Talk:Bahá'í Faith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Bahá'í Faith is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 22, 2005.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 30, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
June 1, 2007 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article
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)

The statement that "Bahá'u'lláh was exiled for his teachings from Persia to the Ottoman Empire" is patently false[edit]

The statement that "Bahá'u'lláh was exiled for his teachings from Persia to the Ottoman Empire" is patently false. Even the most polemic Bahá'í sources note that he was imprisoned and exiled due to his association with Bábism after the unsuccessful attempt by some Bábis to assassinate the Shah of Iran, Naser al-Din Shah Qajar. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Precisely - he was exiled as a leading Babi teacher - patently true by your own word. --Soundofmusicals (talk)
Although actually - provided other editors are OK with the latest edit it is probably reasonably fair. Wikipedia has never been a "Baha'i" site - we aim for a fair and balanced treatment of controversial subjects, without ubdue POV either way. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Final thought - although he was in practice under house arrest in latter period of his "imprisonment" - hence the emphasis on "officially" mention of the Mansion of Bahji in this context gives a pov impression of opulence. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd think about tweaking the language more:

The Bahá'í Faith was founded by Bahá'u'lláh in 19th-century Persia. Bahá'u'lláh was a Bábí and there was a fringe element in the Bábí community that sought revenge for the execution of the Báb. The government response to the attempted assassination the Shah of Iran, Naser al-Din Shah Qajar, swept up Bábís en mass - some were killed outright and some were imprisoned, like Bahá'u'lláh, and then exiled from Persia to the Ottoman Empire. He was deeply moved while in prison, he later revealed, and set forth on the path of developing the Bahá'í Faith.

I believe this is factual and also structurally sound in that it leads back to the statement of founding the religion which then goes on to speak of Abdu'l-Baha's leaadership etc. Just add the various wikilinks. How's that? Smkolins (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

We have to remember that this is meant to be part of the 'lead" section, which is a general summary and is not actually supposed to go into great detail. That of course is the main point - otherwise we'd stick the whole article in one block and not have an "opening summary" section at all. My initial reaction to this topic is that it is plain nonsense. Of course Baha'u'llah WAS exiled for his beliefs - had he repudiated the Bab (as a number of the Bab's disciples did, of course) his troubles, at least in this connection, would have been over and he never would have had to suffer a forced exile. The attempt on the life of the Shah FOLLOWED the execution of the Bab himself, and the murder, judicial and otherwise, of large numbers of his followers. In these circumstances, mentioning one without the other is selective reporting to reinforce a POV (in this case one of opposition, or at least cynicism). The text as it stood before Mr. A35821361's edit was generally a fair summary - the point our friend DOES have was that it was not, of course, the Baha'i teachings as such that caused his exile, but the teachings of the Bab. As I already pointed out, the Bab's teachings were at this stage what Baha'u'llah was teaching himself - so this is nit picking, but if we remove any inaccuracy at all in the original in a neat succinct way, without going into questions that raise more questions that raise more questions... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree it is a opening summary section and should not go in the detail that would be below. I believe the above suggestion only adds one line and boils down some 9 tense and dramatic years to one sentence that preserves the focus of Baha'u'llah as a Babi, the execution, the government response, and the core pivotal moment of initiating the path to the new religion which was mentioned two lines before. Smkolins (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
How about the current version - just cutting out the bit about the assassination attempt - which preceded the imprisonment and exile but was not necessarily its primary cause? Babism was of course already under heavy persecution (in fact it was this, especially the "judicial murder" of the Bab that precipitated the attempted assassination). The effect of the bit I have cut (whether intentional or not) is plainly to imply that Baha'u'llah was not exiled for religious reasons - which really IS "patently false", not to mention undue POV. The full background, as we all agree, I hope, does need to be part of the article, just not at this stage of the lead. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Tweaked but ok.Smkolins (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Baha'u'llah was actually released on the grounds that he was found not to have been connected with the assassination attempt - he was exiled quite simply as an apostate and a heretic. Further attempts to tease in a POV mention of the attempt on the Shah's life at this point is unfair - not to mention OR - since no reliable source makes the claim anyway. B. was also generally opposed, from the beginning, to other "rebelious" acts (according to Nabil, who on this point possibly IS biassed) these were acts of heroic self-defence). Anyway - this precise point is not where discussion of this (assuming it would be a good idea) belongs. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

He was released under pressure from the Russian legation and exiled with an escort of Russian horsemen to Baghdad.[1][2] It was external political pressure that led to his deportation in lieu of being executed. There were plenty of Babis who were not arrested, executed or exiled subsequent to the assassination attempt and preceding uprisings. Baha'u'llah happens not to be one of them.
Baha'u'llah was imprisoned and banished due to an assassination attempt on the life of the Shah. unfortunately one of the editors is carelessly reverting the statements without providing any sources for his claims. This is the Wikipedia policy on the lead section in such circumstances: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation."[3] Unfortunately editor is providing no sources and repeatedly claiming that other editors are imposing their own POV. I have inserted a citation for the claims being made. I have also reworded the section in order to give it a more neutral appearance which takes into account the statements of all parties.Illuminator123 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Effendi, Shoghi (1944). God Passes By. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. p. 106. ISBN 0-87743-020-9. 
  2. ^ Goodall, Helen S.; Cooper, Ella Goodall (1979). "Exile of Bahá'u'lláh". Daily Lessons Received at Akka: January 1908. Wilmette, Illinois: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. p. 51. ISBN 978-0877431350. 
  3. ^ "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section". 


This article should never have been promoted FA. This article fails by one major criteria and that is it does not represents a universal view of that Faith in any way but only the point of view of Baha'is themselves. See Jesus article to see what is a good FA article which meets all FA criteria. SSZ (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia just relies on reliable sources, and overall of the notability of the subject. It was not only nominated, it was awarded the status. Smkolins (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
You still haven't responded to my point (namely this article does NOT convey a UNIVERSAL view of this Faith/cult). Smoklins, please do not take it personal. I have said it at BWC talk page and I repeat it here: You have done a good job overall and you get A+ for your volunteer work (assuming you don't get paid for that), as I would give A+ to ANY volunteer who gives his/her time to Wikipedia for free. There are many resources (I suppose) in *Iran and elsewhere on this topic. WHY are they not mentioned in this article? (*I am not a Muslim, but I know Iran to be the birthplace of this Faith/Cult.)
Actually my point of relying on reliable sources is exactly the requirement of wikipedia. Don't take this personally or along some preconcieved idea of what Baha'is do or don't do. And please don't hint at what might or might not be my reasons for doing things. I've never been paid for this, nothing I've done has ever been screened by Baha'i institutions nor have they asked for or sponsored me to any activity in wikipedia. I'm entirely beholden to the standards of wikipedia as are you. In my view most of the issues with Iran are not the mainstay of this article because, despite it being the homeland of much of the earliest development of the religion, those formative years of certain parts of the history are now, and have been for some time, a minority of the situation of the world wide development of the religion which now has far more members outside Iran, and distinct from Iranian lineage, than of it, and that whatever sources in English are available, vs those in Arabic or Persian or other Middle Eastern languages, which wikipedia needs, are somewhat limited and more properly in their own articles such as BIHE, and such aims and wishes also has to be taken into account with the individuals actually doing the work and what they, we, see fit to work on. I've particularly contributed to making some 100 of the more than 200 countries of the world in which there is some knowledge of Baha'is being present - and that took years of effort which is a good reflection, to me, of the substance of history being statistical quips like "second most widespread religion". Yet I lament that among the piles of work in wikipedia and beyond, the other hundred remain undone. Perhaps I will have that work return to the top of my pile some day.Smkolins (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This article did not receive as much scrutiny as it should have, in 2007, during its nomination. Notably, as the WP encyclopedia matures and more editors get engaged, this tends to become less likely. I could just wait for the improvement requested to come to fruition. Also I was thinking may be it will "self-heal" over time; but going through the talk page archives, I think the problem is much deeper. Even if you had the sources available and assuming you would make the change, it would require a MAJOR revamp from the ground up. (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Your statements undermine the reviews and efforts at the time. Be that as it may the work to make the article better is ever ongoing, especially and particularly as reliable sources continue to appear. Several articles had long languished needing sources and work has proceeded in a high diversity of pages to advance the articles as reliable sources have been identified and people have undertaken the actual work to get things done. Smkolins (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Judaism and Christianity alike, among other "mainstream" religions, refute the claim of Baha'u'llah being a Messenger of God. Why is this important fact not mentioned in this article? SSZ (talk)
With all due respect, the place for discussion of Christian and Jewish beliefs/non-beliefs (not to mention those of other religions) is the article/s for the religion/s concerned. Claims made by religious leaders are commonly disputed (or "refuted") by people other than said leaders' own followers. Isn't this on the self-evident side? If not then perhaps it's not just this article that needs rewriting? For the record, this article (whether or not it would be considered an "FA" by today's standards) tries very hard to be scrupulously fair - the claims of Baha'u'llah are (for example) reported as claims, not as fact. Difficult topics and contradictions (real or supposed) are not avoided, and there is even an article (with extensive links to specific topics) listing various objections to the Faith. What exactly is it you would do differently? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
For one, I would mention that Jews and Christians do not recognize this Faith as legitimate (Like most Jews do not recognize Jesus Christ as their Messiah). (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Just need reliable sources rather than OR. There are sources discussing Jesus from a Judaic perspective so there is a section and its own article. Smkolins (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that falls under the obvious category. By definition, Christians don't accept any claims of Jesus' return, otherwise they wouldn't be Christians. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not editing this article. So the onus is on you to bring it to par with FA. (talk)
Returning to the initial objection to this article by the editor who started the thread - Jesus has had over two thousand years to become a universal figure - He is accepted as a divine person, part of the very Godhead by many Christians, while other Christians (especially those with Unitarian leanings) have subtly or widely differing views of His exact status. And that is without considering the non-Christian religions (including the Bahá'í Faith) that either formally proclaim Him a prophet or messenger sent directly by God himself, or give Him a less formal or explicit recognition as a great spiritual teacher. Even many atheists and agnostics have great respect for Him. Baha'u'llah, on the other hand was born just two hundred years ago. Recognition of His claimed status is effectively limited to the relative handful of his followers. Members of other religions in fact very seldom specifically refute His claims because they have no apparent cause to do so - the whole matter, as one very nice Catholic priest once expressed it to me, is that "this does not impinge on my consciousness". In view of this difference it seem more than a little silly to suggest that this article could possibly be rewritten to mirror the "universal" approach of the article on Jesus. Wouldn't the result strike everyone as pretentious and unnecessary? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You have a double standard. Baha'is mention their point of view on Jesus Christ in its article and for other religions as well (even though Baha'is are a (tiny) group with only ~6 million followers according to cited sources). The fact it took two centuries or more for Jesus to have his message spread over the world is irrelevant as far as content of WP is concerned (and the same holds true for Baha'ullah or anyone else). Jews, as a community, reject most of the claims of Christianity from the get-go to this day. This is very disingenuous IMO not to mention other religions' point of views of the main tenets of the Baha'i faith while Baha'is' point of view has been pasted all over WP. (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Where there are reliable sources and balance of them the standards are followed and the relevance is established. Smkolins (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
LOL (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The attitude of the vast majority of Christians to Baha'u'llah is very (very understandably), the most profound and complete ignorance and apathy. Other individual Christians who have heard of Baha'u'llah have recorded profound respect for Him and His teachings - without for a moment accepting his specific claims or abandoning their own religion. I know of some who have in fact resumed, or even commenced, practice of their own faith as result of contact with Baha'is. Others may well be disturbed or antipathetic - but since when did this kind of thing become something relevant to a general encyclopedia? Further, if and when the "Christian attitude to the status of Baha'u'llah" assumed much greater importance, to the extent of becoming a relevant and notable subject, or even something about which one could, in any context, make a meaningful statement at all - it would very plainly be a Christian Topic rather than a Baha'i one. As it is, For the moment, indeed, this is utterly laughable. But until it is a relevant and notable topic in Christianity - how can it be part of even the most scrupulously fair article about the Baha'i Faith? Talking about LOL and "double standards - I think that is the real point here. The question of the current "FA" status of this article is quite another matter. Personally I think there are so many really good Wikipedia articles that deserve this status and do not even have a "C" or "B" rating. But get back to the topic rather than this kind of POV nonsense. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
And hang on - is it really an approach consistent with the principles under which Wikipedia operates to consider a religion "illegitimate" because one does not agree with its tenets? The assumption that ALL religions not originating from a "legitimate" source and conforming to a "correct theology" should be suitably "refuted" smacks more of the Spanish Inquisition than the ideals of Wikipedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You talk as a Baha'i. This review is not about the Baha'i teachings being right or wrong. Again, it is about having a UNIVERSAL view of the faith/cult. You MUST know (WITHOUT any research in books) that MOST Christians, Muslims or Jews refute the teaching of Baha'u'llah (or they would have CONVERTED already and they might or not convert sometime in the future). Simple as that. Respectfully, (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No I don't- especially not here - I talk as a Wikipedia editor - the vast majority of articles on my watchlist (most of them far "busier" than this one too!) are actually on non-religious topics (aeroplanes and such, as it happens) - just have a look. If I wanted to READ an article on a Baha'i subject (for information, rather than to "see what they say") I would go to a Baha'i website, to be frank. There are also several "anti-Baha'i" sites for that matter, if you're that way inclined. Have a look at one if you like and tell us if you found it "balanced"! But all this is irrelevant. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums (fora?) where getting to know each other is the main point. We are (supposed to be) concerned with nothing but improving Wikipedia articles. Ad hominem remarks are not only offensive, and officially discouraged (you can get kicked off for them) but usually way off target anyway.
The point is that each Wikipedia article we might want to improve (many of them need it, as you've noticed, I'm sure) is on a particular topic. The article on Jesus is about Jesus, not Baha'u'llah, Muhammad, or Moses. Because of the "balance" thing, and because Jesus is important (in different ways) to the various "brands" of Christianity, and also to other religions (and even non-religions) the topic needs to have a very varied, "universal" approach. I have tried to point this out before, but an article that tried to give a this kind of coverage to Baha'ullah would be pretentious and silly, and you would be the first to object to it. I've said all this three of four time now - if it hasb't registered then repeating myself yet again is pretty pointless. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

""Oh, and look up "refute" in a dictionary or something. You can't "refute" something you've never heard of - nor do you need to refute something to not accept it. Most Christians have never heard of Baha'u'llah - and if they have they are mostly simply not interested enough to need to "refute" it. Baha'is are, as you remark, a very very small subset of religious people - Christians who have an opinion about Baha'i one way or the other are an even tinier subset. So how can the "Christian attitude to Baha'u'llah" be a topic, or even a sub-topic - and even if it was - what would it have to do with the Faith itself - surely it would be a Christian topic, if anything. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks. I see you evading to answer my question, again. Look at the Jesus article. Jews'POV is mentioned right in the lead. Cheers. (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on the fact there are sections discussing other views of Jesus in that article, and those based on reliable sources, then there would be such a discussion in the article and lead - and a whole separate article. You suggest "There are many resources (I suppose) in *Iran and elsewhere on this topic. WHY are they not mentioned in this article?" and I said "whatever sources in English are available, vs those in Arabic or Persian or other Middle Eastern languages, which wikipedia needs, are somewhat limited and more properly in their own articles such as BIHE". Soundofmusicals pointed out "there is even an article (with extensive links to specific topics) listing various objections to the Faith", which has a direct analog for Christianity but who's content is not directly what you are asking for - coverage of refutations of the Baha'i Faith. You say "For one, I would mention that Jews and Christians do not recognize this Faith as legitimate." Well that would be OR - I've never seen the like. The closest I can come are various comments about how small and obscure the Baha'i population is (somewhat referred to in Growth of religion albeit from the line of thought of the basis of the article.) In fact, contrary to your point, to the extent there is commentary in the wider society of the religion, there is a respect for the religion as legitimate (see Abrahamic religions.) As Soundofmusicals said, "You can't "refute" something you've never heard of". But instead of recognizing these comments discussing the merits of the situation instead you descend to the level of personal attack. Of Soundofmusicals you say "You have a double standard" and "You talk as a Baha'i." Those are personal attacks. Please stop it. Smkolins (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No it is not "personal attack to say people talk as representative of the Baha'i Cult unless you think it is by itself an insult to be part of that Faith/Cult. (talk)
We are all just editors first and foremost. "Talks as a Baha'i" implies bias and the accusation is itself a personal attack in the sense that your tone is endlessly accusatory and conspirationalist.Smkolins (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That's your opinion. "Conspirationalist"? I know you are not the enemy mostly because you don't have (nor anybody else or even most nations) the wherewithal to do what has been done to us, verifiably. (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Secondly, You can't dispute facts. People who know this Faith and who control the press, western media and world judiciary have de facto OPPOSED it with ~5 trillion dollars everyday for 5 years almost daily to hinder its propagation and progress, verifiably (statistically/scientifically), indisputably (and not disputed in US court by the FBI itself). (talk)
I can with great emphasis just say "huh"? There's a jewish conspiracy against the religion? Wow. (sputter, sputter, I'm nearly speechless.) Smkolins (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Not Jewish conspiracy but CRIMINAL conspiracy! (unless Jews - or whoever else are involved - want to take responsibility as a religion for this PROVEN (in US Federal Court) CRIME - which I doubt they ever will - nor will anyone else as a religion IMO). A CRIME against me, the Baha'is, THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS AT LARGE thru their pension funds valuations. NOT to speak about "OPPORTUNITY COSTS" in terms of HUMAN LIVES lost in FAKE WARS (as explained in detail in PR - documents entitled "FAQ"). (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Soundofmusicals has been report to WP admin for his strange behavior and personal attacks towards other editor JesseRafe recently; so you try to reverse as "best defense is to attack"? And please stop your non-sense unverified accusation towards me here or I might have to report you on this page as well, including for your past non-sense talk page discussion with me and other WP editors (see archives for references and verification). (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I hope that the truth wins out. I'd wish that is why you bring this unrelated matter to this page.Smkolins (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it just come out because of the flow of our conversation above (Please read again - with time stamps). Thanks for your wishes. You might also want to read this (now you are in the know, as has been the "Universal House of Justice" for 10 years without any action on their behalf but only censorship)... For info, I am a current US pilot among other things and have edited, like you, WP for 10 YEARS already for free without any major glitch. PEACE OUT!. (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
And the result for Soundofmusicals? "(Result: no violation)". But instead the angst there and here.Smkolins (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
And no (before you ask) I DO NOT WANT TO BECOME THE CHIEF OF the Baha'i cult. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Fortunately there's no chance of that.

Baha'i faith was founded in Persia or the Ottoman empire?[edit]

In the head section of the article it is stated that "The Bahá'í Faith was founded by Bahá'u'lláh (1817-1892) in 19th-century Persia."

This statement is incorrect. When Baha'u'llah was exiled from Iran in 1853 he was a Babi and there were no words of him bringing a new religion. For the next ten years he lived in Iraq,which was part of the ottoman empire, (up to 1863) when he finally announced the creation of the Baha'i faith in Garden of Ridwan (Iraq, ottoman empire). He was then banished to Palestine (part of the ottoman empire) for the rest of his life and it is there that he wrote and propagated the scripture of the new belief system. I am changing [Persia] in the head section to the [ottoman empire]. Illuminator123 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The origin of the religion has several stages of roots to Persia - first and foremost perhaps is that the Babi Faith is accepted as having a directly relationship with the Baha'i Faith. But even focusing just on Baha'u'llah it is accepted that the experience in the Siyah-Chal, in Teheran, is the originating moment of Baha'u'llah's claim to religious leadership, albiet privately. The events in Ridvan were a of a stage of making that leadership more public, and then in Constantinople more public still. Smkolins (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The relationship of the Baha'i faith with Babi faith is irrelevant here. Just because they are related it does not mean the Baha'i faith was founded wherever the Babi faith originated. Baha'u'llah never made any claims to religious leadership or any claims that he had created a new faith while he was in Iran. These claims were made in the last years that he was in Iraq (ottoman empire) and even then he was still practicing Babi beliefs and introducing himself as the leader of the Babi community. His claims about a new religion called the Baha'i faith were announced in the Garden of Ridwan and there is no document or evidence that would show the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminator123 (talkcontribs) 15:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read my comments again. You are disputing claims I am not making. The roots of the religion clearly go back to Iran. Yes the first announcements happnened in stages in Iraq and Turkey which were both part of the Ottoman Empire. But the roots of the religion clear go back to Iran in multiple ways. It is possible a majority of the scripture is in Persian, (or at last a huge proportion of it,) as well as a very united relationship between the Babis in Iran who became Baha'is - almost all of them - and the originating experience of Baha'u'llah happened in Iran. I'm not debating your points - but are you seeing mine? They are relevant to understanding how and where the Baha'i Faith originated. And can we stop making changes and talk about it first and come to a consensus? Perhaps an adaptation of language would serve. Smkolins (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not trying to dispute your points. What I am disputing is the claim in the head of the article that the Baha'i faith was 'founded' or 'originated' or was 'established' in Iran. It wasn't. All these happened in the ottoman empire and they are irrelevant to the facts that you mentioned including the Babi-Baha'i connections that no one is denying, the roots of the Baha'i faith in Babism that no one is denying, or the fact that many Babis (not all) converted to the Baha'i faith. I was simply trying to fix this misconception in the head of the article.Illuminator123 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
As has been remarked on many pages and in other contexts on Wikipedia this is an encyclopedia of existing knowledge. You are drawing a conclusion contrary to the weight of reputable sources - which is something we just don't do on Wikipedia. This is is bare WP:OR unless you can find at least one reliable source to back up your conclusion. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The Encyclopædia Iranica article titled BAHAISM i. The Faith states "He was exiled to Iraq, in the Ottoman empire, then to Istanbul and Edirne in Turkey. He was accompanied by his younger half-brother, Mīrzā Yaḥyā Ṣobḥ-e Azal, whom the Bāb appears to have pointed to in 1850 as leader of the Babi community. The Bāb had also spoken of the advent of another messianic figure, “he whom God shall make manifest (man yoẓheroh Allāh),” and in 1863 in the garden of Necip Paşa in Baghdad Bahāʾ-Allāh informed a handful of close followers that he was the messianic figure promised by the Bāb (Ostād Moḥammad-ʿAlī Salmānī, Ḵāṭerāt, ms., International Bahāʾi Archives, Haifa; Eng tr. M. Gail, My Memories of Bahāδu’llāh, Los Angeles, 1982, p. 22). While in Edirne (1863-68) Bahāʾ-Allāh wrote letters to Babi followers in Iran openly proclaiming himself to be the spiritual “return” (rajʿa) of the Bāb. During the Edirne period relations between Bahāʾ-Allāh and Ṣobḥ-e Azal became increasingly strained, and in 1867 Bahāʾ-Allāh sent his younger brother a missive demanding his obedience to the new revelation, which Azal rejected. Babis in Iran were then forced to choose between Bahāʾ-Allāh and Azal. The vast majority accepted the assertions in Bahāʾ-Allāh’s writings that he was a manifestation of God (maẓhar-e elāhī) bearing a new revelation, rejecting Azal’s form of Babism. Although the Bahais date the inception of their religion from Bahāʾ-Allāh’s 1863 private declaration in Baghdad, the Bahai community only gradually came into being in the late 1860s, and most Babis did not become Bahais in earnest until after 1867, though many may have been partisans of Bahāʾ-Allāh earlier (Bahāʾ-Allāh, “Sūrat damm,” Āṯār-e qalam-e aʿlā IV, Tehran, 125 Badīʿ/1968, pp. 1-15; “Lawḥ-e Naṣīr,” Majmūʿa-ye maṭbūʿa-ye alwāḥ, Cairo, 1920, pp. 166-202; Salmānī, Ḵāṭerāt, tr. pp. 42-48, 93-105)."
Regards, A35821361 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
All of which brings us back to Iran being the origin of the events that lead to the formation of the Baha'i Faith that progressively took place in further places dates and time. Smkolins (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Social principles: Baha'i belief on war[edit]

User Jeff3000 is constantly reverting a citation on war from Baha'i sources in this section for no apparent reason. If you have a problem please state it in a civilized manner here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminator123 (talkcontribs) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are that they don't provide sufficient background and provide one viewpoint that can be misinterpreted, and in interpreted in the manner that you want to push your POV. It's fine for such an item to be in the article, but it has to have sufficient background so that it doesn't lead the reader to only one POV. To do that it requires further background, and that's not appropriate for the lead of the article which is supposed to cover the most succint summary. If you read other third party sources, they never start with the type of subjects you are trying to put in.
Furthermore your inclusion of the assassination on the life of the Shah by a few Babis completely fails to mention overwhelming testimonies of many establishing the non-complicity of Bahá'u'lláh. Hatcher and Martin in their work, The Baha'i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion, even cite a Persian official account admitting the innocence of Baha'u'llah (footnote 8, page 33, 2002 edition). On pages 30-31 of Hatcher and Martin, the imprisonment of Baha'u'llah in the Siyah Chal is put in the larger context of the broad persecutions directed against the Babis. Again for such a topic that requires context, and differenting views, to add it to the lead when such differing views can't be made is not appropriate. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Given what you say about POV, then it is equally egregious to include a statement such as "Opposition from Islamic clergy in both the Ottoman and Persian empires meant that early Bahá'ís faced heavy persecution, which continues in modern Iran." The restrictions in Iran were initially due to the Babi insurrections. Although allegedly not complicit himself, Bahá'u'lláh was a leader in the Babi community and was in fact imprisoned and exiled for being a part of the community some of whose members attempted to assassinate the Shah.
My point is that if your argument is that certain edits "don't provide sufficient background and provide one viewpoint that can be misinterpreted, and in interpreted in the manner that you want to push your POV," that argument can be more justifiably applied to multiple other statements made by certain editors in various other topical articles.
A35821361 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
"Restrictions in Iran were initially due to the Babi insurrections" - you are willing to state some matters in one way of absolutes yet you use conditional "allegedly" in others. There was nothing rational or fair minded about a wave of proving your loyalty to the government by taking turns spearing and stabbing any local Babi that could be found out while a comparative few were imprisoned and mostly executed and only a barest limit banished instead. This is not sound judgement responding to insurrections and trying to maintain social order - it is blithering disregard for truth and virtue to maintain control at any cost including one's own principles, of ruling by fear and bloodshed that made soldiers cringe. And this is the point of outcry that arose then and arose in recent years - thus whole articles reference it so summarizing a major point can be in the lead as a prelude to the main content - but there must be that content elsewhere to warrant it being in the lede and not in just a paper here or there but as detailed in many reliable sources and not those of a few. Smkolins (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Jeff3000 and Cuñado: 1- It is a established fact that the Baha'i goal is to unite the world under a Universal faith called "Baha'i". You are deleting this fact for no apparent reason and insist this universal fact not be named obscuring this fact. 2- I have directly quoted Abdu'l-Baha's opinion on war for attaining peace. This quote which is very clear and needs no further interpretation has been published for nearly a hundred years by the Baha'i authorities. It is not my POV, it is Abdu'l-Baha's POV automatically making it Baha'i belief. Again you are consistently deleting this and breaking the Wikipedia guidelines on Good articles which state these articles : "contain factually accurate and verifiable information". You presenting the Baha'i faith in a manner that goes against Baha'i scripture and the statements of its founders. [1] Illuminator123 (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, though I feel addressed as well, your text is totally ignoring the context as filled out in several compilations and implementing such teachings exampled in ways Baha'is have undertaken generations of effort and articles reviewing these as well. And accusing us of going "against Baha'i scripture and the statements of its founders" is specious at best, as we are in a wikipedia context, and may show your rooted efforts than ours. Who exactly are you trying to convince with such an argument? Has it ever actually worked? But returning to the point here, see BIHE where Baha'is do not degenerate under the endless persecution but evolve remarkable ways of self-preservation and positive growth and not wasting time in mere opposition and strife. Smkolins (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Baha'i compilations on "war" cite the same quotes that I have provided: "Questions and Answers on War and Related Issues, compiled by National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States. 2003-03-19" [2] I have ignored no context, in fact the quote I mentioned from Abdu'l-Baha clearly explains the context in full. Your reference to BIHE is irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Illuminator123 (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Your edits insinuate that Baha'is are going to take over the world through war and conquest. Even the most cursory review of the Baha'i Faith rejects that notion. Baha'u'llah abrogated holy war, and the comment from Abdu'l-Baha was a review of past wars in history, not a blueprint for Baha'is to conquer the world. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
My edit, in no manner, insinuates that Baha'is are going to take over the world through war and conquest and I didn't even mention holy war. Abdu'l-Baha is not speaking about the past, both Shoghi and Abdu'l-Baha are using prsnt and future tense in their statements. Unfortunately, you are ignoring all Wikipedia guidelines on warring and instead of engaging in a civilized manner in resolving this issue, are completely deleting all my edits and imposing your own POV on the article. A friendly reminder to you and the other two editors that are simply deleting the text without any attempt at improving it. This is the standard wiki guideline in these circumstances: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add.": [3] Illuminator123 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Show me one reputable third party source talking about this while summarizing the religion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The quote is part of Baha'i scripture and there is no need to seek the opinion of some third party. It is part of the core beliefs of Baha'is that they have frequently cited themselves when summarizing their beliefs about war:
1- It has been propagated under the title "righteous warfare" for nearly a hundred years in the book Baha'u'llah and the new era.[4]published by the US Bahá’í Publishing Trust.
2- It has been cited by the UHJ in a compilation on peace [5]
3- It has been cited in "Questions and Answers on War and Related Issues" byt the NSA of the United States [6]
4- It has also been quoted in an article presented at the Irfan Colloquia titled "Just War from the Bahá'í Perspective" [7] Illuminator123 (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
as presented:

For the establishment of a lasting peace (Greater Peace) and the purging of the 'overwhelming Corruptions' it is necessary that all the people of the world universally unite under the Baha'i Faith. According to the Baha'i leader `Abdu'l-Bahá, conquests and war can be a righteous means of establishing peace…

This is utter travesty. An EXAMPLE of how it is a travesty of understanding is BIHE where, if Baha'is thought war was a primary means to peace it would already have been going on. Instead you have creative ways of peaceful organization tried over and over as the government and clergy seek every new ways to trample the religion. It is utter nonsense to put these quotes next to eachother without context of what was meant and done and practiced. It is just wrong on every level. Smkolins (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
More examples - the Baha'i Faith in Germany and Russia. In both cases Baha'is were individually and collectively killed. But no signs of rebellion, warfare. So this is not the way things are done. Abstracted ideas of some circumstance juxtaposed with some aspect of an international culture and world unity with some idea what in some situation warfare might be good do not belong next to eacother. Period. And warfare is such a minor part of the panoply of teachings that is a minor issue, and far far far from any idea of a call to arms. Just like backbiting is serious whereas if you are not vegetarian is a small small thing. And lacking that understanding is making these contributions to this and other articles insanely illbalanaced and illconcieved. Smkolins (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Those were good references. Baha'u'llah and the New Era mentions this quote in a very different context than what you are trying to put in the article. Your edits combine two thoughts (it is necessary for most of the world to become Baha'i for a lasting peace, and Abdu'l-Baha said that wars can be just) and leave the obvious conclusion that Baha'i teachings may spread by conquest and force. This is why other editors aren't allowing it. If you take the references you provided and edit in a similar fashion (in Baha'i teachings, wars can be considered just if they are enforcing collective security against an unjust government), and assuming that the edit is coherent with the rest of the article, nobody would care. What you did was original research. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@SmkolinsYou are imposing your own POV on the article where the context is abundantly clear and using anecdotal evidence to refute Baha'i scripture. Just because Baha'is are engaged in peaceful work somewhere it doesn't mean they don't believe in war as a means of attaining peace. The quotes and evidence I provided are abundant proof. @Cuñado The Wiki guidelines state that it is up to you to edit that text if you think it is out of context: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add.": [8] It specially mentions that you shouldn't delete it but that is all you do. Deleting without the slightest attempt at what you think is improvement. I'm sorry but I'm not going to do your homework here.Illuminator123 (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
"to refute Baha'i scripture" is not the purpose of this article. You are juxtaposing very important demonstrable teachings of the religion widely cited and an obscure specific matter narrowly cited and you are putting it in the lede and putting it next to this widely recognized teaching as if they belong together. This is utter nonsense. The salvagable thing to do is respect wikipedia rules of highlighting the widely reliably reported content and save the minor details down article if they really should be mentioned at all. It isn't the case that every single affirmed detail has to be included in an article. It depends on how reliable sources have framed the discussion. Both of you two editing in this arena are way way way out in insane land and are seemly purely just to make a stink. Smkolins (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
My only goal in editing Wikipedia articles is to provide academically-sourced, objective information on topics. Your goals in editing Wikipedia speak for themselves. As if your purpose was not self-evident, however, you expressed your ideological commitment and motivation in editing Wikipedia articles in a February 19, 2007 interview with Warren Odess-Gillett on his A Bahá'í Perspective podcast. Despite your calling my edits "way way way out in insane," I will continue to assume good faith with other editors, as you purportedly expressed to me last October. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Really. That's where you want to go. Correcting a negative view with reliable sources about a school went on to win awards is a bad reason to contribute to wikipedia? Or writing about a renowned Indian film maker and actor? Are you going to review all my edits? Should yours? O please do please do. I've publicly thanked some of your contributions but others are just wrong and it is severely weird that someone well studied on some matters would miss so obvious aspects in others. Smkolins (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Ottomans in the Second Paragraph[edit]

This edit [1] doesn't belong in the second paragraph. It's wordy, distracting, and covered elsewhere. Introductions should be crisp, tight, and direct. Please follow the editing guidelines on lead sections. MARussellPESE (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflicts in the lead[edit]

I've been reverting the inclusion of mentioning He Whom God Shall Make Manifest, Shaykhism and the reference to the assassination attempt on the Shah because there are numerous things that could be included in a summary of the religion, but these are rather obscure facts that are mentioned further down in the article under the history section. The lead needs to be written for someone who has never heard of the subject of the article and give them a concise overview of the most important topics. Per WP:LEAD:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

I've been trying to include a few broad pieces of information to establish context, establish notability, and give a very concise summary of history and teachings. I don't understand the desire to link to He Whom God Shall Make Manifest or referencing Shaykhism when there is no context for those ideas in the first place, they do not stand out as particularly important relative to Baha'i history and teachings, and they do not add to the notability of the subject. Shaykhism is not even mentioned in the rest of the article.

You can also compare to other published summaries from reliable sources and see that the edits I'm reverting are deviating from a normal summary. Here is the BBC:

The Bahá'í faith is one of the youngest of the world's major religions. It was founded by Bahá'u'lláh in Iran in 1863.
Iran was then mainly a Muslim country, and the faith was proclaimed by a young Iranian, who called himself The Báb. He said that a messenger would soon arrive from God, who would be the latest in a line of prophets including Moses, Muhammad and Jesus Christ.
*Bahá'u'lláh, which means the Glory of God in Arabic, was born Mirza Husayn Ali in 1817
*Bahá'ís believe that Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent Manifestation of God
*Bahá'u'lláh himself stated that he is not God's final messenger
*The Bahá'í faith accepts all religions as having true and valid origins
*The idea of progressive revelation is of central significance for the Bahá'í faith
*Bahá'u'lláh taught that God intervenes throughout human history at different times to reveal more of himself through his messengers (called Divine :*Messengers, or Manifestations of God)
*The central idea of the faith is that of unity. They believe that people should work together for the common benefit of humanity
*The followers of Bahá'u'lláh were descended from the Bábis - believers in the Báb who foretold the mission of Bahá'u'lláh.
There are 6 million Bahá'ís in the world, in 235 countries and around 6,000 live in Britain.[9]

The Economist Magazine:

In 1844 a merchant who called himself “the Bab” (“the Gate”) began preaching in Persia. He reinterpreted Shia Islam, and said that God would soon send a new prophet in the manner of Moses, Christ and Muhammad. Bahais consider one of the followers of the Bab—Baha’u’llah—to be this prophet, and the official founder of their religion. In the face of persecution by the Persian and Ottoman empires, Baha’u’llah wrote the community’s key text. He also picked the site of the Bab’s burial: a handsome spot in Haifa, overlooking the Mediterranean (pictured).
As its origins suggest, the Bahai faith borrows happily from other religions. Like Islam, it prohibits alcohol. And just as Muslims worship in the direction of Mecca, the Bahai pray towards the house near Haifa where Baha’u’llah is buried. Other religions—including Hinduism and Buddhism—are honoured too. Its Persian heritage is evident. Bahais celebrate the Iranian New Year, and admire Zoroastrianism. The Bahai believe in a “oneness of humanity”, which transcends racial and class divides. This has helped the religion spread among vulnerable groups like native Americans. On the other side of the Pacific, the Bahai faith is popular among Papuan tribes: Bahais are more comfortable with their continuing traditional customs than are some Christian missionaries. Good organisation also helps. “Pioneers” preach the religion abroad, while its leaders support education for women. There are now more than 7m Bahais around the world, from Bolivia to Chad.
But if flexibility has helped spread the faith, it has also caused problems. Many Islamic scholars regard the Bahai as apostates; their first believers had been Muslims, who reject all prophets after Muhammad. Other critics also accuse Bahais of subversion, and link its base in Haifa to Zionism. As a result, the Bahai have been persecuted around the Muslim world, especially in Iran. Hundreds of Iranian Bahais have been arrested in recent years and last September a Bahai man was murdered in the city of Yazd. Bahais have also been imprisoned in Yemen. Pressure from Bahai groups abroad has helped slightly. Egyptian Bahais no longer need to choose between “Muslim”, “Christian” or “Jewish” on their identity cards, for instance. A special school has been set up to teach Bahais who have been banned from university. But the Bahai continue to suffer in some parts of the Middle East—even as the religion thrives elsewhere.[10]

CIA World Factbook 2010:

Founded by Mirza Husayn-Ali (known as Baha'u'llah) in Iran in 1852, [the] Baha'i Faith emphasizes monotheism and believes in one eternal transcendent God. Its guiding focus is to encourage the unity of all peoples on earth so that justice and peace may be achieved on earth. Baha'i revelation contends the prophets of major world religions reflect some truth or element of the divine, believes all were manifestations of God given to specific communities in specific times, and that Baha'ullah is an additional prophet meant to call all humankind. Baha'is are an open community, located worldwide, with the greatest concentration of believers in South Asia.

Oxford dictionary:

A monotheistic religion founded in the 19th century as a development of Babism, emphasizing the essential oneness of humankind and of all religions and seeking world peace. The Baha'i faith was founded by the Persian Baha'ullah (1817–92) and his son Abdul Baha (1844–1921).[11]

Merriam Webster:

a religious movement originating in Iran in the 19th century and emphasizing the spiritual unity of humankind[12]

I think it would help to approach the lead with less emphasis on technical accuracy and more on brevity, with short, well-composed paragraphs that introduce major topics to those unfamiliar with the subject. Regards. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Cuñado your edit choices seem sound to me. Smkolins 20:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thoroughly endorse remarks above. NPOV is important (and cuts both ways of course). The lead ("lede" if you must) of any article, not just this one, is not the place to raise complicated or controversial matter that cannot be fairly summarised in a succinct manner without giving a strong POV impression. Babi "insurrection" was consequent to persecution - and was in accord with Muslim law, not abrogated by the Bab himself, allowing for self-defence. The Bab himself had been imprisoned and judicially murdered, along with thousands of his followers, prior to the assassination attempt. To fully explain this in the "lede" would be WP:UNDUE - by any criteria, such details are very much better left to the body of the article where there is space for bare statements to be put in context. An argument could well be made for stripping the facts Closer to the bone, resulting in a much shorter lead - but it certainly doesn't need to be expanded until it is a comprehensive "mini-article". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no objections to any of the content you have included above. However, to maintain NPOV, the statement that he was imprisoned and exiled "During a time of persection" should be removed because it insinuates that the cause of his incarceration an exile was persectution, rather than the general sweep of Babis after the failed assassination attempt. Further, the inclusion of He who whom God Shall Make Manifest is central to his proclamation of his message. That proclamation is his distinguishing proclamation. Buddha declared himself enlightened, Jesus announced himself the son of God, Muhammad declared himself a messenger of God, and Bahaullah declared himself He whom God shall make manifest. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The period of persecution began years before 1852 and lasted several years after. It peaked in 1852-53 as a result of the assassination attempt, and even if his exile was primarily in response to the assassination attempt, I think any casual observer would still call it persecution to torture and kill thousands of innocent people because they happen to share the religious convictions of the assassins. The cause of his incarceration and exile was his religious beliefs. I admit it is difficult to summarize in just a few words accurately. Notice that none of the summaries I provided mention exile or the assassination, and only one mentions persecution by Ottoman and Persian Empires.
Respectfully, I understand that Baha'u'llah's claim to fulfill the Bab's prophecy was of great importance to the Babis he was addressing. However, to the readers of Wikipedia that claim has no meaning and is not what makes him notable. He is notable because he is the central figure of a worldwide religion that is growing in influence. The Babi origin of the religion is already mentioned, and anyone wanting to learn more about the Babi roots of the religion can simply click on the link or read further in the history section of this article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
"The period of persecution began years before 1852 and lasted several years after." No, Bahaullah was imprisoned after the assassination attempt because of the assassination attempt and not his beliefs. After the assassination attempt, the Babi leadership was imprisoned, because of the assassination attempt and not their beliefs. Not all Babis were arrested, not for their beliefs nor for the assassination attempt. This is actually a very simple Venn or Euler diagram waiting to be draw.
He declared himself a manifestation of God, declaring himself He whom God shall make manifest. He did not say "I am founding the Bahai Faith."
A35821361 (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
A very strange POV that - "not because of his beliefs"  ???? - so he would have been imprisoned if he'd remained a faithful Muslim? Or even renounced the Bab? Who could possibly imagine that? In other less kind words [further remarks expunged as nice old gentlemen aren't supposed to use words like that]. But anyway, that's hardly the point - space enough for something like this in the body of the article (perhaps) but not in what is supposed to be a concise and totally NPOV lede. Keep it simple and confined to more or less undisputed fact, even if this makes it a bit shorter. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Bahá'u'lláh remained a free man even while the Báb's followers were engaged in an apocalyptic insurgency.
Bahá'u'lláh was only arrested in 1852 subsequent to the failed assassination attempt.
Bahá'u'lláh was not arrested in 1848 when Mullá Ḥusayn-i-Bushru'i unfurled a Black Standard in Mashhad, fulfilling an Islamic prophecy, and began a march with other Bábis.
Bahá'u'lláh was not arrested when Mullá Ḥusayn-i-Bushru'i died at the battle of Shaykh Tabarsí on February 2, 1849.
Bahá'u'lláh was not arrested when the siege itself ended on May 10, 1849.
Bahá'u'lláh was not arrested when the Báb was executed on July 9, 1850.
Bahá'u'lláh was not arrested while the insurgencies in Neyriz and Zanjan continued.
Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

In 1845 there was a joint fatwa condemning the Bab's writings, a few of his followers were physically tortured for trying to teach his faith, and the Bab was arrested (twice). In 1848 many Babis were tortured or killed for nothing more than their beliefs (including Baha'u'llah), leading to over 300 taking a defensive position and being sieged by the government at Fort Tabarsi. In 1850 there were two other defensive skirmishes where Babis held their ground in the face of armed forces trying to kill them because they were teaching their faith, and the same year the Bab was killed. All 3 skirmishes ended with the Babis killed or put into slavery. The attempt on the Shah was considered retaliation for years of bloody persecution, and particularly for killing the Bab. The persecution continued for years. 1853, 1863, and 1864 saw more skirmishes. Many executions happened all the way to 1914 (then Baha'is). The case of the assassination attempt was years into the government killing perhaps a thousand Babis for nothing more than their faith. The government took that opportunity to try and exterminate the entire community outright. It was not a simple retaliation for an assassination attempt, they went through towns and dragged out every Babi they could find and found creative ways to kill them. Describing this as anything but religious persecution is deceitful. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
On March 20, 1848, Mullá Ḥusayn-i-Bushru'i, who in 1844 had become the first person to become a follower of the Báb, visited the Báb at Maku prison, where the Báb was incarcerated.
Subsequent to his visit, Mullá Ḥusayn-i-Bushru'i became involved in the Bábi uprisings. Under instructions from the Báb, on July 21, 1848, Mullá Ḥusayn-i-Bushru'i unfurled a Black Standard in Mashhad, fulfilling an Islamic prophecy, and began a march with other Bábis. They were rebuffed at Barfurush and therefore made defensive fortifications at the shrine of Shaykh Tabarsí. Mullá Ḥusayn-i-Bushru'i would die at the battle of Shaykh Tabarsí on February 2, 1849, but siege itself would last until May 10, 1849.
The Báb was later executed on July 9, 1850. Bábi uprisings would continue elsewhere in Iran, notably Neyriz and Zanjan.
Bahá'u'lláh remained a free man throughout these events, only being arrested in 1852 subsequent to the failed assassination attempt.
Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Once again having that point without context is not appropriate. It forces the reader to make conclusions which are not valid. In the examples you noted previously (Iranica), when they mention the assassination, they immediately point to that Baha'u'llah had no connection to the assassination attempt. Not only do never include that point, you are including the text in the lead of the article which is not meant to cover such careful distinctions. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The current language ("During a time of persecution") forces the reader to make a false conclusion, that Baha'u'llah was arrested because of persecution. He was not. I have outlined above a few events, all of them linked to Babi violence, that did not trigger his arrest. The assassination attempt triggered his arrest. "During a time of persecution" should be removed from the lead for violating NPOV.
Regards, A35821361 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The response the assassination attempt was not reasonable and drew comparisons with early Christianity. Are we to argue that the persecution of Christians under Rome was justified because they didn't obey the law of Rome?
  • Stephen Greenleaf Bulfinch (1869). Studies in the Evidences of Christianity. W. V. Spencer. pp. 137–8. In various respects, the history of Mirza Ali Mohammed, surnamed the Bab, presents startling resemblance to that of the Savior. Claiming descent from an ancient prophet king, he was yet, like Jesus, born in a lowly station; still he was regarded by his followers as the sovereign of his nation and of mankind, whose advent had been long foretold and ardently expected. After leading a life of purity, and uttering words of wisdom, he was put to death, through the hostility of his own government, but by the hands of foreign soldiers; and, before his execution, he was denied by some of his most prominent followers; nay, the very form of contumely with which thy were compelled to treat him, was the same which had been used towards the Savior in the hall of the high priest.
    It is high honor for a teacher of wisdom thus to bear in his own history a resemblance to that of the Redeemer and we would fain believe that Mirza Ali Mohammed was worthy of the distinction. But we cannot forget that the claim was made for him, that he was "the Gate of Truth, the Imam of Islam," the subject of ancient prophecy, the worker of present miracles, and the destined possessor of universal empire.…"
  • Robert Grant Watson (1866). A History of Persia from the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century to the Year 1858, with a Review of the Principal Events that Led to the Establishment of the Kajar Dynasty. Smith, Elder and Company. p. 347. Bábism, though at present a proscribed religion in Persia, is far from being extinct, or even declining, and the Báb may yet contest with Mahomed the privilege of being regarded as the real prophet of the faithful. Bábism in its infancy was the cause of a greater sensation than that even which was produced by the teaching of Jesus, if we may judge from the account of Josephus of the first days of Christianity. Far from foreseeing the future spread of that religion, the Jewish historian contents himself with observing — "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him (Christ), are not extinct at this day. 
  • "The Shah of Persia". Sacramento Daily Union. Sacramento, CA. 14 February 1874. p. 4. "He (the Shah) then massacred the Babis and religious sects, and set fire, a la Nero, to some of his victims.” 
  • Mary F. Wilson (December 1885). "The story of the Báb". The Contemporary Review. A. Strahan. 48: 808–829. ”…a joyful constancy in the face of bitterest suffering, torture and death, as vivid and touching as any that are found in the records of the heroic days of old”… We have been accustomed to claim it as an argument for the truth of our Christianity that its believers have been strong to suffer martyrdom for its sake. But here we have not men only, but tender and delicate women and little children, joyfully enduring torture "not accepting deliverance," for the sake of the faith that was in them.…The account of this closing day in the Bab’s history almost irresistibly recalls a similar day in a more sacred story. The mock trial – the outburst of blind, popular fury, stirred up by a jealous and vindictive priesthood – the cruel mockings and insult …" 

From these it is more proper to call the period of Baha'u'llah's arrest as one of widerspread persecution. Smkolins (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

None of these quotes reference Bahaullah's arrest, which is the topic at hand.
The current language ("During a time of persecution") forces the reader to make a false conclusion, that Baha'u'llah was arrested because of persecution. He was not. I have outlined above a few events, all of them linked to Babi violence, that did not trigger his arrest. The assassination attempt triggered his arrest. "During a time of persecution" should be removed from the lead for violating NPOV.
Regards, A35821361 (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You're trying to leave it worded that he was imprisoned and exiled without mentioning why, implying that he may have committed a crime. That is also unacceptable to lead the reader towards that conclusion. "During a time of persecution" seems to be the best way to maintain brevity and accuracy while getting across a simple concept that he was forced out of Iran by religious opponents.

By the way, here's the definition of persecution: hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs. Seems to pretty well describe pretty well what happened. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, the text I insert states he was arrested after a failed assassination attempt by some Babis. Some versions that have been undone have mentioned that it was by other Babis and that Bahaullah was not involved.
There was a specific precipitating even for his arrest, why not mention it?
Regards, A35821361 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
THe edits you are making make it seem like both the persuction and Baha'u'llah's imprisonment was due to the assassination attempt, which is patently false. The persuction started well before the asssasination attempt, and Baha'u'llah was also imprisoned before the assassination attempt. Here are two sources:
  • Baha'u'llah was arrested, imprisoned and tortured two times before the assasination attempt on the life of the Shah, clearly demonstrating the religious basis of the persecutions and that He was targeted as a leader of the community (Hatcher & Martin, p. 30)
  • There was no Babi plan of insurrection; the Babis did not attempt to create uprisings even when they had the opportunity. They did act in self-defense when the Persian state, motivated to a great extent by religious bigotry ordered the destruction of the Babis (Siyamak Zabihi-Moghaddam, The Babi-State Conflict at Shaykh Tabarsi, Iranian Studies Vol. 35 , Iss. 1-3,2002)
Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I will give you kudos for finding a quote from Zabihi-Moghaddam. To be honest, I was expecting you to dig up something from Peter Smith or another Bahai academic.
I will let you ponder how the Bab's telling his first follower to raise the Black Banner and lead an apocalyptic army from Mashhad does constitutes "self-defence" and not a "Babi plan of insurrection."
Regards, A35821361 (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
A35821361, what is your motivation? Do you really think that it's of critical importance that readers know about the assassination attempt? It is a footnote in the story of Baha'u'llah. It is challenging to write a summary of the religion without going into details. The version saying "during a time of persecution" is technically accurate while getting across an important concept in a few words. The lead should "identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". Even if you think that the assassination attempt is important, I showed you several reliable sources that don't mention any persecution or assassination, and one that says Baha'u'llah "faced persecution" by the empires. I think the only way to satisfy you is to delete the whole reference to travels, but that takes away context and fails to explain why the Baha'i administrative headquarters is in Israel. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I have cut the Gordian Knot here - simply substituting the year of the exile and removing both implications objected to as NPOV. In the lead there seems to be little need to go into great detail. As stated above (more than once) a full, NPOV account would have to be quite long and complex and would be of undue weight for this article - for several reasons - especially in the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of what follows. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
While I appreciate your efforts, the text currently pushes a POV. Having "faced persecution by Persian authorities" immediately followed by "In 1853, Bahá'u'lláh was imprisoned and exiled from his native Iran" pushes the idea that his arrest was purely persecutorial. There was a single, precipitating event that led to his arrest. Especially for the lead, the mention of the failed assassination attempt is more germane to his arrest than having his arrest mentioned after a mention of Bábi persecution. :::::::Regards, A35821361 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Not really a problem. What happened after the assassination attempt is still persecution in the form of collective punishment. The lead is not misleading. Your edits have grown increasingly reminiscient of vandalism. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The idea that his arrest and imprisonment was based not on his being a suspect but as a sweep of collective punishment is a presupposition on your part. The fact remains that the failed assassination attempt was the single precipitating event that led to his arrest. To call "persecution" the arrest of individuals associated with the leadership of a group that had lead an unsuccessful apocalyptic uprising and some of whose members then went on to unsuccessfully assassinate the reigning monarch is certainly one perspective. Again, persecution or not, the failed assassination attempt was the single precipitating event that led to his arrest.
Regarding my edits, which you find "increasingly reminiscient [sic] of vandalism," a couple of days ago you asked me, "what is your motivation?" My motivation with all of my contributions and edits is to provide an unbiased, precise account of the historical truth, one that is not clouded by the prism of religious dogmatism. Dedicated ideologues who are loyal to the officially-sanctioned narrative of their religion's history are welcome to disagree. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Barely relevant at all in this case - full facts covered in body of article - not a matter for a concise mention in the lead in any case - to be fair we'd need to mention a whole rack of rather more relevant matter and the lead would start to look like an article in its own right. Everyone here agrees with your point that what we want here is NOT a regurgitation of an "officially-sanctioned narrative" - but a fair NPOV account. Which is what we have. What you seem to want is an account that slants everything towards your own strong opositional POV - something that would be at least as out-of-place in a Wikipedia article as an official account. These remarks are much more ad hominem than I feel comfortable with - much rather keep it totally inpersonal - but you're the one calling everyone who doesn't agree with you an ideologue. To be frank, the only ideologue I can see is you. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I am glad to hear you are committed to a fair NPOV account of Bahá'u'lláh's arrest in the lead. If a reason is to be given, it should mention the antecedent event that directly caused the arrest. If I am an ideologue, it is for truth, accuracy, and objectivity. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming antecedent events are causal is speculation, not "truth", nor "accuracy" and far from "objective". But anyway the information is already in the article at the point where the event concerned (the exile of Bahá'u'lláh) is discussed in appropriate detail. For the umteenth time this is the lead (or lede, introduction, opening summary, whatever you want to call it) which is supposed to be a summary. If you sincerely don't get it maybe we should seek a third opinion. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a third opinion is an excellent idea. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Do I count as a third opinion? Because if so, I really don't think the lead in the article is pushing a non-NPOV right now. It would be pretty strange and out of place to put something like the attempt on the Shah's life as the sole or chief cause of Baha'u'llah's imprisonment. As for A35821361, I mean you no disrespect, and I don't know you, but if your main aim is to "provide an unbiased, precise account of the historical truth, one that is not clouded by the prism of religious dogmatism", perhaps it would be good to consider that currently you are the only one stating your POV that these specific things need to be included. Numerous users here have provided sources that address the remarks you've made, so if what you're actually after is neutrality, then perhaps consider the possibility that everybody else is also pursuing that. Nadeem.navidi (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


Here are a few references describing the time from third party sources:

Initially, the mullas hoped to stop the Bábí movement from spreading by denouncing its followers as apostates and enemies of God. These denouncements resulted in mob attacks, public executions and torture of early Bábís. When the Bábís (in accordance with Koranic principles) organized to defend themselves, the government sent troops into a series of engagements that resulted in heavy losses on both sides. The Báb himself was imprisoned from 1846 until 1850 and eventually publicly executed. In August 1852, two deranged Bábís attempted to kill the Shah in revenge for the execution of the Báb. This resulted in an extensive pogrom during which more than 20,000 Bábís – among them 400 Shí‘i mullas who had embraced the Bábí teachings – lost their lives.

— Friedrich W. Affolter, The Specter of Ideological Genocide: The Bahá'ís of Iran[13]

The challenging and heterodox nature of the Bāb’s.. claims provoked opposition on the part of the Shiʿite establishment, which then led the civil authorities of Qajar Persia to intervene on the side of the clerics...

The first known killings of Babis followed the murder of the prominent Qazvini cleric Ḥāji Mollā Moḥammad-Taqi Baraḡāni, the uncle and father-in-law of the Babi leader Ṭāhera (Qorrat-al-ʿAyn), and a leading opponent of both the Shaikhis and the Babis (October 1847). Although the murderer was at that time a Shaikhi, Ṭāhera and her followers in the city were blamed, and several were arrested, one being formally executed, and several others being done to death by Baraḡāni’s supporters ... From this point onwards, attacks against the Bābis by leading clerics and their followers became more common and some Babis began to carry weapons. One such confrontation occurred at Bārforuš in Māzandarān, involving the killing of several Babis and their opponents, and leading directly to the armed conflict between the Babis and their enemies at the nearby shrine of Shaikh Ṭabarsi (October 1848-May 1849).


After the Ṭabarsi conflict, mere adherence to the Bāb could be sufficient to lead to a death sentence, as most famously in the case of the “Seven Martyrs of Tehran,” a group of seven prominent Babis who were executed in public by beheading in February 1850...

There then followed two major conflicts between the Babis and their opponents in the towns of Zanjān (ca. May 13, 1850-ca. January 2, 1851) and Nayriz (May 27- June 21, 1850) respectively in the north and south of Persia, as well as a more limited confrontation in Yazd (January-February 1850). At Zanjān, one of the leading clerics, Mollā Moḥammad-ʿAli Ḥojjat, had become a Babi, bringing several thousand of his followers into the new religion. An inter-communal conflict developed, which led to the city governor ordering the physical division of the town into Babi and non-Babi sections. Fighting ensued, followed by the employment of troops and an almost nine month siege of the Babi quarter, during which the poorly armed defenders held off the besiegers, killing many. Many of the Babis were killed during the struggle and most of the survivors who fought to the end were massacred...

The Nayriz conflict was similar to the Zanjān one, the arrival of a locally-influential religious leader Sayyed Yaḥyā Darābi, known as “Waḥid,” leading to the conversion of many of the townspeople and exacerbating existing urban tensions. Again, the local governor tried to settle matters by force, leading to an armed struggle between the Babis and regional troops. As in Zanjān, the Babis’ religious fervour gave them an initial advantage over the forces sent against them and the besiegers’ final victory was achieved by deceit, and was marked by the torture and killing of the Babi survivors...

Following the outbreak of these conflicts, Amir Kabir (1807-52), Nāṣer-al-Din Shah’s (r. 1848-96) chief minister, determined to have the Bāb himself executed. Although clearly an act of state (Amir Kabir evidently hoped that the death of the Bāb would destroy the Babis’ fervour), the execution was readily given religious legitimization by senior clerics in Tabriz and was carried out on the basis of their fatwās (on July 8 or 9, 1850;...)

More Babis were killed in the aftermath of an unsuccessful attempt on the life of the shah by a small group of Babi radicals on August 15, 1852. The would-be assassins (either 3, 4 or 6 in number) were able to approach the shah in the guise of petitioners and then lightly wound him with pistol shot. One or two of the assailants were immediately killed by the shah’s attendants, the survivors revealing that they were Babis seeking revenge for the execution of the Bāb. Panic ensued, and a number of Babis were arrested on the charge of being involved in a conspiracy to murder the shah. Some of those arrested were later released, but most were killed, including the radical leaders, Mollā Shaikh ʿAli Toršizi, known as “ʿAẓim,” and Ḥosayn-Jān Milāni. Some other Babis, who were certainly not involved in any conspiracy, such as the poetess Ṭāhera, were also killed at this time. The Shah ordered a general massacre (qatl-e ʿāmm) of the Babis (Māzandarāni, VI, p. 71). The Ruznāma-ye waqāyeʿ-e ettefāqiya (10 Ḏu’l-Qaʿda 1268/ August 26 1852, pp. 1-3, tr. in Momen, 1981, pp. 139-42) lists names 27 or 28 individuals (one may have been allowed to escape) who were killed, but another account refers to about 400 Babis being killed, and another to women and children as being amongst those killed (cited in Momen, 1981, pp. 134, 144-45). In order to lessen the possibility of a revenge attack by other Babis, the chief minister, Mirzā Āqā Khan Nuri, distributed many of those who were to be killed to various collective groups (branches of the military, royal pages, merchants, the teachers and students at the Dār al-Fonun polytechnic college in Tehran established in the previous year, etc.), so that they could share responsibility for the action. There seems to have been some competition in devising manners of death for those condemned, some being simply speared, stabbed or shot, whilst others were beaten to death, hacked to pieces, shot at with cross bows, or blown from the mouth of a cannon, and at least three suffered the torture of having lighted candles inserted in specially cut wounds in the torso whilst still alive, before being cut into sections. Prior to death, some had their eyes gauged out or were otherwise disfigured, and at least one was shod with horseshoes. After death, the bodies of many of the victims were cut up, used for target practice, beaten to an unrecognizable pulp, or left for the dogs to eat, indicating both the ferocity of the executioners and their determination that the dead should be denied a proper burial (the details of the executions were reported in the official government newspaper, Ruznāma-ye vaqāyeʿ-e ettifāqiya, for 10 Ḏu’l-Qaʾda, pp. 1-3, tr. Momen, 1981, pp. 138-42). Ṭāhera was executed, probably by being suffocated, and her body thrown down a well...

In the aftermath of the assassination attempt, there were also attacks on Babi villagers in Milān (near Tabriz) and Nur in Māzandarān, in both of which some Babis were killed ( Hamadāni, pp. 414-15; Momen, 1981,pp. 145-46; Nabil, pp. 637-42). There was also a further upheaval in the town of Nayriz following the assassination of the town’s governor by some Babis (March 26, 1853), the new governor using the incident as a pretext to pillage and plunder the town extensively, in response to which many people fled to the mountains, attacking the soldiery sent to subdue them. Eventually, resistance was overcome, about a hundred men being straightaway beheaded, others were imprisoned or eventually executed, whilst the women were given over to the soldiers, many eventually becoming beggars in Shiraz...

The final persecution of Babis prior to the emergence of the Bahai religion as the main successor movement to the Babi movement took place in 1864, when a leading Shiʿite cleric of Isfahan, Shaikh Moḥammad-Bāqer, had about a dozen Babis arrested in the nearby town of Najafābād. The Babis suffered torture and beatings, but only four were eventually put to death, the rest being set free mainly because the shah decided that they had committed no crime (Momen, 1981, pp. 268-69).

... [Bábíism's] is of that stuff whereof world-religions are made. And to this rank does it lay claim, demanding nothing less than universal acceptance and undisputed sway, not only in Persia, where it was first preached and where it underwent that baptism of blood which was the terror and wonder even of those who proscribed and persecuted it, but throughout the whole world.

... Persecution went on steadily in all parts of the country [following the "seven martyrs" of Tehran]... Six months more elapsed, and then, in August, 1852, an event happened which brought down upon the Bábís a persecution fiercer than that which they had yet experienced. A certain youth named Sádik... conceived in his mind a plan of taking vengeance on the tyrant who had slain his beloved master and ruthlessly persecuted all who held the Bábí faith... We have now reached a point where the scene and the characters are in great measure changed; and indeed it would hardly be too much to say that we have now entered a on a new epoch in the history of the faith.

... In Persia persecution continued with varying severity, and continually was the Bábí colony at Baghdad recruited by exiles forced to fly from their own homes. Every effort was made by the Persian authorities to molest and injure the fugitives, who, at a last resource, enroled themselves as Turkish subjects... For twelve years, then, the Bábí leaders dwelt here... exhorting their followers to refrain from all resistance to the authorities and, by virtuous lives, patient resignation, and kindly dealing with all men, to commend their faith to the whole world. So far did they succeed that from the year 1852 until the present time, the Bábís have patiently and unresistingly submitted to all the persecutions which they have suffered and still do suffer.
— Article written by Edward Granville Browne contributed to Religious Systems of the World (2nd, 1892)

To the point, considering these third party accounts, it is entirely reasonable to summarize this in the lead as, "The Bahá'í Faith formed from the Bábí religion, a 19th century outgrowth of Shia Islam that faced persecution by Persian authorities. In 1853, Bahá'u'lláh was imprisoned and exiled from his native Iran." Because 1) Persecution by authorities was a definitive attribute of the Bábí faith, 2) Baha'u'llah's banishment was technically preceded by the assassination attempt, but more accurately described as the worst of several cases of religious persecution, and 3) Baha'u'llah was not involved in that assassination attempt and to mention that he was banished because of it implies that he was involved, which is leading the reader to an erroneous conclusion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Lead Section[edit]

I'm requesting comment on the first two paragraphs on the Baha'i Faith. We have had about a month of edit warring, and discussions don't seem to be going anywhere. Here are the first two paragraphs in the current version (which the majority of editors are reverting to):

The Bahá'í Faith (Persian: بهائی‎‎ Bahā'i) is a religion teaching the essential worth of all religions, and the unity and equality of all people.[14] Established by Bahá'u'lláh in 1863, it initially grew in the Middle East and now has between 5-7 million adherents, known as Bahá'ís, spread out into most of the world's countries and territories, with the highest concentrations in India and Iran.[15]

The Bahá'í Faith formed from the Bábí religion, a 19th century outgrowth of Shia Islam that faced persecution by Persian authorities. In 1853, Bahá'u'lláh was imprisoned and exiled from his native Iran. He spent time in Baghdad before being further exiled, spending over a decade in the prison city of Akka in the Ottoman province of Syria, in what is now Israel. Following Bahá'u'lláh's death in 1892, leadership of the religion fell to his son `Abdu'l-Bahá (1844-1921), and later his great-grandson Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957). Bahá'ís around the world annually elect local, regional, and national Spiritual Assemblies that govern the affairs of the religion, and every five years the members of all National Spiritual Assemblies elect the Universal House of Justice, the nine-member supreme governing institution of the worldwide Bahá'í community, which sits in Haifa, Israel near the shrine of Bahá'u'lláh.

It has been adjusted and improved upon over this time, but there are a few sticking points. Please read the previous section on this talk page: Talk:Bahá'í Faith#Edit conflicts in the lead. If I may summarize the issues, they focus on how much detail should go into discussing the persecution of early Bábís and an attempted assassination of the Shah by some Bábís in order to briefly explain why Baha'u'llah was imprisoned and exiled from Iran. User:A35821361, in particular, thinks that mentioning persecution and exile should also mention the assassination attempt. Others believe that mentioning the assassination attempt presents its own problematic POV by leading the reader to think Baha'u'llah was behind the attempted murder (he was not). Regardless, all of the information is further below in the article and on sub-pages explaining all the details. This is a question about what is appropriate to summarize in the lead paragraphs to convey important concepts while not going into extraneous detail. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the proposed paragraph as is my main issue is the narrowness of the presence of the Faith suddenly changing from just being mentioned in the context of Persia and suddenly "Baha'is around the world…". In this context it might be good to elaborate briefly on the presence of Baha'is in countries in Baha'u'llah's leadership, then of Abdu'l-Baha, and then Shoghi Effendi. Along the lines of: "Upto Bahá'u'lláh's death in 1892 the religion was present in (x) countries. Then leadership of the religion fell to his son `Abdu'l-Bahá (1844-1921) during which time the religion was introduced to the West especially the US and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as some of Europe, and later his great-grandson Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957) during who's leadership the religion spread especially to South America, Africa and Oceania to most countries" I also quibble over the word "concentration" as it can mean absolute numbers of Baha'is or Baha'is compared to the country's general population. Maybe "membership" would be an alternative?

But none of these points are being discussed…. Relative to the points being discussed I think the clear majority sources clearly relate the wave of persecutions to be a distinct subject from that of the assassination attempt and really in light of history most of the discussion and reaction is to that wave of martyrs and persecution that took place and stands as its own subject in the lede. I think this trumps even the question of implying Baha'u'llah was involved. I submitted some sources about this above and Cuñado did some more. More surely exist. Anyway, that's my input.Smkolins (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Note the analysis of the importance of the event - (see page 177)Abbas Amanat (2008). "The historical roots of the persecution of Babis and Baha'is in Iran". In Dominic Parviz Brookshaw; Seena Fazel. The Baha'is of Iran: Socio-historical Studies. Psychology Press. pp. 170–183. ISBN 978-0-415-35673-2. The 1852 incident was a turning point for it opened the door to sporadic but severe mass killings in the Iranian provinces and smaller communities in the following years and even decades.  Smkolins (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Bahá'u'lláh, as one of the leaders of the Bábí movement, was arrested after a specific, causative antecedent event, namely the failed assassination attempt by some Bábís of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar on August 15, 1852.

Bahá'u'lláh remained a free man even while the Báb's followers were engaged in an apocalyptic insurgency.

Bahá'u'lláh was not arrested in 1848 when Mullá Ḥusayn-i-Bushru'i unfurled a Black Standard in Mashhad, fulfilling an Islamic prophecy, and began a march with other Bábis.

Bahá'u'lláh was not arrested when Mullá Ḥusayn-i-Bushru'i died at the battle of Shaykh Tabarsí on February 2, 1849.

Bahá'u'lláh was not arrested when the siege itself ended on May 10, 1849.

Bahá'u'lláh was not arrested when the Báb was executed on July 9, 1850.

Bahá'u'lláh was not arrested while the insurgencies in Neyriz and Zanjan continued.

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no way an action that resulted in the killing of thousands without trial can be called a "specific, causative antecendent event" in any fairness. Smkolins (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
In fairness, yes it can be called "a specific, causative antecedent event." The assassination attempt had many ramifications, one of which was Bahá'u'lláh's arrest. A look at acts of violence in various historical contexts shows similar consequences. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend including a discussion of the assassination attempt in the article body, assuming reliable sources can be found which directly relate this event to Bahá'u'lláh's arrest. The lead, however, is better concise, i.e. without mentioning what led up to the arrest, which surely was a quite complex history. Clean Copytalk 01:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
It has been included in the body for some time now. See section Bahá'í Faith#Bahá'u'lláh. Thanks for contributing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing the RfC, Clean Copytalk. The problem with not including mention of the failed assassination attempt in the lead is that with the wording as it has been maintained, mentioning Bahá'u'lláh's arrest after referring to a "time of persecution" falsely pushes the POV that his arrest was purely persecutorial, when in fact it was precipitated by a single event, the failed assassination attempt. I have mentioned above a number of incidents during the apocalyptic Bábi insurrections that did not precipitate his arrest. If the lead is to be concise, without mentioning what led up to the arrest, do you recommend omission of the "persecution" as well? In the past I have unsuccessfully recommended wording along the lines of "during a time of persecution in the wake of apocalyptic insurrections." However, while that wording addresses the underlying reason for the persecution, it does not address the specific reason for his arrest, which is the failed assassination attempt. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The wording, "during a time of persecution in the wake of Babi insurrections" (I would leave out the word "apocalyptic") seems straightforward enough. Is this acceptable to others, as well? Clean Copytalk 22:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Not exactly, the Babis did not mount an insurrection, the times when they engaged in battle, they were surrounded and outnumbered, fighting defensively. Before taking up arms many were killed and tortured, fatwas were issued against them, and the wave of killings following the attempted assassination was greatly amplified by their desire to get rid of them based on religious beliefs. Religious persecution is the correct term. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
When, at the command of the Bab, Ḥusayn-i-Bushru'i unfurled a Black Standard in Mashhad, fulfilling an Islamic prophecy, and began a march with other Babis, they were not "surrounded and outnumbered." Nor were the Babis "surrounded and outnumbered" when they began uprisings in Neyriz and Zanjan. Yes, Clean Copytalk, I would go along with the wording "During a time of persecution in the wake of Babi insurrections, Bahaullah was arrested subsequent to an unsuccessful assassination attempt by some Babis of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar." Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The lead is already quite sufficiently long. The details can remain in the body. Incidentally, Oliver Scharbrodt's Islam and the Baha'i Faith: A Comparative Study has a clear description of the events on page 38. Clean Copytalk 01:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Clean Copytalk, please go ahead and edit the wording in the lead as you fit, thank you. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
an academic presentation - The Religion of Unity and the Unity of Religion: Remembering the Bahá’í Faith and Bahá’u’lláh, by Sasha Dehghani, Center for the study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity School, May 8, 2017 Smkolins (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Due to the quiescence here for the past week since recommended wording by Clean Copytalk, is there a consensus on his suggestion? Although Bahá'u'lláh was in fact arrested subsequent to the failed assassination attempt, is the wording "In 1853, during a time of persecution in the wake of Babi insurrections, Bahá'u'lláh was imprisoned and exiled from his native Iran" acceptable? If not, what is the objection? Regards, A35821361 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I provided several reliable sources that describe the period as persecution and don't use the term "insurrection". It is still misleading. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
There was an apocalyptic insurrection underway at the time of the persecutions. The fact that your sources "don't use the term 'insurrection'" is more a commentary on your sources. Countless other sources do mention the insurrection. What is further misleading is the omission of the very reason for his arrest, which is his being in the leadership of a movement engaged in an insurrection some of whose members attempted to assassinate the reigning monarch. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
If there are better reliable sources, why haven't you provided them? It seems British and Russian observers as third-party first-hand sources are as best as you can get. They describe a religious group being targeted because of their beliefs and defending themselves. The three major skirmishes ended in a general massacre of the Babis involved, and there are no examples of any offensive campaigns other than your claim that walking around carrying a black flag represents an apocalyptic insurgency. Your assertion is unsourced and contradicted by reliable sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
My last comment, which I stand by, was that the lede seems fine as it stands. As Cuñado mentions, the weight of reliable sources is clearly in support of the current framing, but you are welcome to seek out sources representing other points of view. Clean Copytalk 01:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I have no objection to the phrasing as it stands now as the wording in the lede currently does not push the falsehood that he was arrested and exiled due to persecution. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Wikipedia:Good articles". 
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^'i
  12. ^'i
  13. ^ Affolter, Friedrich W. (2005). "The Specter of Ideological Genocide: The Bahá'ís of Iran" (PDF). War Crimes, Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. 1 (1): 75–114. 
  14. ^ Dictionary 2017.
  15. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica 2002.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bahá'í Faith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)