Talk:Baháʼí Faith

Archives
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
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)

Hud was a Manifestation of God?

What's the reference for Baha'is believing Hud to be a manifestion of God? I've never heard that claimed before.

Where's any mention of sects?

Are there even multiple sects of Bahá'í Faith? Because this article makes it seem like there aren't. Kirbytime 09:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There have been many splits and dissent within the Baha'i Faith since its beginnings, but these schisms either have not survived, or they are extremely minoritary. Nevertheless you are right, an encyclopaedia article should at least mention the main ones. --Jdemarcos 09:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are mentioned three times, once right at the top to a link in the disambiguation, once in the section on Coveneant, and once in the Baha'i administration section. -- Jeff3000 13:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While Jeff3000 was writing that I was busy making a sitemap to help you find them from the main Baha'i article:

Teachings -> The Covenant -> Main article: Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh

-> Bahá'í divisions

-> Covenant-breakers

History -> Main article: Bahá'í history

-> The Báb -> Bahá'í/Bábí split

-> Bahá'í administration -> Shoghi Effendi

Hope that helps. -LambaJan 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

LambaJan, please notice that the sub-section on Mason Remey refers to him only as a Covenant-Breaker and not as the starter of several Baha'i splits. This is not a rational way to treat information about religious sects in an encyclopedia.

Jdemarcos, what are you talking about? The history link? Mason Remey is not the only one mentioned there. If you would like me to extend my work to include all of the ways someone can find splits from the history article I will. -LambaJan 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Baha'i should see splits naturally just like any other big religion has splits, it is a normal process and it should not upset anyone. The fact that they are tiny sects only speaks in favor of the Baha'i Faith, not against it. --Jdemarcos 21:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Baha'is think that their religion's purpose is to bring unity to the entire human race. That is why the idea of splits within their own religion is regarded as a terrible and unnatural thing - not at all an easy, understandable human thing as you suggest. You may be correct that the Baha'is are terribly up-tight about the concept of schism - but there is a reason for it - their founder, Baha'u'llah saw it as his central mission to bring unity. So, I think you'll have an uphill struggle to convince Baha'is that schism and splits are no big deal PaulHammond 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly put it that way. Yes, the main teaching of the Faith is unity, and yes there is disunity in the history of Baha'i divisions... This doesn't mean that Baha'is see the splits as being unnatural. On the contrary, many recognize the many ways in which they have unwittingly strengthened the Faith through their presence and their actions. A seemingly common analogy for this subject is a tree. In every season a branch is pruned and the tree grows taller. This is naturally a very painful process and this is why you see Baha'is becoming defensive and sometimes emotional about certain subjects, not because the splits exist, but because their presence and their comments and actions gives us a lot of work to do dispelling myths and such. -LambaJan 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether Baha'is are sensitive to divisions or not, or whether they are good for their growth or not, is irrelevant for an article in the Wikipedia. The issue here is if there have been divisions historically and how big and significant they are. Nobody likes divisions in their own religion but they do happen sometimes and a Wikipedia article should deal with them as objectively as possible. --Jdemarcos 22:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jdemarcos, but I'm reacting to the way you expressed yourself. You made a normative, moralising judgement "Baha'is should regard splits in thus and so way". I was merely explaining some of the reasons you might not have been aware of why it is the fact that Baha'is aren't as relaxed and welcoming to the idea of their religion splitting up into sects as you think they should be. As to the question of division, I think the article does already mention the controversies around Mason Remey and the supporters of Muhammad Ali, and anyone interested in finding out more will find that information.PaulHammond 10:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The statement I just made was POV, unencyclopedic and off the point. I made it as an aside simply as a point of interest. It is totally my opinion and carries no weight beyond that and has no place in the article. I decided to say it on the talk page because I thought that readers may like to know a bit more about how some Baha'is feel on this. -LambaJan 00:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV policies on undue weight apply. Collectively, these groups are, maybe, 5,000 people. [1] The Bahá'ís are around 5,000,000 conservatively [2]. MARussellPESE 13:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

MARussellPESE, you are surely aware that published stats (usually the Britannica stats are the ones quoted by everybody) have been challenged recently by several scholars. We lack stats of lapsed Baha'is and of ex-Baha'is who just leave the religion without telling anyone. This 5 million figure should be taken with caution. Of course the other Baha'i groups are counted only in the thousands but they deserve respect just as anyone else. --Jdemarcos 21:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the statistics, please read an adherent.com discussion which discusses the reliability of the statistics, and notes that they don't represent active participants, but gives reasons that compared to the numbers quoted by other religions "On balance, while official Baha'i figures are not a measure of active participants, the proportion of participating adherents among claimed adherents is thought to be higher than average among the 'major religions' on this list." Thus the number is just as valid as any other religious population number. -- Jeff3000

Baha'i statistics goes into more detail on this. I think we should get away from a few ideas, one being that there is a big conspiracy to inflate numbers, read that page and you'll see that the NSA in the US has made efforts to keep the numbers accurate, and implemented additional steps to the enrollment process to avoid people signing up when they're not serious. We should also avoid pretending that we know the populations of Covenant-breaker groups. The largest group is the Orthodox, which may have around 1000, but nobody knows because they don't even attempt to document it. It just goes down from there, to the point where nobody can tell if they have more than a handful of people just making websites. If you go by verifiable published data or official sources, then they are virtually non-existent. Estimating CB groups at 5,000 total is quite generous, and estimating Baha'is as 5,000,000 is quite conservative, considering that it's the low-ball number given by the Baha'i world centre over a decade ago. Cuñado - Talk 23:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jdemarcos, respectfully, even if one takes the Baha'is at 2 million (Probably the lowest number anybody's used with a straight face, but already debunked on Baha'i statistics), the ratio of sizes between the Baha'is and all the other Azali & Baha'i splinter-groups combined is about three orders of magnitude. (Personally, I take the 5 million as slightly conservative per Cuñado.)

The fact that they exist just doesn't get them over the policy hurdle on undue weight. It's not a matter of respect. I didn't set that bar. We didn't set that bar. That's wikipedia's bar. And this isn't Baha'i censorship. This is Baha'i and other editors relying on wikipedia policies.

As a geek-out aside: Christianity has about 2 billion members. If a the three-orders-of-magnitude rule for inclusion in a main article were applied, then the Christianity article would mention Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, all of whom consider themselves Christian, but are treated with varying degrees of hostility by Christians. Between the Sunni & Shi'a, Islam has about 1 billion. The Ahmadiyahs are credited with 10 million which would cross that rule if barely. (Source)

Both articles mention these groups in passing. The Islam article clearly identifies the Ahmdadiya as heretics to Muslims. This article likewise mentions, and links, to these groups and doesn't call them heretics. Comparing the three articles, they do seem balanced with respect to each other. And it does seem that there is an unofficial 1000:1 rule to merit a mention, but no more. MARussellPESE 14:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please notice that the Christianity article includes a link to a List of Christian denominations, and the groups included in it do not seem to match the 1000:1 rule you mention. There is no such list in the Baha'i series box. If there is such a page, please include a link to it. --Jdemarcos 15:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI the web site of the Baha'i International Community [3] refers to "more than five million Bahá’ís...." --Occamy 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we are talking here about neutral stats. --Jdemarcos 15:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Bahá'í statistics article has an other sources section which on average gives 5.3 million Baha'is (with a median of 5 million). If those teams of fact-checkers are not good enough for you then not much else can be said; you've made your mind up that everybody is wrong. Furthermore the Bahá'í divisions page clearly goes through all of the schisms of the Baha'i Faith, even when they've only been two people. A link to that page is given twice. -- Jeff3000 15:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said that everybody is wrong, I just said that bahai.org is not a neutral site on Baha'i stats. Why are you so defensive? OTOH thanks for pointing out that there is a Bahá'í divisions page, which I have just read and it looks very complete although not the most NPOV article that I've read. Anyway, I'm not going to deal with that, since at least the article includes all main sects. Are there any plans to include a link in the Baha'i series box? --Jdemarcos 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the template. Cuñado - Talk 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jdemarcos, good observation regarding the Christian denominations link. The Islam article is also very up-front over its various segments. I thought this article had been equally so by discussing these in the text.

However, Christianity's almost constant splintering and Islam's fracture into the Sunni/Shi'a seem significant characteristics of both faiths. If one used a 1000:1 rule, what would the metric be?

• Total Christians:Church of Norway or Roman Catholics:Church of Norway
• Total Muslims:Shi'a or Sunni:Shi'a

(These seem to be almost useless comparisons, which is why there really isn't likely to be a 1000:1 rule.)

The relative uniformity of the Baha'is is distinctive, and I'm not sure that spending a great deal of time discussing these actually does the subject justice. [4] [5]

How's adding the divisions link to the template look. That's a very high-profile component of these articles.

On the statistics, I think you're running afoul of a very old debate that Jeff3000 and others were front-line combatants in. (I was afraid I'd be picking an old scab when I brought it up. Sorry all.) Indeed, you did not say everybody's wrong, but others have, and with a lot less tact. If you look over the talk page you'll find debate pattern repeatedly revolve around the Baha'i editors presenting as many non-Baha'i sources as they could find to justify a number lower than the "official" one only to be met with: "You lying bastard Baha'is deliberately inflate your numbers to make yourselves look pretty; and don't confuse me with your silly so-called neutral sources 'cause they're lying too." There's more than a little PTSD on this subject.

Do appreciate your thoughtful contributions. MARussellPESE 18:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I certainly am not one of those who insult the Baha'i Faith or degrade the quality of the articles. I am simply a non-Baha'i (although I think I am fairly familiar with its main tenets), and therefore my understanding and/or interpretation of some texts may be different from the interpretation by a Baha'i who is more familiar with some issues and ways of expression. I don't mind if numbers are higher or lower, or if there are many sects or there are none. For me it is no especial merit for a religion to have many followers or just a few, or if it has suffered many splits or none. I am simply interested in analyzing the human phenomenon called religion it its many different manifestations. I appreciate your openness to discuss matters and the flexibility of all participating editors to accept reasonable changes and proposals. --Jdemarcos 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I speak for all the Baha'i editors, that we thank you Jdemarcos for your edits in the Baha'i articles, and your openness in these discussions. If I have come up as curt in any discussion above, which I probably did, please accept my apologies. -- Jeff3000 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I have a hug? Cuñado - Talk 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

female bahai marry at the age of 19

I know that the number 19 is significant in the Bahai faith. Is it true that bahai women have to marry at the age of 19? And if that is true, what is the status of women that is over 19 and not married. And what is the big deal behind the number 19 anyways?

--Bushnaq 03:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bushnaq, No female (or males) don't have to marry at 19 or at any age for that matter. While marriage is seen as something that is spiritually positive, there is no requirement to marry. The laws for marriage regarding men and women in the Baha'i Faith are the same, except that the man has to pay a dowry to the women. You can see all the details of marriage in the Baha'i Faith in the article Baha'i marriage.

As to the number 9, both 9 and 19 are special in the Baha'i Faith. 9 is important because in the Abjad notation in Arabic, the word Baha (glory) adds up to 9. As for the number 19, the word "Vahid" has a numerical value of 19, and means 'Unity', and for Baha'is it symbolizes the unity of God, and thus the number 19 itself symbolizes the unity of God, and it was used by the Báb in many respects (there were 18 apostles + himself = 19, and the basis of his calendar. Hope this helps. -- Jeff3000 03:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry wrong!
The age for marrying is set to 15 and marriage is obligatory! (Sorry I only have the German source of "Question and Answers" -> "Fragen & Antworten" p92 & Kitabi Aqdas about marriage §63)
--193.171.99.108 09:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Konrad

Unfortunately you are wrong, the minimimum age to get married is 15, and marriage is not obligatory. From the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the book of laws:

"Marriage is highly recommended but not obligatory."

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 149)

and

"Marriage is conditioned upon both parties having attained the age of maturity which is fixed at 15"

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 149)

-- Jeff3000 13:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeff! Are you quoting from the "Synopsis & Codification?". There its content has been obviously faked by the Bahai Administration. Here is the whole text: Aqdas §63: God hath prescribed ( in Elder & Miller (1961) translation: ordained ) matrimony unto you. Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two. Whoso contenteth himself with a single partner from among the maidservants of God, both he and she shall live in tranquillity.
Konrad --193.171.99.75 08:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC) ERRATUM: in Questions & Answers there is really quoted that matrimony is not obligatory. Questions remain though! Why e.g. did B.U. force the pope and all his monks and clergymen to marry in his tablet to Pope Pius IX?
Konrad --193.171.99.75 08:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Konrad. Since we're not talking about the article, I suggest we stop this thread of discussion, and if you have a specific question, you can ask on my talk page. You're asking valid questions about the Baha'i Faith, and I would like to respond, but this isn't the place. Cuñado - Talk 09:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Cunado! Thought we were discussing a deepening problem from this article. But the suspicion remains that there are still myths around the Bahai-Faith which seem to be unerasing even by Wikipedia.
WFG Konrad --193.171.99.96 10:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Im curious, what are the sources of such myths? where did you got that from Bushnaq ? - --Cyprus2k1 10:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Baha'u'llah never uses the word ordain in the Kitab-i-Aqdas regarding marriage. The english translation is God hath prescribed matrimony unto you. Prescribe has the defintion of To set down as a rule or guide and indeed the Kitab-i-Aqdas is the book of laws, and in it he gives the laws of marriage. He does stress the importance of marriage, but does not make it obligatory, he even makes it conditional upon the acceptance of all living parents. Secondly even if you use the word ordain, ordain is a strong authorize, which means to give permission to, and again Baha'u'llah clearly stresses the importance of marriage, but does not make it obligatory. And, regardless of how you interpret the statement from the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi were the appointed interpreters of Baha'u'llah's writings, and thus the codification and synopsys by Shoghi Effendi is an authoritative interpretation for Baha'is, thus Baha'i law and belief. That's it. Also Cunado is right, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum-- Jeff3000 13:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

my last statement: the official German translation (http://recherche.bahai-studien.de/ok.php?a=SHOWTEXT&d=/de/Bahaitum/Authentisches%20Schrifttum/Bahaullah/Kitab-i-Aqdas.txt): "Gott hat euch den Ehestand verordnet". "Verordnet" can mean "prescribed" as well as "decreed". May as it will, it doesn't make a big difference, if you are discriminated within a Bahai-society because you are unmarried or if you reject marriage against an obligation if something would exist!
Konrad --193.171.99.107 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand. The Kitab-i-Aqdas, and it's synopsys and codification are authoritative Baha'i documents. If someone accepts the Baha'i Faith, then they accept the authoritative writings of Shoghi Effendi, which clearly makes marriage optional (though it is highly suggested). Marriage is conditional on the two partners agreeing, as well as all living biological parents agreeing. No doubt, the Baha'i writings clearly indicate that marriage is very good, and can lead to spiritual upliftment for each individual, as well as unifying two families, and also allowing for the continuation of humanity, but it is still optional. I have never seen anyone in Baha'i community life being discriminated against for not being a married (I'm not married), and there is no undue stress from the community to get married. -- Jeff3000 15:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, except stress from parents who want grandchildren - but this is true everywhere.  :) However, I don't know what Konrad is going on about. I have never heard, in my 17 years being a Baha'i, of community pressure to get married. The Guardian made it clear that if a Baha'i goes through his life forever unmarried, that he should not consider his life's purpose to be unfulfilled. There's no more clear designation of marriage's optional nature than that. And from no less a source than the Guardian.

1267. Moral Duty to Marry but Marriage is Not an Obligation

"...Of course, under normal circumstances, every person should consider it his moral duty to marry. And this is what Bahá'u'lláh has encouraged the believers to do. But marriage is by no means an obligation. In the last resort it is for the individual to decide whether he wishes to lead a family life or live in a state of celibacy."

(From letter of the Guardian to an individual believer, May 3, 1936; cited by the Universal House of Justice, in a letter to an individual believer, February 6, 1973) - Lights of Guidance, p. 378)

I don't think it's possible to argue honestly that an unmarried Baha'i could be subject to community sanction or pressure, unless that community was somehow unaware of the guidance from the Guardian. -- Christian Edward Gruber 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

193.171.99.108 where did you get the idea that there is somekind of pressure in the community for getting married?? im 22 years old and im not married. the youngest age i remember a youth getting married is 23, which i guess is the average age most people(betwen 23-27) since after than you should have finished college and got a good job. - --Cyprus2k1 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK! I have to answer, but now really for the last time: I've been Bahai for ~10 years and I got acquainted with a lot of converts who actually never intented to marry but they did it after joining the faith. I dont want to talk about how Bahais wanted to persuade me to do it either.
That in the current situation, where Bahai isn't the dominating power of society, there can be no obligation to marry doesn't mean that this obligation has been abolished, because simply within a modern democratic society you cant force somebody to such a behaviour!
But be it as it may: it doesn't make that big of difference if you are discriminated (what would be obviously!) or criminalized when you decide for your own to remain unmarried.
Konrad --193.171.99.107 08:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

193.171.99.107 , i know for a fact that there is no obligation or pressure in the bahai community for marriage whatsoever, However, some CULTURES/COUNTRIES may have this kinda of mentality that people should get married, i know this happens sometimes (thourgh i dont know any cases in the bahai community) with muslims, christians, or even agnostiscs, its not related with religion itself. I guess parents feel better/safer if theyre children get married. but again its not related with religion itself or the bahai faith itself.

Further, for arguments sake ,even if this has happened in some community, In this article we are writing about the bahai faith itself and the bahai community in general and not some particular (black sheep) community - --Cyprus2k1 08:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

if you are a bahai and this actually happens in your particular community, then i suggest you bring it up to the competent bodies, such as the national assembley or even the house of justice. I agree that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum , so if you want to discuss this further, you can contact me in my talk page or go to a bahai forum such as planet bahai. all the best :) - --Cyprus2k1 08:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Emerging Global Religion

"emerging global religion" is a correct statement. The Baha'i Faith is comparitevly small to Christianity and Islam and is growing, thus emerging. It is the second most widespread religion as determined by Encyclopedia Brittanica and thus global, and it is a religion. -- Jeff3000 16:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be correct but it is also POV. "Emerging Global Faith" is the name of a book by a member of the UHJ - isn't that strong indication in itself how POV it is? How many other "emerging global religions" do you know? When have you ever heard any on ouside the BF refer to it as an "emerging global religion"?

Baha'is see themselves - for theological rather than academic reasons - as on a par with Islam, Christianity etc because Baha'u'llah is a Manifestation alongside (or in some ways superior to) Muhammed, Jesus etc. However from a sociological perspective the Baha'i Faith has much more in common with smaller new religious movements like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Ahmadi, Hare Krishnas, Brahma Kumaris. Hence it would be better to say, for example, "The Baha'i Faith is a religion founded in the nineteenth century..." AndrewRT 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I fail to see the logic here. The Baha'i Faith is a global religion, and in the past 25 years it has (by any standard) emerged from obscurity. Non-Baha'i sources confirm this, and even MacEoin, a noted anti-Baha'i author, wrote:

"the movement has had remarkable success in establishing itself as a vigorous contender in the mission fields of Africa, India, parts of South America, and the Pacific, thus outstripping other new religions in a world-wide membership of perhaps 4 million and an international spread recently described as second only to that of Christianity. The place of Baha'ism among world religions now seems assured."

In another place Peter Smith writes:

". . . massive expansion of the religion has occurred [in the last thirty years], so that Baha'i claims to the status of a world religion now begin to appear credible. This expansion has also completely transformed the religion's social basis: what was formerly a predominantly Iranian religion with a small but significant Western following has become a world-wide religious movement, with its major membership in the Third World and with an enormous diversity of followers in terms of religious and ethnic backgrounds." (Smith, Survey 83)

Cuñado - Talk 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

AndrewRT, please see the article New religious movements for a rather complete treatment of the subject. The Bahá'í Faith is not an NRM. Neither are the others you cite.

A significant distinction between the Bahá'í Faith and the others you note is that it is not a derivative of an existing faith. Each of your examples are. To a greater or lesser extent, each is viewed as theologically suspect, at least, by their mainstream faiths. Many, in good faith, consider these heretical. Nobody, in good faith, mistakes the Bahá'í Faith for a heretical sect of Islam.

With its own, stand-alone, body of "inspired text", doctrine, institutional character, rites, etc. it, in fact, is on par with Islam, Christianity, etc. in ways the others you refer to are not.

That said, this religion isn't "emerging" anymore, so I'd rather drop this adjective. MARussellPESE 20:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Calendar

There is, to my knowledge, no compulsion to strictly use the Arabic names for the calendar's subdivisions. I don't think there is any guidance either way; the communities I've been in usually use either the English alone, or both, but never just the Arabic. Keldan 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Should we just strike that comment then? Cuñado - Talk 01:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that unless we can find corroborating evidence of such a policy, we should probably strike it. Keldan 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the rule on adding other Baha'i links?

I tried adding a link of a site I run, which is hosted on blogger. I do not have any ads because I don't want to use the Faith to make money. It is a site that is updated often, hosting quotes from the Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha for the most part. There are occasional comments and discussions. Though it is hosted on Blogger, it is not site with personal rants, personal promotion, personal blogging. It is a site so people can receive Baha'i quotes in their own RSS readers or come for pre-selected Readings.

I do understand the danger of linking to such sites on the other hand.

There are some sites that claim to be Baha'i but seem to be sowing doubts in others' minds. If we allow any site that claims to be Baha'i to be added under "other Baha'i links" then soon this site could be flooded with links that do not represent the Baha'i Faith accurately, causing confusion and misunderstanding.

I also understand that sites run by an individual,regardless of who hosts it and how it may look now, the site could "hook people in" and then turn around and do something misleading. (Which un such a case the link should be taken down.) The trustworthiness of a site and the individual running the site is something that could not easily be established.

So I understand the want to control what gets on here, but I am not sure if the review process was fair either, as the link was taken off very quickly, claiming it was a link spam of a sort. Perhaps there is a guidline some where which I do not know about. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaijin21 (talk • contribs) .

I can't answer it exactly what the "Rule" is, but in general this is an encyclopaedia. The issue isn't control of content, it's cleanliness of the article. It is not about "representing the Baha'i Faith" in an advocacy sense, nor about adding every possible link in the internet universe that might be of interest. Therefore, sites that have material referenced in the article, or that are informational articles themselves that might shed light on the topic would be considered relevant. However, applications, sales sites, unless seen to be highly relevant, wouldn't be linked to. I suspect Jeff3K removed your link because while you blog writings, there is a link to library.bahai.org which is a reference site itself. The selection of writings in a blog, or the opinins expressed in a blog are not really encyclopoedic, and while a particular blog might be referenced if its content is cited in an article, linking to the blog site itself starts to get in to spreading opinion, rather than verifiable information on the topic.

There are many sites that Baha'is would not consider to be representative of the Baha'i Faith, but a neutral observer would see as nevertheless connected, because such a neutral observer wouldn't be examining the Baha'i Faith from the context of a believer, nor from the context of any particular interpretation of the Covenant. Because of this, this article cannot always have a set of links that are "comfortable" for Baha'is, but the editors try to keep Baha'i, non-Baha'i, and oppositional external links to those that could be considered "sources" for the articles, or "see also" informational links.

If you think it's worth inclusion, think of why it might be included in a Britannica or a World Book encyclopaedia, and make the argument. Most people here are reasonable. The snap decision probably has more to do with a conservative position on article change, because there has been so much adding of irrelevant links, POV material, etc. Cheers. --Christian Edward Gruber 11:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Christian. A couple other points: (1) currently there are already too many links, and unless a link provides something quite unique I think it should be removed. All the writings are already linked (multiple times I should add). (2) Also, to remain neutral Baha'is can't just add every Baha'i website; currently there are a fair share of third-party websites. (3) Most importantly though is that blogs are not allowed to be links in Wikipedia. From the Wikipedia:External links style guide: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to." Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

History

Main article: Bahá'í history

Bahá'ís regard the period from the Báb's 1844 declaration in Shiraz, to the 1921 passing of `Abdu'l-Bahá, as the Heroic, or the Apostolic Age of the Faith. This was the age when its founders lived, its martyrs died, and its foundations were established in several countries around the world.

After `Abdu'l-Bahá's passing, the Faith entered the Formative Age, which would be characterized by its rising administrative institutions, worldwide expansion, and a transition into the future Golden Age, the consummation of the Bahá'í dispensation.

Uh, yeah, that is totally coherent.24.254.232.33

It is verifiable information, see God Passes By. -- Jeff3000 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation

The pronunciation of (ba-haa-ee) was changed to (IPA: [baˈhaʔi] or [baˈhaɪ]). The average person has no idea what those IPA pronunciation characters mean, and they still won't know how to pronounce the word. Even worse, now the intro has a bunch of extra stuff in it which is distracting. I suggest we change it back to the readable version. Cuñado - Talk 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let's change it back. -- Jeff3000 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of that transliteration because it's not clear whether the vowels are long or short or if there are any pauses. I suggest keeping the IPA and, if you feel it necessary, re-add the other version. -LambaJan 22:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I really disagree with using the IPA version. I would rather not add phonetics than use that. Cuñado - Talk 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't use both. The Appalachia article does so quite well. I agree that having the general transliteration is good for laypeople, but IPA is an international standard (which, Heaven knows, Bahá'ís are all about) which is both unambiguous and really useful. I think both easily qualify as useful information - let's keep them both. Keldan 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I don't think 'Persian exile' is the most appropriate two word characterization of Baha'u'llah. He was not an exile by profession or trade or for any reason that isn't associated with this religion. He was a nobleman before He was exiled for being a Babi.

Also this 'three onenesses as a theological doctrine' seems a little out of place in the intro to me. The whole 'three onenesses' thing is an exogenous construct and the concepts it conveys were not directly referred to in such a way in the Writings. I almost never hear Baha'is talking about three onenesses, not even when presenting the Faith to others. Instead I more often hear the central teachings presented in terms of the Covenant and several concepts of unity that include but aren't limited to the three onenesses. The Covenant is MUCH more central than any of these other things. I think that whole paragraph should be removed. -LambaJan 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the persian exile wording, it should be improved. In regards to the Three Onenesses, I agree that most Baha'is don't use the term, but the term is not used in the intro (just linked, we could remove the link). The three unities (or whatever you call them) are central to Baha'i teachings, especially the Unity of Humankind, which Shoghi Effendi has stated in WOB, and the Unity of religions (or progessive relevation) is also of fundamental importance. The Oneness of God, while not being stressed because we live in a Monotheistic society, I also believe is fundamental; if Baha'is didn't believe in the Oneness of God much of the prayer, fasting, and other practices would not be the same. I would keep all three of those links there. The wording could be changed to take away the "interlocking unities", but I think the Unities should be linked.

As to regard of the Covenant I would not bring it up in the intro. While a distinguishing feature of the Baha'i Faith it does not show what Baha'is believe in, and becomes applicable only after someone has accepted Baha'u'llah. -- Jeff3000 23:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of how the teachings are handled on all the pages. It seems like it could use a good re-organizing. I think what teaching is important to whom is different for everybody. The "three onenesses" I think are the most common teachings first thrown out. After that might be something like universal language or world peace. I don't think Covenant is usually an introductory issue, unless you are referring to the Greater Covenant and the fulfillment of past dispensations. Maybe you could offer a suggestion for a new intro?? Cuñado - Talk 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case I was referring to the Greater Covenant. And, while these three onenesses are of a rather fundamental nature, they're usually given along with oneness of science and religion and a whole string of other ones. I know harmony is usually the word in that case, but it's a bit of a semantic difference. I guess I would be happier if we threw out the exogenous framework and presented the teachings more in a manner in which they're presented to us. If we reworded the link to in some way emphasize that this is just a framework for presenting some of the teachings in a way that you can dip your feet into then that would be enough for me right now. I could think about a new intro. Right now we seem to agree on the exile bit, so if anyone has a thought of what to change that to, then by all means, -LambaJan 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fond of "three onenesses" as an expression either. I was at Davison (now LouHelen) when the song was written and had to suffer with that insipid song for more than a decade growing up. (It's number one on a dear friend's hysterical ten-worst-Baha'i-songs-ever list.)

However, the concept that the first duty is recognition of the Manifestation, and the second: obedience to them, has apriori assumptions that there is a God, that He repeatedly reveals Himself to us all, and that we are all expected to know Him and love Him. These are "interlocking unities" and the Three Onenesses article treats them well. These do seem to be "core" beliefs. Discussion of the Greater Covenant is, in my opinion, an outward expression of these beliefs, and runs the risk of being jargon-laced.

Growing up in Alabama, I found that if the very first thing out of my mouth was not "I believe in God", it was pretty much assumed that I did not. So I think we need to assume nothing of the reader.

I'd be interested, LambaJan, in what you'd rather see.

On "persian exile", I do not have problem with that, He did spend more than half of his life in exile. God Passes By uses the adjective several times in this context. (pp. 149, 160, 164-167, 173, etc.) He also admonishes to "remember my days ... and my distres and banishment..." Certainly exile was something that affected his family life and career.

Off-hand, I can't think of an NPOV adjective. If it's to be "persian prophet", some storm-trooper is inevitably going to make it "persian pseudo-prophet", "so-called prophet", "would-be prophet". What a bloody mess. MARussellPESE 12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a couple changes that are enough to satisfy me but, going by what was said, are probably not going to bother anyone. Maybe the exile part will. I just deleted that whole bit. MWAHAHAHAHA!!

Cunado, how would you like to see the intro changed? Were you thinking of a whole rewrite from a different angle, or just a bit of nitpicking like myself? -LambaJan 03:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I've just added the date back so it gives the reader an idea of the timeline. Hope that is ok. -- Jeff3000 04:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to perhaps cleaning up the several pages on the teachings... three onenesses, Progressive revelation, Bahá'í Faith and the unity of religion, etc. I think they need to all stem off naturally from the Baha'i teachings article, which they don't. That might include a lot of moving and deleting. Cleaning up those would help clean up the beliefs section here. Over the next month I don't have time to do anything more than spot checking, so I was just throwing that out while we're talking about how to present the teachings. Cuñado - Talk 05:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not a lot of time, but having created some of those pages with this exact kind of related article structure in mind, I'm grateful it might be dawning. As far as I am able (time-wise) I'll contribute. --Christian Edward Gruber 12:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

meaning of Bahá

this online dictionary translates Bahá as :MAGNIFICENCE, GLORY, ECLAT, RADIANCE, GLITTER

Someone just added the definition of "light" to the page. I would like to delete it because it distracts from the point, and there is no reason "light" should have priority over "radiance" or "magnificence" or even "glitter". Glory and splendor gives an idea of the meaning. We don't want to be known as "the people of the glitter". Cuñado - Talk 16:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes light does not reflect the meaning, radiance does moreso, but I think glory and splendour are good enough. -- Jeff3000 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh... "people of the glitter". Makes me want to go to a rave. That's it... "people of the glow-stick". That aughta appeal to the under-25 set. Wow Cunado19, you've really thrown my brain into a strange place. :) --Christian Edward Gruber 18:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I think that the two references in the lead are not good enough. They are Baha'i references, and we need third-party references for such statements. I will be commenting the statements out, until third-party references are found. -- Jeff3000 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a Baha'i author,

"By comparing the geographical distribution of the world's religions, Barrett's statistical analysis complements the above work. This demonstrates that in mid-1992, the Bahá'í Faith had "a significant following" in 220 countries with a worldwide membership of 5.5 million. This geographical distribution is second only to Christianity, which has a following in 252 countries, and greater than Islam (184 countries), Judaism (134 countries), Hinduism (94 countries), and Buddhism (92 countries). In contrast, "New-Religionists," which include followers of "20th century Asian religions and new religious movements," have only spread to twenty-seven countries (Barrett, World 270)." [6]

but it quotes its source as Barrett, D. "World Religious Statistics." In 1993 Britannica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993.

I'm not sure how to document this on the page, but I feel like this is sufficient referencing. Any ideas on how to format it? Cuñado - Talk 04:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that the number of "countries" fluctuates from 1963 until present. The 259 estimate[7] includes countries such as Tibet, Sikkim, and others which have since been incorporated into other nations. The current number of countries and territories is between 200 and 230 (see Bahá'í statistics), but if the date of 1963 is added then 259 is still accurate. Cuñado - Talk 04:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The other problem I have with that info in the lead, is that info really doesn't need to be there, it really looks like it's a marketing statement as is. The lead should be about the beliefs, the demographics is discussed at length heavily below. Let's comment it out, until more discussion can come about. -- Jeff3000 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think of it as a marketing statement. Most people have never heard of the Baha'i Faith before, so an initial statement should include something of its scope. Otherwise it might be mistaken for something along the lines of The New Church, which mentions at the very bottom of the article that it has 5,000 members, geographically isolated in 33 churches. The accomplishments of the Baha'i Faith by 1963 were very significant, and in only 100 years after its founding, that's why I chose that date as a marker.

I suggest using at least one of three indicators of its size in the intro: around 6 million followers, 259 countries by 1963, or second most wide-spread. Cuñado - Talk 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the number of followers is fine, the number of countries ok as well, but the second-most widespread can be misinterpreted, and can also seem like a promotional statement. I would not put that in, since it will hurt the optics of the neutrality of this page. -- Jeff3000 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the word significant in the lead. What does significant mean? Removing significant makes the sentence look weird though. The previous wording did not have that problem. I suggest going back to it. -- Jeff3000 03:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, here are the two lines we're talking about...

1) In the early twenty-first century the Bahá'ís number around six million in more than two hundred countries around the world.

and

2) ...which by the early twenty-first century had a significant following in over two hundred countries, and around six million adherents worldwide.

I used 'significant' because in Fazel's article he says: ["a significant following" in 220 countries], apparently quoting the Britanica article. I'm not stuck on using the word significant, but I think the second wording is better. There's a slight ambiguity to the first sentence. It could read as "over 200 countries each have around 6 million Baha'is in them." But please edit away if you feel something is better. Cuñado - Talk 06:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "...which by the early twenty-first century had established communities in over two hundred countries, and around six million adherents worldwide." By established communities one might pick a bar as saying N Spiritual Assemblies sitting, or some such. (I don't have those numbers, but they might actually be counted to provide such a threshold.) Do we actually know what the threshold of the Britannica authors was? --Christian Edward Gruber 13:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In 2001 there were 182 National Spiritual Assemblies.[8] Even that fact needs a major footnote, because Hawaii and Alaska have their own NSA's, and the Falkland Islands (off the coast of Chile) are under the jurisdiction of the United States NSA. I think the number of NSA's could go in a foot note about the number of countries.

And I agree that "established communities" is a good owrding. Maybe another might be "significant following". Cuñado - Talk 03:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What counts as a "significant following"? Baha'is seem to think that nine people are significant, while most other people think you should have at least (say) 1 % of the population. I say we should just cite the range of estimates, with some indication of distribution, and link to the article on Baha'i demographics for particulars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.126.125.111 (talk • contribs) .

This article is a whitewash

Where are all the controversies, and things that make this cult look as bad as it deserves to? An innocent reader might walk away thinking that the Bahai Faith is united, up-to-date, and on the march. Fuck you, Baha'is--and fuck Wikidia's presumption of "good faith." I can see what you're doing and I promise, you won't get away with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.126.125.111 (talk • contribs) .

Actually most of the so-called critical aspects of the Baha'i Faith are already mentioned in the article as fact. No women on the house of justice, the divisions, that covenant-breakers are shunned, and that homosexuality is not allowed. Moreover, more than 99% of all Baha'is are part of one group. I have reverted your addition due to Wikipedia's Undue Weight policy, it is a point of view held by a very small minority of people, and it is dealt with accordingly in a subpage according to many different Wikipedia policies. -- Jeff3000

I'm entirely failing to see how the anonymous author above can structure complaints against assumptions of good faith manage to sit within a paragraph that shouts prejudicial obscenities. There's also a logical falacy that's rather amusing. Either anonymous is shouting at baha'i generically, in which case he must believe that they are at least united and on the march, or he's merely smearing and tarring those supposed "poor benighted victims of a cult" whom he feels are victims. It occurs to me that, if this were more sincere than the religious equivalent of outright racism, then it would be phrased with more care. However, it does seem clear that this author/editor has no interest in preserving wikipedia, since he abandons all decorum and hurls abuse, entirely in contravention of wikipedia policy on personal attacks and harassment. I had seen the edits, but not this vitriol, initially and believed, for a moment, that there could be a good-faith effort from all parts to improve this article. I, for one, am thoughouly disappointed.

You'd think a declared opponent of a religion would display some more finesse. If I were interested in pilloring an identifiable group, I would, at least, attempt to make my own case somewhat sympatethic, or so I imagine not having any such inclination. This, sadly, was just a pathetic flailing out of a clearly frustrated soul. I'm not even sure why Jeff3000 answered it directly. Truly sad. Whatever he thinks Baha'is are trying to "get away with", it won't be stopped by juvenile ad hominem. Perhaps if said editor were to propose some changes that met wikpedia's standards or relevance, verifiability, and NPOV, he might have somewhere to move. Indeed, however, this editor displays similar behaviour to others who have merely lurked on this page and others, only to harrass the Baha'is present, and generally distort the presentation of the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'is who are editors here have displayed remarkable ability to absorb views with which they do not agree, and work very hard (as to the other editors, of course). Those who have spent enough time here, without at all implying perfection, surely recognize this. --Christian Edward Gruber 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

True baha'i has some cult like qualities, but one must remember that a cult is not a bad thing, but a early stage in a religion's life. islam was a cult, christianity was a cult, buddhism was a cult, ect. Pure inuyasha 14:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While the baha'i faith has some stuff that makes some people in this day and age suspicious, One must remember what I said above. and baha'i is all about unity. if that unity is under threat does it not make sence to try to preserve it? Pure inuyasha 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Usefull image?

I found This at the serbian wikipedia. What do you think? Pure inuyasha 15:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like it. It's too busy, not english, and it wouldn't fit in any of the sections. -- Jeff3000 15:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

someone could traslate it. erhaps it could be put into a section on manifestations of god. Pure inuyasha 18:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) I have more http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Şəkil:Haifa-Bahai_world_center_front.jpg http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soubor:Baha%27i_arc_from_archives.jpg http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Bahaitemple_terraced_gardens.jpg http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:B5a_delhi700.jpg http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Bahai_shrine.jpg http://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irudi:Haifa-Bahai.jpg and a look at wikimedia commons wouldn't hurt. Pure inuyasha 18:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, all these images are on commons [9] and [10]. This page has enough figures at the moment though. -- Jeff3000 18:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Restructure of beliefs/teachings.

Greetings. I have done some initial restructuring within the beliefs section. I feel that teachings, beliefs, and laws belong in a single section with a better breakdown, and a quick two or three paragraph intro at the top. Right now things are really scattered, with Demographics sitting in the middle. Given how integrated baha'i beliefs and their social practices and political and legal philosophies are, they really need to be tied together, or we'll have way too much duplication. In the process, the whole thing should read more encyclopedic and should flow much more naturally. All of the information there should remain fairly consistent, except to be hopefully not repeated several times in several sections. --Christian Edward Gruber 04:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations generally included in References section, vs. by <ref> tags.

Hey all. We have a list of references in the "References" section, but we have many of these duplicated in <ref> tags. Does it make sense to remove items cited in the References section that appear in the citations using the new footnote referencing system? -- Christian Edward Gruber

Yes it does, let's get rid of those that are duplicated. -- Jeff3000 12:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If the <ref> formatting is done properly we shouldn't need a separate references at all. Every time something is referenced it can be footnoted to the notes. Cuñado - Talk 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge belifs and teachings.

I mean, isn't it the same thing? Pure inuyasha 21:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Beliefs are generally held beliefs and explain the Baha'i view on history and other religions, and the teachings are much more specific. -- Jeff3000 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I kind of agree with both of you. Jeff3000, they are different, and should be sectioned appropriately, but Pure Inuyasha, they are highly related, and teachings (particularly social practices and priorities) stem from Baha'i beliefs. I think that some combination of the sections would make sense, but I'm still playing with how, to achieve both the right level of verbosity, right level of clarity, and clean sectioning to make it a high-quality wikipedia section. --Christian Edward Gruber 14:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)