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.
Official written agreement between the BWC and the State of Israel
I know such accord exists and has been signed in the 1990s between the Baha'i World Centre (BWC) in haifa, Israel and the State of Israel. I think it is a material fact and should be mentioned in the Administration section (and please don't tell me this accord does not exist!) 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Like every country doesn't regulate religions? Come on! For a church to marry people in the United States they have to be registered with the Department of State of whatever state they are in - filing paperwork back and forth, paying registration costs, etc. Yet I don't see entries in wikipedia articles noting the registration status and details of each religion and institution per country. Occasionally there is some reference to when a religion is DENIED the ability to be registered and recognized and that has been mentioned in some place for Baha'is as well as others. But aside from that and as far as reliable sources I can only find a couple brief mentions in Smith's "A Concise Encyclopedia" and one newspaper story about the Baha'is having an agreement with the state of Israel. It is not notable in the reviews of the Faith I can find.--Smkolins (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this accord is not what you say (obviously you don't know since you have not read it). It is more like establishing the relations of the Vatican with Italy, which is to be updated as the status of BWC itself evolves. It is a kind of "seat accord". Why this is unknown to most Baha'is is a mystery all by itself :) . The idea is that BWC will obtain an international status (within Israel) sometime in the future much like the Holy See. When the Secretary General of the BWC says that Baha'is are not treated favorably by Israel is somewhat 'incorrect' to say the least. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I can't help you with the verifiability part since the UHJ itself does not want to share this document with you! Regards, 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreeing with Jeff3000 that notability through reliable sources is the standard you seem to be referring to other standards of information. --Smkolins (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding notability, please refer to the article at Holy See. It has one section devoted to it entirely.
Finally, "Original research or synthesis"? not really, but again you need to read the original document for yourself FIRST before judging. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
"regarding notability"is being spoken of, between us, in two different ways. I'm addressing if reliable sources discuss it and they don't. You are suggesting the topic is, but if sources dont then your opinion is not with the norm. --Smkolins (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
You have a problem with the fact that this document exists and the Universal House of Justice of this sect does NOT want to share its content publicly. It is not a question of 'my belief to be in line with the norms'! You are being risible :) 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You err in several ways all at the same time. And going into personal attacks doesn't help.--Smkolins (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
NB: I do have this document in possession and its authenticity is NOT disputed in any way, shape or form. At this point, if i were you, i would ask the advise of your Baha'i Internet agency before digging a greater hole for yourself! 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, you err in several ways at the same time.--Smkolins (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I very much doubt the document concerned exists, and, further, I suspect you know very well it doesn't exist, or alternatively does not bear anything like the construction you put on it here, or you would be able to give us a source. "Stirring" as we call it in Australia can be great fun, but Wikipedia (especially the talk pages of articles) is a bad place to try it, because we are constrained to take you seriously ("assuming good faith" we call it) however fantastical you become. There is in fact (keep my response to you serious) a whole article detailing a number of official Iranian government accusations of this general nature. The fact that this particular charge has NOT been raised at an official level (perhaps it will be soon?) when so many remarkable charges HAVE been raised in this context does make it "original research" from a Wikipedia point of view. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Whatever is claimed or not I think it is pretty clear this interaction is not aimed at improving the article. --Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I got this document from the NSA itself. It would take an email to your UHJ to confirm this; yet you continue to dig a whole for yourself with all your unfounded arguments and personal accusations.184.108.40.206 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
If the editor who claims to have the document can produce it, or indicate somewhere where it is available, then it would be extremely useful if he would either produce it, or provide a link to a website where it can be found. That would allow others to determine if the document exists, exactly what it says, and how important the information to be sourced from it is, which would help determine which article it would go into. I am in no way an expert on the state of Israel, but I would have to assume that if a democratic country like Israel were to have been a party to such a document, that its official records would contain a copy of it. Otherwise, all I see are to date unfounded assertions regarding something whose very existence has yet to be definitively established.
If the document or explicit reference to it in independent reliable sources cannot be produced, then it seems to me that further discussion of it on this page would not be particularly relevant to the development of this article, and a violation of WP:TPG, and also probably WP:TE as well, and such violations can reasonably in some cases lead to some form of sanctions. Therefore, I believe it is in the best interests of the editor, and the project itself, if he produces a copy of the document that others can see, or drops the subject altogether and does not continue to misuse this page in what seems a counterproductive way in violation of WP:TPG. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I found this online (which proves the accord does exist). I hope this helps your discussion above:
[...] From such clearly stated recognition flow privileges and benefits befitting the spiritual and administrative centre of a world Faith. These provisions of the Agreement are defined in terms that are renewable or renego-tiable at certain intervals, lending a flexibility and extension to the Agreement that are among its salient features. The Agreement can thus be regarded as the culmination of a series of preliminary measures of official recognition variously granted by sundry governmental authorities over a span of decades, now confirmed, amplified, extended, and defined in an instrument which places the operation of the Baha’i World Centre on a solid basis in its relations with the Government of Israel and in its other external relations. It thus launches a new phase in the development of the administration of the Faith at its World Centre.
The point being? Surely many religious (and non-religious) bodies have agreements of similar import with governments of various countries, as someone remarked right near the top of this discussion! Such agreements are necessary for all kinds of reason - not the least to secure property rights, tax-free status and so on. A religion that is either not recognised at all, or specifically banned in several countries can be forgiven for laying stress on obtaining such recogntion where it is available. The partisan site from which this was dredged contains a parallel accusation that the Baha'is are subversive of the state of Israel, and "fantasising" about a time when Israel may have a Baha'i government! Which is it to be? You can't have it both ways! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not true. Read the agreement of the Universal House of Justice. It is a (political) accord of "friendship" and "cooperation" as stated in their letter. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the use of the Baha'i (or Badi) calender in the West is no longer tied to the Gregorian calender but to direct astronomical observation - references to Gregorian calender dates for Baha'i feasts and festivals etc. perhaps should be changed, even if it is only adding "(in most years)" here and there. This is, in factual terms, a pretty petty change - never making more that one day's difference (so far as I know) but if it is noted at all, it needs to be done comprehensively, and carefully. The "twin holy days" which are now celebrated according to the Muslim calender in the West, as they always have been in Iran - also may need some careful changes, by an editor thoroughly familiar with all the implications, etc. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed but also minding that the primary identification should remain the common calendar. For informational purposes the Badi calendar specifics should be included but not to the point they obscure identifying the general calendar - at least that is my feeling. --Smkolins (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Nearly "rushed in where angels feared to tread" here myself but was held back by similar constraints. Better not done at all than done in a way that obscures rather than enlightens. Exactly what I was talking about when I used the word "careful". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
But the facts need to be correct. For eg. saying that Baha'is fast from 2nd to 21th March or that the Baha'i new year is on 21st March may not be true for every year after the Letter from the UHJ dated 10 July 2014. The "twin holy days" will not be celebrated according to the Muslim calender in the West, as they always have been in Iran (1st and 2nd Muharram);but rather on the first and the second day of the 8th new moon after Nawruz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed99999 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the section on Reincarnation for a number of reasons, including that (1) the sources are based on interpretation of primary source material, (2) sourced by pages of the Unitiarian Baha'is, which is a small subset of the Baha'is that don't pass the the undue weight policy of Wikipedia "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 you can prove it". 3) Reincarnation, Resurrection, etc, are not primary teachings of the Baha'i Faith that should be on the summary style article that is already past the size recommendation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree on quite the obscure angle. Obscure to the point of oblivion pretty much. --Smkolins (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The anonymous editor notes "The beliefs of the largest body of Baha'is, the Unitarian Baha'is, are not represented whatsoever in this article. Equal to leaving Sunnis out in a discussion on Islam". There are no reliable sources that point to that. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
We are used to old one, that the Baha'i Faith is "Zionist" and the Baha'is were (are?) supporters of the Shah(s) regime(s). Now the reverse is true, apparently - the Faith is, according to the newest information, persecuted by the Zionists, and the objections of the Irani government stem from anti-Shah activity. Watch out, because apparently this is now what God passes by (and "every other source) now says! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
headed for the deep end. --Smkolins (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)