff3000 15:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My own suggestion was poorly conceived and should have included a suggestion that the current membership, with the initial election years, be retained. That sounds like a good compromise. But I did not like the look of all those red names when it's the Institution that is the central point. The current version of the article reflects this position.

I see AndrewRT's sentiment and feel that this section was perhaps lifted prematurely in the discussion process. His observation that edits can be "very quick" has some merit for reflection — particularly my own. I would point out to you, Andrew, that your initial contribution was on 11-November, and they remained until 31-January. All of us in this discussion edited the article in the interregnum and left them in until I raised the question, badly, on 31-January. To me, that doesn't seem to have treated your contributions with disrespect. Perhaps we should solicite more comment prior to editing articles — then we'll all have the opportunity to contribute.

However, like consultation, once an edition is on the page it belongs to everybody.

Appreciating you all, MARussellPESE 15:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks good now. Having only current members makes more sense and takes up less space. And it looks much better without linking all the names (links which weren't filled in). Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 19:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I still don't think the members of the House are relevent. It's an institution that is beyond it's membership. The members of the House, when outside the council chamber, are regular people, and while being respected, just like any other person, are not to be revered. -- Jeff3000 19:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could just mention that in the article?? Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
First off I should say I concede the point about previous members - that probably isn't important. I also apologise for my comment about "not for the first time" which I realise now was inaccurate. I agree that this is an entirely appropriate issue to question - but I would prefer it was raised on the talk page first. What I object to is the deletion happening only six minutes after the issue was first raised on the talk page! I appreciate all the work that different people (mainly Baha'is) have put into improving expanding these pages, but feel that it is important to maintain neutrality.
Now, why do I think this information is relevant? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Baha'i leaflet. The articles on the Baha'i Faith on wikipedia should be written in a way that complies with wikipedia policies, which are not necessarily the same as Baha'i principles. What is important to a Baha'i is not necessarily the same thing as what is important for a wikipedia article. All articles must have a neutral point of view ([NPOV]). The policy page has a useful section specifically on weighting and religion, which makes the point: " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. In this context it is important to state not only what Baha'i beliefs are, but also how these beliefs are reflected (or not) in Baha'i practises and institutions. NPOV means that articles should include facts that are considered significant by all significant users of the encyclopedia: Baha'is, ex-Baha'is, anti-Baha'is, covenant-breakers, sociologists, psychologists etc. Some look at religion from a sociological or psychological point of view. They might be interested to see how different social and ethnic groups are represented on the House. Perhaps they are interested in the turnover rate for House members; perhaps looking at the Bahai electoral system in practice or the fact that although theoretically any registered Baha'i in the world can be elected to the House, the only people who ever have been are serving NSA and ITC members. It's a significant fact for some people that one current member was previously involved with the company that developed the Ruhi books; another member has made controversial speaches supporting the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. As Baha'is you may think that these issues are all irrelevant, but a significant number of other people would disagree. That is why I think the facts should be included.
One issue which hasn't been resolved is the "red links" to individual House members. As you said, Baha'is are proably not particularly interested in individual House members, but I maintain that others would be. It could be considered important and interesting to know what members did before they were elected, their background, and any controversial or exceptional views. I accept that it is a borderline case whether or not they qualify as articles under the wikipedia policies (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability (people)). As they have oversight of 5m people (at least equivalent to members of a provincial legislature) I would suggest they should qualify for article status, although Wikipedia:No original research may be an issue for some members. I would like to stimulate discusion on this, and would appreciate others' thoughts. AndrewRT 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that this in an encyclopedia and the rules are different here. Most of us know that — that's why Bahá'u'lláh's picture gets reverted back on by Bahá'ís nine times out of ten.

I don't see why any of the information Andrew is wanting to see is not available from the external link naming all the members ever elected. Nor do I see how Wikipedia is the forum to anticipate the research needs of every potential user. (How can an sociologist determine ethnic background from a name alone?)

The background, curriculum vitae, and views of individual members of the ITC or UHJ seems exceptionally obscure for a work of Wikipedia's scope, so I don't think it's worth the time. (Are Canadian MPPs listed here? I've never looked, and this wouldn't be the first place that I would.) MARussellPESE 14:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, if you're interested in filling out the biographies of all the House members, that's fine. However right now none of them have pages, and that's why right now they're not linked. I contribute to what I think is important, which is mostly history stuff. If you think it's important, just go for it. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 17:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It seemed like a good idea to put in pictures of current and first Universal House of Justice. Thanks Jeff for moving them around. Nmentha 08:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


I would like to suggest an additional section (or possibly part of the responsibilities section) of the House, to include:

  • in respect of individuals - declaring someone a Covenant Breaker, or disenrolling them
  • appointed arm - appointments of Counsellors, certain committees (e.g. Persian and Arab Affairs Committee)
  • role in countries where no NSA present
  • power to dissolve NSAs (e.g. Albania 1990(?))

Any thoughts? AndrewRT 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would rather send people to Bahá'í websites where these are discussed so that the content won't morph into something that's incorrect. MARussellPESE 14:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the powers discussed in the section are those that have been given by Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi that have been explicitly identified as the major powers in the Constitution of the Universal House of Justice. It is possible that there are a few that are missing. Perhaps we can look into that. Nmentha 08:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Infallibility of UHJ's Writings[edit]

Is there a source for this statement re infallibility? If so, would appreciate a reference:

"The books and documents published by the Universal House of Justice are considered authoritative and have a degree of infallability to Bahá'ís."

. Davecornell 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Baha'is point to the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha (all emphasises added):

  • "The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abha Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both)."
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 11)
  • "Unto the Most Holy Book everyone must turn and all that is not expressly recorded therein must be referred to the Universal House of Justice. That which this body, whether unanimously or by a majority doth carry, that is verily the Truth and Purpose of God Himself."
(From Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Part Two)

The Universal House of Justice has clarified that:

"In the Bahá'í Faith there are two authoritative centres appointed to which the believers must turn, for in reality the Interpreter of the Word is an extension of that centre which is the Word itself. The Book is the record of the utterance of Bahá'u'lláh, while the divinely inspired Interpreter is the living Mouth of that Book -- it is He and He alone who can authoritatively state what the Book means. Thus one centre is the Book with its Interpreter, and the other is the Universal House of Justice guided by God to decide on whatever is not explicitly revealed in the Book."
(From a letter dated 7 December 1967 written by the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)


"The Universal House of Justice received your letter of 26 June seeking clarification on the infallibility of the Guardian and of the Universal House of Justice. We have been asked to convey the following to you.
"As the three questions you have raised are interrelated, it will be conducive to a clearer understanding of the issues involved if these questions are considered together.
"Shoghi Effendi was asked several times during his ministry to define the sphere of his operation and his infallibility. The replies he gave and which were written on his behalf are most illuminating. He explains that he is not an infallible authority on subjects such as economics and science, nor does he go into technical matters since his infallibility is confined to "matters which are related strictly to the Cause." He further points out that "he is not, like the Prophet, omniscient at will," that his "infallibility covers interpretation of the revealed word and its application," and that he is also "infallible in the protection of the Faith." Furthermore, in one of the letters, the following guideline is set forth:
...It is not for individual believers to limit the sphere of the Guardian's authority, or to judge when they have to obey the Guardian and when they are free to reject his judgment. Such an attitude would evidently lead to confusion and to schism. The Guardian being the appointed interpreter of the Teachings, it is his responsibility to state what matters which, affecting the interests of the Faith, demand on the part of the believers complete and unqualified obedience to his instructions.
"It must always be remembered that authoritative interpretation of the Teachings was, after 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the exclusive right of the Guardian, and fell within the "sacred and prescribed domain" of the Guardianship, and therefore the Universal House of Justice cannot and will not infringe upon that domain. The exclusive sphere of the Universal House of Justice is to "pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá'u'lláh has not expressly revealed." Apart from this fundamental difference in the functions of the twin pillars of the Order of Bahá'u'lláh, insofar as the other duties of the Head of the Faith are concerned, the Universal House of Justice shares with the Guardian the responsibility for the application of the revealed word, the protection of the Faith, as well as the duty "to insure the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority which flows from the Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers, and to maintain the integrity and flexibility of its Teachings." However, the Universal House of Justice is not omniscient; like the Guardian, it wants to be provided with facts when called upon to render a decision, and like him it may well change its decision when new facts emerge....
(The Universal House of Justice, 1977 Aug 22, Clarification on Infallibility)

Other statements include:

  • "Out of the pangs of anguish which His bereaved followers have suffered, amid the heat and dust which the attacks launched by a sleepless enemy had precipitated, the Administration of Bahá'u'lláh's invincible Faith was born. The potent energies released through the ascension of the Center of His Covenant crystallized into this supreme, this infallible Organ for the accomplishment of a Divine Purpose. The Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá unveiled its character, reaffirmed its basis, supplemented its principles, asserted its indispensability, and enumerated its chief institutions.
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 89)
  • "Authoritative interpretation is the exclusive prerogative of 'Abdu'l-Bahá and the Guardian, while infallible legislation is the function of the Universal House of Justice."
(The Universal House of Justice, 1982 Jan 03, Teaching vs. Proselytizing)

Another one, and there are many more sources from Taherzadeh's writings as well:

"Beware, beware lest anyone create a rift or stir up sedition. Should there be differences of opinion, the Supreme House of Justice would immediately resolve the problems. Whatever will be its decision, by majority vote, shall be the real truth, inasmuch as that House is under the protection, unerring guidance and care of the one true Lord. He shall guard it from error and will protect it under the wing of His sanctity and infallibility."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Compilations, The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 322)

--Jeff3000 04:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jeff3k. Given that the question was on its infallibility, its own statements cannot be used to support it. It's like saying "The bible is true, because the bible declares itself true." It's a circular reference. Having said that, I think the case is easily made from statements by the Guardian, the Master, and Baha'u'llah. --Christian Edward Gruber 12:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not proof, but it's a reference that Baha'is believe it to be so, which is what is needed for Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 13:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah missiles[edit]

Anyone know if this building has been hit yet? --Joffeloff 13:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, none of the missles have been close to the Baha'i World Centre. -- Jeff3000 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Luck? I call it divine protection. Pure inuyasha 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I call it luck still ;) 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I hesitate — to say the least — that when things go my way it's Divine intervention: because the obverse assumption is equally valid. I don't think it's Divine intervention that sent rockets into Israeli neighborhoods or cluster bombs into Lebanese ones, so I don't think it's His intervention that kept them from these sites. MARussellPESE 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Should we add biographies for the current members? 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. This article is about the institution, not it's members. -- Jeff3000 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Likewise agreed. Besides, this would be terribly difficult to tease out. The UHJ doesn't publish this information generally. MARussellPESE 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How much did it cost to build this thing[edit]

A figure indicating the cost would be helpful in this article. 19:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

According to a press release from the Baha'i World Centre it was $250m to build, in a period of 10 years, all the buildings and the terraces. See k1-UK-Global 11:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't even begin to imagine what it would cost in America. Peter Deer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was Keep with a final vote of 5 Keep and 2 merge. -- T0lk (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing to merge several articles on individual House of Justice members into this article. I think they need more notability to have individual articles, and more importantly, better references. Many of the biographies are unreferenced, and could invite vandalism. Also, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As most of them are alive, we have "an ethical and legal responsibility" to follow WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR more closely than articles such as fish or fork.

I propose keeping Adib Taherzadeh, and any other individual who has notability other than just being a member. At the very least, there should be a reference in addition to the article Two new members join Universal House of Justice.

As to the House of Justice article, the BWNS article can be used to add a few notes on the individuals. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep: With all due respect, and in full understanding of the above mentioned objections, I see no need to merge these articles. First, I do not share the concern of notability. All members of the Universal House of Justice would more or less automatically succeed a notability debate, just in the light of their seat. I agree to that there are non-referenced articles, and I agree that this creates a problem. A more constructive solution would be to find third-party sources of reference and add them. This way the end result would be an improvement. Also, the norm on Wikipedia is to create individual articles for individual people, and any listing of people (who are notable) beyond that of a pure bullet name list would induce separate articles. Please point out otherwise, but I cannot find any violations of WP:LIVING (save the lack of references as mentioned above) among the articles. There are multitudes of living people with Wikipedia articles about them, and most of these are fully within the limits i WP:LIVING. Deletion of an article just because it could be vandalized seems to me at bit excessive, though I agree that caution and care must be given in the matter. Arsenikk (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I'm proposing to redirect the articles to this page, not delete them. The work you put in will still be in the history, and if more sources are found, I'm not objecting to having articles. The bottom line is that most of these are unreferenced and about living persons. It is not my responsibility to search out and find more secondary sources, that's up to the editor wishing to add content. Aside from that, I honestly don't see any notability here beyond "he was/is on the House of Justice." Most of their names are not familiar to Baha'is. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge - Notability has to do with the number of secondary sources about the individuals, not about their status, and given the almost total lack of secondary sources about the individuals, there is no point in keeping the articles. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I believe that due to the nature of their position they should have their own articles. Anyone who is interested in the Baha'i Faith would be interested to know who the worldwide leaders are. Wikipedia is about expanding knowledge, and the best way to do that here is to let them have their own articles. If they are all inside the article on the House of Justice it will limit their growth I think and make the article too long. T0lk (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed a couple of sections up under "Bios?" jeff says "I don't think so. This article is about the institution, not it's members." Good point jeff. T0lk (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Those pages can't be kept under current wikipidia policies of notability since there are virtually no secondary sources, and notability is defined with secondary sources about them. If what little information is citable merged into this article, I will nominate them for AfD, and they will surely be deleted. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep The way I look at it, that would be like merging every senator there's ever been into the senator page. Not practical. Peter Deer (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at the issues of notability and verifiability. A senator not only has tons of published sources about them, but they are much more notable than a member of the UHJ, who individually has no authority. Contrast that with the absolute lack of published sources on members of the House, and we don't pass standards for biographies of living persons. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As a part solution, I propose to supplement/amend the Members section with the following table to give more background to existing House members. It is surprising how little readily available information is available. My first inexperienced attempt to format the table is a mess, so any help would be appreciated, and there is certainly scope to expand it; maybe something similar can be done for the ITC. Occamy (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

' ' Membership ' ' '
Born Universal House of Justice International Teaching Centre Continental Board of Counsellors Auxilliary Board Member
Farzam Arbab 1941 1993 1988 1980
Kiser Barnes 1943 2000 1993 1990 1981
Hooper Cameron Dunbar 1937 1988 1973 1968 1963
Hartmut Grossmann 2003 1980
Firaydoun Javaheri 2003 1998 1995 1976
Peter Jamal Khan 1936 1987 1983 1976 1967
Paul Lample 2005 2003
Glenford Eckleton Mitchell 1982
Payman Mohajer 2005 1998 1991 1986

KeepI was just looking up Farzam Arbab and thinking that this article in Wikipedia is woefully inadequate about a man I regard as one of the most important visionaries in our contemporary age. Farzam Arbab needs an independent page quite apart from the fact that he is a member of the Universal House of Justice. More research needs to be done about his role in the establishment of the Ruhi Institute materials, his ground breaking work in social and economic development through the institution of FUNDAEC in Columbia that has become a source of inspiration for social and economic development project the world around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Child of africa (talkcontribs) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep sort of. If the pages violate policy then I'd say a good faith effort should be made to find such references to bring them into policy (I presume they predate this policy). Has there been any work done for this? As for the table I hope there are citations and what about membership in National Assemblies? Once some work has been done and individual pages can't find citation then the rest can be brought together.--Smkolins (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge ACK Jeff/Cuñado. I propose keeping any individual who has notability other than just being a member of the Universal House of Justice. -- (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we now can say that the merge proposal failed. Punkmorten (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Equality of rights and privileges of Men and Women[edit]

I am curious as to the combination and permutation of how 184 National Spiritual Assemblies could potentually be made up along gender lines. The National Spiritual Assembly is elected by all adult Baha'is and all adult Baha'is in good standing are elegable to be elected. Both women and men. It is possible that all women could be elected to the number nine and this election trend could happen over the 184 National Spiritual Assemblies of the world. In this permutation it would be so that the universal house of Justice would be elected by an all women body (184 NSAs by 9 women members equals 1656 electors). Nine men being "chosen" or elected by 1656 women voters at the National Spiritual Assemble level. In light of this combination possibility I was hoping that the main page could mention the equality of rights and privileges of men and women in this way. To provide a concrete example at the cellular level I suggest the gametes that contain DNA known as the sperm and the egg. Each cointain half of the genetic code. The Eggs size is far larger that the size of the sperm at fertilisation. Considering 1656 electors to the 9 member body to be elected the analogy is applied. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down the mothers line in the egg while the XY chromosome is passed down the mail line in the sperm. Each pathway dates back one billion years and the alleles back another 2.8 billion years to when DNA and RNA life began 3.8 billion years ago.

What do you think would be fair selected text to go on the main page to bring out equality of rights and privileges of men and women? RoddyYoung (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As before with the suggestions you bring Roddy, Wikipedia has a no original research policy, making all of what you suggest against policy. If it's not published by a reliable secondary source, it doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I delete this section from the talk page? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


I am quite new to all things Bahai, but I have found out that, altough they call themselves "unite", there are a LOT of sects of Bahai faith around, calling each other the worst names, which is quite funny (on one hand, they are quite tolerant to other religions, but they hate each other to death). Also, I have sadly found out, that Wikipedia is terribly pro-Haifan and sometimes is repeating their claims word for word (often citing their own religious literature as a primary source).

Well, why I am writing this here. There is apparently another "Universal House of Justice" with site here - [5] - and it actually took me quite a while to realise this is NOT Haifan UHJ. However, wikipedia is absolutely silent about this UHJ. Why? --Have a nice day. Running 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's all about the neutral point of view Wikipedia policy, and it's subsection of undue weight. That policy states:
  • "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. "
All of the so-called smaller divisions have less than 500 members combined, compared to a minimum of 5 million of the globally recognized Baha'i Faith (less than 0.01%). Virtually all references to the Universal House of Justice in reliable sources refer to the one situated in Haifa, and that is why Wikipedia follows the same notability. The website you link to has virtually no discussion in any reliable source, and has maybe at most 30 followers. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)