Talk:Baháʼí Faith

Archives (Index)
Archive 1 02/03 – 08/04	Archive 2 08/04 – 01/05
Archive 3 01/05 – 02/05	Archive 4 02/05 – 06/05
Archive 5 03/05 – 07/05	Archive 6 07/05 – 10/05
Archive 7 10/05 – 11/05	Archive 8 11/05 – 12/05
Archive 9 12/05 – 04/06	Archive 10 04/06 – 07/06
Archive 11 08/06 – 09/06	Archive 12 07/06 – 12/06
Archive 13 12/06 – 02/07	Archive 14 02/07 – 03/07
Archive 15 03/07 – 12/08	Archive 16 03/08 – 12/10
Archive 17 05/08 –	Archive 18
Biographies for discussion of material relating to the history of Baha'i figures
Picture discussion of the display of Baha'u'llah's photograph
Request for comment discussion generated by a RfC of Feb 2005
Off Topic discussions removed per wikipedia policy (Wikipedia is not a discussion board)

POV tag

Every religion is treated in this encyclopedia basically from the "believer's point of view". How else would one propose to do it? A "critical" article on any other religion would be quickly (and rightly) deleted. On the other hand all aspects of the Faith, including some that could be construed as "critical" are covered - also see Baha'i apologetics. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this article is referenced quite well by third-party reliable sources that treat the subject encyclopedicly. Publishers like Cambridge University Press, the Encyclopedia Iranica, and other reliable sources. Polemic sources, such as those by the Iranian government, are generally not viewed as reliable unless other third party sources note them. Also, the view of the Iranian government that the Baha'i Faith is not a religion is already in the article, but it's a minority viewpoint not shared with virtually any other reliable source, and thus that is why it is kept to a single point. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you are just insisting on political aspect of every critics on the article. There are lots of thing about that. for example:

1. Sunni Muslims believe that Babism - and Baha'ism - are some branch of Shia.
2. Sentences like "[...] emphasizing the spiritual unity of all humankind" and all about the faith is not an encyclopedic information.
3. In an observer view, we see the subject from out of it. for example from Islam: "Muslims believe that God is one and incomparable."
4. Because my native language is Persian and I'm able to read Arabic and English sources of Babism and Baha'ism, I can say that there are lots of missed information and the Faith washed and sterilized in this paper. (look at Edward Granville Brownes works and other orientalist, Subh-i-Azal and Azalis point of view, Shia's point of view, Sunni's point of view)
5. It is not true that every religions page is on believer's point of view. we have some rules in Wikipedia about adequacy, POV and so on. We have to do an encyclopedic work, we are not Priest or any kind of "Muballeq" (Arabic: مُبَلّغ).P. Pajouhesh (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In regards to your points:

1. Virtually all academic sources state that the Baha'i Faith is independent though emerging out of an Islamic matrix. Even the Encyclopedia of Islam states this, and Al-Azhar the most respected source from Sunni Islam has stated the Baha'i Faith is not a branch of Islam. Even the Iranian shi'a state that it is not a branch of Islam.
2. Straight out of a third-party reliable sources
3. You cannot use primary sources to interpret religious material, but you need reliable secondary sources. See no original research. If you have specific items from recent academic literature, please bring them up. Viewpoint from minority views such as azalis don't pass the undue weight policy, just as the Baha'i view in the Islam page would not be appropriate.
4. Most sources on this page are referenced by third-party academic sources.

If you further specific comments, please bring them up here. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember, this page is not meant to be pro- nor anti-Baha'i, but addressed academically. Using polemic sources don't really qualify as reliable sources as they don't have a lot of fact-checking. The most reliable sources are books and journals that are published by Academic publishers, and much of this article has been referenced by Peter Smith's "An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith" which is published by Cambridge University Press. You can even look at Encyclopedia Iranica or the Encyclopedia of Islam for how to treat the matter in a neutral way. Most of this article is specifically referenced from those third-party reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I adressed lots of informations including orientalist but you deleted the tag again. you have to know that only admins have to remove the tags. your behavior shows that you like to put me in fight edit. All you say is true, but half of it. a will call an admin for this article. don't remove the tag again till the conversation ended.P. Pajouhesh (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but admins are not the only one you can remove the tag. As stated in the page for the POV tag you need to give specific reasons from reliable sources why the page is not written in a neutral fashion for the tag to stay in place. Just saying so, does not make it so. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and Admins have no special role in such disputes. I can only comment as an experienced editor, and I'm not sure what the specific issues are here. I will say that the page should be written from a neutral point of view per our WP:NPOV policy, not from the religion's point of view, and if other pages don't follow that policy then they should. Maybe you should start dealing with specific issues a section at a time so that if you want more opinions it's easier for outside editors to comment. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller! In fact this page has been written, not from a believer's point of view, but from an academic view, as it's virtually completely referenced by third-party sources. If User:Mazdakabedi has issues he should bring them up here and/or tag specific sentences, and they can be dealt one by one, rather than making generalized and unsubstantiated comments, and tagging the whole page, where they may be small things that can be changed. His notes above about the issues, are either just plain wrong (like Muslims believing that the religion is a sect of Islam, instead they believe Baha'is are apostates), are referenced by third-party sources, or have been already fixed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Muslims believe that God is one and incomparable" IS unbiased in spite of anyone who might (mistakenly of course) think that Muslims don't believe in God at all, or imagine that Islam worships many gods. There is no need to include erronious "information" in order to avoid "bias" or achieve "balance". At this point do we need to add - "but the very reverend Lillywhite of the Outer Pensylvanian tub-thumpers says they worship pigs"?

In EXACTLY the same way "The Baha'i Faith emphasizes the spiritual unity of all humankind" is also unbiased - and for the same reason. It is not "something the Baha'is say", but well attested fact, to the extent that even the critics of the Faith do not deny it for a moment. In fact some, coming from a more or less racist or nationalistic point of view, seize on this very point to base the most virulent of their criticisms on the fact the Baha'is are "race mixers", or "unpatriotic traitors". The important thing about encyclopedic fact is that it is true, and that we have a reliable 3rd. party source that says so. Both these criterea are well met here. What "extra" information would you add at this point to make it "unbiased" or "balanced"?

I'm sure we could find some ignorant idiot to say that Muslims are polytheistic idol worshipers (although such foolishness does not of course belong in the "Islam" article)- but their very worst enemies don't accuse the Baha'is of being racist or ethnocentric. Surely simple fact like the Baha'is believing in the oneness of humankind can pass unchallenged? Or do we need to make something up at this point ourselves, perhaps? I am trying VERY hard to continue to "assume good faith" but to be honest this is becoming increasingly difficult. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The article should and does follow standards of what reliable sources say about the religion. It is highly cited. Historically the article had featured article status and was thus at that time carefully reviewed by numerous experienced admins and editors. The main contributors have sought to keep the high quality of the article. Numerous difficulties have been negotiated and resolved and standards applied. And some of the recent accumulation of citation problems are again being cleaned up. This is natural to the aging of the internet's websites.Smkolins (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, You are right, your writings had good resources. but, one mistake you did is that you chose from one parts of those sources that you like it. it is not neutral. it is called WP:OR. I just said that this article have to rewrite again. I didn't support or deny the faith. I just said the article is not encyclopedic. the sentences are not neutral, there are lots of thing washed from the faith that i named some of them before. besides, you ignore orientalist's works. look at your references. if no body know, anyone who read about Baha'i faith knows that most of your sources are from baha'i priest under Shoghi Effendi's programs. besides, I said a sample (Islam) of how a neutral sentence have to be form out of the religion's point of view, and a sample (Bahai) sentence of POV in the paper. but you played with my sample. besides, when you remove the tag, nobody understand that here there is a conversation about neutrality. but it's seem that maybe you don't know it or doing it intentionally. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, can you specify any specific sentences that you believe are not written in an encyclopedic manner, or that are not truthful? I did not play with your sample above, but showed how it's clearly referenced by a third-party reliable source. Also I noted that your statement that Muslims believe the religion to be a sect of Islam is clearly incorrect. Also remember that recent references are more reliable than old references. For example the Encylcopedia Britannica that was published in 1911 (which is now public domain) has views and statements that have been discounted since then. Similarly, statements that were made a long time ago, through the passage of time, may have been discounted by newer research. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OR is when you make a point not in the sources. Using responsible sources representing the balance of opinion of scholars and researchers is the way to support neutrality. I don't particularly care if you support or deny the religion. That's simply immaterial just as it is if any editor does or does not. Saying "your sources are from baha'i priest" shows a rather substantial lack of understanding of the religion as well as accusing contributors of not respecting the rules of wikipedia at the very same time you say we are right that we are using good sources. You have failed to demonstrate a substantial reason there should be a POV tag - it would seem to be irresponsible to tag it in fact and suggests you don't know the policies by which all articles are governed. As for limited sources from oriental sources we are under the rules that foreign language sources are not to be used. Otherwise I'd be glad to use a french language catholic university encyclopedia rather a lot. But it is simply not acceptable in general to use it. So we live within the rules. Smkolins (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A "sample" and an "example" are totally different things. You gave an example of an unbiased statement in the article on Islam - and an example that you felt was biased in the Baha'i article. Nobody "played" with this - I just pointed out that your two examples were were precisely the same. In both cases we have very simply stated information that nobody would consider biased for a moment. I would like to know if you have read past the top of the article - as many of the things you imply are missing or "washed out" are actually treated a bit further down the page. It takes more than one sentence or two to complete a full treatment of a subject.

What exactly do you mean by "orientalist"? The "orientalists" were English, French and other Western writers interpreting "Eastern" culture, literature and religion to "Western" readers in the later 1800s and early 1900s. Some of them had visited or even lived in Arabia or Persia - and some of them even spoke and read Arabic and/or Farsi - but they remained English or French scholars looking from the outside in, and they got a lot of things wrong, as you'd expect. In spite of this, they undoubtedly brought a better general knowledge of Islamic countries to their readers. On the other hand their writings are now considered VERY dated and inaccurate, and no article on any Islamic (or Baha'i) subject would rely very much on them for facts, expecially up-to-date ones.

Your posts (as I hinted when we were discussing this initially) show few if any signs that you are "reading" other people's posts, or making any real attempt to come to grips with what they are saying. You have an idea firmly in your head, and nothing is going to move it. If you want anyone to take your arguments seriously, you are going to have to read as well as write (listen as well as speak). You have been repeatedly asked for specific examples. You have not given any that that anyone could take seriously. Actually read the whole article, so that you have at least that much background about the Faith - and then suggest how ONE THING might be put in an even less biased way, or ONE important and verifiable fact that is missing - and the people here will certainly be interested. This kind of approach is how articles get improved - not just wild statements that have little or no relation to what is there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Festivals Page

Here's a Wikipedia page that could use some Baha'i Content: Religious festival — I'm Nonpartisan 14:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)

Hope you don't mind, but I fixed your wiki-link. — Parsa (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Infallibility

I think the concept of Infallibility should be explained on the Baha'i main page as it applies to the UHJ. The Baha'i point of view should also be mentioned on the infallibility page itself since we have other religions' point of view already. My 2 cents.

Both seem like valid suggestions. The question, insofar as this article is concerned, is how to best include that (in the Baha'i Administration section) appropriately? Peter Deer (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Bahá'í"

I've seen quite a few references in print and in videos of politicians, etc. referring to Bahá'ís as "the Bahá'í." I know the third paragraph states that Bahá'í is an adjective when referring to the religion, and a noun when referring to an adherent. However, perhaps it would be good for absolute clarity to add a short example sentence, or "Bahá'í" (Singular), "Bahá'ís" (plural)... something to that effect. — ★Parsa (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wilmette Institute

Just an FYI, I have added a new page for the Wilmette Institute as it is considered as one of the Centers of Baha'i Learning in the United States, along with Bosch Baha'i School, Louhelen Baha'i School, Green Acre, and the Native American Baha'i Institute. This page at the Bahai.us page gives a good explanation of Centers of Baha'i Learning.

Would it be appropriate to create a Centers of Baha'i Learning page at that would better reflect there role in the United States Baha'i community? Also, the pages for Bosch, Louhelen and Green Acre could really use some close attention and upgrade. I'm sure that if we asked around we could get some wikicommons photos for all three.I'm Nonpartisan 17:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)

To list or not to list... in re: the Messengers

Nine names is too many, but I'm not going to make the cut. We need to justify the inclusions & pare this to a manageable size. GWFrog (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nine names is indeed too many - and every name that is added only raises more questions about why someone's favourite prophet is left off. This is NOT a complete list - as one would be extremely ungainly in the intro. Another reason is that a full list of every person who might be regarded as definitely a Manifestion of God by at least some Baha'is would introduce controversy - we'd also get into major figures such as Confucius and Socrates who are normally regarded as "Divine Philosophers" rather than independant manifestations.

I think it is important to include the major Abrahamic prophets, who are actually mentioned in the Kitab-i-Iqan (Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad) and about whom there can be no controversy - and we should add, "as well as several figures from extra-Abrahamic traditions such as Zoroaster, Krishna, and the Buddha". That makes seven names, which in the circumstances is plenty!

I will "be bold" and edit to this effect - comments are of course still welcome.

Incidentally, anyone who might imagine that this problem is unique to this article - the "Musical Theatre" article has for a long time had basically the same problem with people who want to add their own favourite musical to the little list in the introduction to that article. For some time now such attempts have been simply squashed firmly. I don't think this can be regarded as "edit warring" - just a few thoughtless if well meaning souls who can't read an edit summary being intransigent. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Seven is better than nine, but... I guess I can live with that. GWFrog (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To speak for the other side while most of the article is pretty steady I'd say this bit is the one most poked at. Not a lot, but persistently over the years. I also had a discussion about this on my talk page with another editor just a few weeks ago where I argued from the other side mostly along the lines of the above. Smkolins (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this comes up a lot. The list I always preferred was Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, because those are the three most recent chronologically, and their adherents represent by far the majority of the world. If any more than that, Moses or Abraham could be mentioned, but I prefer not. That's my two cents. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)