Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 9

message: Is there a reason why a virtual encyclopedia for all peoples is using specifically Bāhāī orthography in articles pertaining to the Bahāī Faith? Ought not the Bahāī tendency to use the accute accent be replaced with a macron over applicable vowels (thus: "Bahāī" rather than "Bahá'í", "Bahāullāh" rather than "Bahá'u'lláh") to render pronunciation in a more scholarly manner? Otherwise, the page looks like it was written by Bahāīs rather than being neutral. In recognition of their system of orthography, we can state how they write their words: "The Bahāī (rendered as "Bahá'í" by its adherants) Faith is an emerging global religion founded by Bahāullāh (written as "Bahá'u'lláh" by Bahāīs), a nineteenth-century Persian exile. "Bahāī" is either an adjective referring to this religion, or the term for a follower of Bahāullāh." It would make this more NPOV, IMHO.
:There used to be a note on the page that stated something like Shoghi Effendi who translated much of the Baha'i writings used a specific transliteration of Arabic and persian which was common at that time.  And thus all of the Baha'i writings and references to the Baha'i Faith use that specific orthography, Bahá'í.  Following Wikipedia's 'most common' rule, the Baha'i pages use that orthography. Searching for "Bahāī" on google and going through the first 10 pages of Google search I couldn't find a single page that used the Bahāī orthography. -- Jeff3000 00:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the page that kind of describes it: Bahá'í orthography -- Jeff3000 00:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthography 

message: Is it totally necessary to have the wikisource link on a bunch of documents like Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá? The actual text is linked under references, and the wikisource link is not pleasant to the eyes. Cuñado  - Talk 01:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikisource 

message: Does anyone object to adding this template to the page? Not all the links are filled in yet, but I'm in the middle of doing that. Cuñado  - Talk 17:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be in "Bahá'í history", and a good addition. There's an awful lot on this page already. MARussellPESE 18:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MARussellPESE that the template makes the page too busy.  I would remove it.  A better place could be Baha'i history or Baha'u'llah. -- Jeff3000 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I know this is against what others have said but I think it'll be alright - Although it would be nice if you could make it smaller (two columns?). Would be better as more compact. -- Tomhab 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: On the article on Abrahamic religion, Bahá'í is listed as one of the Abrahamic religions as follows:
"generally held to include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Bahá'í"
I think someone would need to elaborate more on the link, it's quite a valuable bit of information, if anything.--202.156.6.54 07:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Abrahamic Religion 

message: I changed this:
:Rather, they believe that, in time, a new Manifestation of God will appear to guide mankind in its continued maturation.
to this
:Rather, they believe that a new Manifestation of God will continue to appear about every thousand years to guide mankind in its continued maturation.
And Tomhab changed it back. I agree that mine was not very good, but neither was the first one. "in time" is very vague, and could imply that we're expecting another prophet any day now. The 1000 comes from the mention that 500 Prophets will come over the next 500 thousand years. Cuñado  - Talk 06:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How bout we just say the next prophet will not come for at least 1000 years after Baha'u'llah.  -- Jeff3000 07:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1000 years 

message: For the same reason that you got confused about what the religion represents, is why the first part of the article needs a "demographics" and "relation to other religions". Those first two sections are an extension of the introduction, and necessary since more than half of the people in the world have never heard of the Baha'i Faith. However, I agree that some of the contents of the "other religions" section could be moved, since they don't all address that subject, but "persecution" does, since it deals directly with the relation to the Islamic world. 
The demographics section can't be replaced with a mention in the intro, because there is more than a sentence, and the issue of how many Baha'is there are in the world has been a huge debate, and needs a careful explanation. See Baha'i statistics. 
I'm going to try some moving around and re-titling, according to the discussion so far. If you don't like it just change it. Cuñado  - Talk 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page as it stands right now seems a little funny.  I'm thinking of expanding the section after the intro into a section about what is now called the Three Onenesses, and the distinction and relation to other religions can fit into that.  But if I do that, then the difference between that section and the section on the teachings gets a little blurred.  What do you think? -- Jeff3000 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the persecution part should remain under "other religions" and not under "social practices".  As to the expansion, I'd say just do it and see how it works out. Cuñado  - Talk 20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work with the new sectioning. Now it makes more sense. CG 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: order

message: A conversation was going on at Talk:Bahá'í orthography, which I would like to propose here. It involves the issue of the proper transliteration of Arabic names on the Baha'i pages. Basically, there are four levels of transliterating Arabic, and most Baha'i books use the highest level of transliteration, which is common among academics, and standardized by Shoghi Effendi. At this level, a reader could take the English word and render perfectly the original Arabic. At the lowest level, most of the useful information is lost, but it's much easier to type and use for electronic purposes. I'll use `Abdu'l-Bahá as an example, to show the levels.
1. Best - ‘Abdu’l-Bahá - notice that those are not apostrophes (') or grave accents (`) which are located on the keyboard, but they are located on the clickable characters beneath the edit window. This level would also include underscores and dots ( Ḥají Ákhúnd ) 
2. Just as good - `Abdu'l-Bahá - using the apostrophe and grave accent, which are on the keyboard. Without underscores and dots.
3. lazy - `Abdu'l-Baha - ignoring the accents above long vowels. All characters are found on the keyboard. 
4. electronic - Abdul-Baha - ignoring accents and apostrophes. 
5. Other - a combination of these.
The only available wiki standard is only a proposal, and itself is unclear.
As far as I can tell, there are three places where these can be applied separately, that is the page title, the introductory paragraph, and the rest of the page. For example, a page title could use one form, another form could be used once alongside the original Arabic, and another form could be used in the article. Currently the first three forms are used throughout all of the Baha'i articles. Jeff3000 and I both agree that a change is in order. I suggest we vote for consensus. Cuñado  - Talk 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to note that the academic standards on transliteration have evolved. The one that Bahá'ís use was at one time the standard but it isn't anymore. I do prefer ours, but I'm used to it. We shouldn't argue that it's "the academic standard". MARussellPESE 13:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. See Arabic transliteration for more on standards. Baha'is use a system resembling ALA-LC (Library of Congress), except with á instead of ā. As far as I can tell, this is the standard used across Wikipedia. Cuñado  - Talk 17:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  diacritics 

message: *Use #3, just because it's easier to link. Cuñado  - Talk
*Use #3, per above. Gene Nygaard 11:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page titles

message: *Use #1, just once, so that the academic value of the proper Arabic is not lost. Cuñado  - Talk
*Strong #2, for consistency. MARussellPESE 13:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: *Use #3 for ease of use to readers and people unfamiliar with the Arabic transliteration. #2 would be fine as well. Cuñado  - Talk
*Strong #2, again for consistency. MARussellPESE 13:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article text

message: *Use #4, strip diacritics (they still show up in category list), be sure to use initial capital letter (not lowercase, not an accent character) for the very first letter of the sort key in any people category.  (Since you've already started referring to the options you've listed  by number, it's best to fix (as in set permanently) those numbers.) Gene Nygaard 11:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category indexing sort key

message: Subh-i-Azal does not belong in this page.  He is not a figure in the Baha'i Faith, but of the Babi Faith.  The Bab, however, has a central role for Baha'is, as Baha'is believe he foretold of the Baha'u'llah and in that spirit he is included as a central figure (and that is why he is in the page, as one who Baha'i claim foretold of the coming of Baha'u'llah).  You might believe that it should not be the case, and Baha'is should see Subh-i-Azal as a central figure, but I don't believe you'll find a verifiable source that states that Baha'is (not Babis) see him as a central figure.  As for the Bab, I would say almost all sources state that he is a central figure for Baha'is.  The Bahá'í/Bábí split article is indicated as the main link for the Bab section as this is a summary style page. -- Jeff3000 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. As of now the treatment of Mirza Yahya here is brief and highlights the time period of the greatest tension between the two. This episode was a significant crisis in the religion's history as the community was in transition. Its mention does not give undue weight in my opinion. However, that mention should not be any more than in passing as Jeff3000 is right, he made no contribution to the Bahá'í Faith. MARussellPESE 15:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is mentioned in the article in the Baha'u'llah section.  What I meant that having him as a subsection like Wjhonson's edit is not appropriate, because he is not a central figure in the Baha'i Faith as the Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha are.  I don't disagree that more mention of him can be made in either the Bab or Baha'u'llah section, I disagree with making a complete new section for him, as he did not help develop the Baha'i Faith as the four others (I'm including Baha'i administration here) did. -- Jeff3000 15:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad Jeff. I'd not looked at the article history to see that Wjhonson had added an entire section on him. That's well wide of the mark. Azal was never considered a "leader" in the Bahá'í Faith. He was rarely even considered an effective one in the Babi faith either, but that's a discussion for his page. MARussellPESE 15:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry these sections are on the History of the movement.  He was indeed the leader for 16 years, undisputed, as standard Baha'i texts (if you'll just read them) make clear.  The fact that you don't want to read them, is not my concern.  He was the leader of the Baha'is as much as the Bab was and so belongs in this section about the leaders of the movement.  If you only want to list the leaders of the Baha'is proper, then you should remove the Bab as he was not a leader of the Baha'is either.  If this section is about the leadership of the Movement, then he belongs here as much as the Bab does. Wjhonson 02:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show one verifiable source that he was the leader of the Baha'i Faith, he arguably was a leader of the Babi Faith.  This is not an article about the Babi Faith.  And as I mentioned above the reason why the Bab is mentioned is because Baha'is claim that Baha'u'llah is the one fortold by the Bab. -- Jeff3000 02:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bab was not a leader of the Baha'is.  You can't have it both ways.  Subh-i Azal was very important in the movements formation, you can't ignore what he did or didn't do just because you feel like it. Wjhonson 02:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry your're not understanding my reasoning, the Bab is included as context for Baha'u'llah claiming to be Him whom God made manifest and his role as a Babi and his imprisonments and exile.  He is not being included because he was a leader of the Baha'i Faith.  -- Jeff3000 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed Subh-i-Azal section again.  Subh-i-Azal was never a leader of the Baha'i Faith.  This is not a page about the Babi Faith or He whom God shall make manifest (HWGSMM); but a page about the Baha'i Faith.  The Baha'i Faith starts at the claiming of Baha'u'llah to be HWGSMM.  The reason why the Bab is in the history section of the page is to give context to the Baha'u'llah section which talks about Babis, imprisonment, and HWGSMM. (There is always a backward trend to include more context, perhaps in this case the Shayki teachings, and there might be an argument to add those, but given that Islam in general is known by the public, I don't think this summary article needs them, but the general public does not know about Babism) Subh-i-Azal claiming to be HWGSMM does not add to context of the Baha'u'llah section where the history of the Baha'i Faith starts.  Subh-i-Azal's claim has been expounded greatly in other pages (one whole page is directed to his claim to HWGSMM, Bahá'í/Bábí split, and not accepting Baha'u'llah's claim, and that page is linked through the main section).  You don't see a mention of Mandaeism (followers of John the Baptist who did not accept Jesus) in the Christianity and Jesus articles because they were not Christians who followed Jesus.  Now I know that Subh-i-Azal is not exactly the same, as there was no leader after John the Baptist who became the leader before Jesus, but the point stands that Subh-i-Azal was never a leader of the Baha'i Faith, and that the Bab section is there to provide context.  The Subh-i-Azal section does not provide any more context, and he is also mentioned in the Baha'u'llah section, where it states "Subh-i-Azal, the appointed leader of the Bábís."  -- Jeff3000 13:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This section is obviously about the HISTORY of the movement.  If the Bab was the *leader* before Baha, then Subh was, in exactly the same way, the *leader* between the Bab and Baha.  Otherwise you leave a 16 year gap that is not accounted for.  That makes no sense.  In no other page with a section called "History" would a gap like this be allowed to go unexplained. Wjhonson 17:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Baha" and "Subh" are not the equivalent of first names. Cuñado  - Talk 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to make this more clear. The history of the Baha'i Faith is traced to Baha'u'llah's declaration in 1863, not the Bab's in 1844. The Bab is universally viewed as the forerunner who innaugurated his own, distinct, stand-alone, independent, separate, religion. The Bab, Himself, is important. So were the Babi figures who struggled to launch that religion. Many Baha'i trace their roots to those people. But in the end, these are as venerable as the founders and early heroes of every faith. MARussellPESE 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned in many previous comments, the Baha'i Faith starts with Baha'u'llah's claimed declaration, and the Bab section is to provide context. -- Jeff3000 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the same way Subh-i-Azal provides content as well.  When someone reads the "History" section they are given the false impression that for 16 years the movement simply vanished. Instead any observant Baha'i should be interested in what happened during that time period.  I imagine that none of you three can tell me one single thing that happened to anyone except Baha himself. Wjhonson 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Baha'i editors here, especially MARussellPESE, are pretty well versed in what happened to Mirza Yahya during the time from the Bab's death to Baha'u'llah's declaration and beyond.  That's not the point, the Baha'i Faith's history starts from Baha'u'llah claiming he knew he was the HWGSMM prophecized by the Bab.  Context needed for this is what/who is HWGSMM; the answer to that is a  figure predicted by the Bab.  The next question is who is the Bab, since that is not common knowledge, and so that has to be explained.  There were many claimants to be HWGSMM, including Mirza Yahya; these people started their own faiths/movements/religions, but they were not Baha'is.  These people were either Babis (or previously Babis, depending on what they claimed), and are mentioned appropriately in the Babi related pages.  The other thing is that Mirza Yahya is already mentioned in the article as the leader of the Babis, so the content is there.  -- Jeff3000 05:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice, I've re-added one paragraph which is needed for context of the first sentence in the Baha'u'llah section (why he was imprisoned).  Also cleared up why Baha'is see the Bab as Baha'u'llah's forerunner (because he claimed to be HWGSMM). -- Jeff3000 17:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Grazie Jdemarcos. MARussellPESE 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also added in the mention that his tomb is a pilgrimage site for Baha'is. That seems pretty significant for an overview and gives an idea of how revered he is to Baha'is. Cuñado  - Talk 20:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subh-i-Azal in this page