Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 13

message: Wikipedia is said to be a neutral source of information.  This article is far from neutral, as a matter of fact 90% of it is word for word what is on Baha'i sites!  This is not neutral other than the one blurp.  Many controveries and problems are not mentioned nor are many historical facts.  This isn't an entry that is neutral, this is propoganda! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.242.33.104 (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nature of wikipedia is that deleters have to provide little reasons for the delete, however when the material is returned to the page it is group work that keeps it present. Any person can contribute and watch their work get deleted. That work that remains has unique qualities and is expressed in the growth of wikipedia. Suggestions are to write in another language to make your point, but the problem here is that readership falls off, or to craft your edits so that in the clash of differing opinions the spark of truth comes out. Historical facts as you put them are always in a context. The page has a context and with in that context the facts are placed. What you are seeing is the development of a page that many minds accept and the page is a reflection of what these minds believed and understand. Wikipedia is about group concensus. So is propoganda, however many people in the past did not have control of broadcast media and propoganda frustrated them, today the web 2.0 community is more consultative and democratic. Wikipedia shows off the light of unity. Wikipedia is a stage that broadcasts information and each person who edits is an actor on that stage. This page is neutral as far as concensus thinking goes. 90% shows that wikipedia is a good refection of the majority expression of what is on the web and as to what Baha'i Faith is about on those sites is reflected here. Good luck with getting any edits past Jeff3000. He has a good edit/delete on him. He floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee. But many would miss him if he stopped editing on our behalf and many would step up to take his place if we saw that he was not making the calls. Wikipedia is big enough for every one including the 10% you refer to Philosophical understanding and Religious context. RoddyYoung 13:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeff3000, like most editors, watches many pages. Like some editors he actively encourages folks contributions with discussions. A few more moments thoughts, or awareness of various qualities and aims of wikipedia often clarifies what is/should be in wikipedia. Drive by edits are discouraged everywhere, especially where articles have been through a lot of editing and contributions. The accolades of the article speak for the efforts of many (featured article, foreign language featured article....) --Smkolins 14:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm having a serious problem with the neutrality of this ariticle 

message: Why don't we stop using an image of the UHJ which changes every few months, and use either;
A. The shine of the Bab, probably the most known part of the faith outside of the faith itself.
B. The portrait of Abdul Baha, The man who made the faith what it is today.
What do you think? Zazaban 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I think the most appropriate picture is the House.  The reason why the picture changed, was that they were not free.  The current image is under the GFDL, and can be used without a problem. -- Jeff3000 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the Other articles for major religions, we seem to be the only article to have a picture at the top of the page. Why do we even have it? Zazaban 02:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the picture of the House on the top. If for no other reason, it clearly identifies the article with the Universal House of Justice, as opposed to Covenant-breakers. Cuñado  - Talk 08:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just don't like THAT picture, it's a very weird angle. Zazaban 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No the media bank pictures of buildings cannot be used when a free one is available.  Images from the media bank have already been deleted for not abiding by the fair use policy.  Please do not upload any other media bank images. -- Jeff3000 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, we seem to be sacrificing quality in attempting to make all the pictures free-use. I disagree with this, just because there is a free picture available doesn't make it necessarily any good. Many of the free pictures look horrible, and this has really made me disappointed to see the Baha'i pages recently. We need to worry about quality. High resolution, clear images, realistic colors, and nothing older than the year 2000 unless it is a historical picture. This is why I am struggling so much. None of the free pictures (and I have hundreds) are really anything I would like to see on here. In any case, I hope that this note has only to make us search a little harder (and this applies to all Baha'i pages). Nmentha 05:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see fair use criteria.  This is official policy on Wikipedia, and cannot be compromised.  Non-free images of buildings that still exist have been deleted on hundreds of pages, and will be deleted.  The goal of Wikipedia is to provide a free encyclopedia, and that is why the admins have deleted non-free images, and we must work in the same vein.  If you have a better photo, that can be released under a free license (GFDL, CC) upload one.  -- Jeff3000 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeff, I am fully aware of this. However, my comment still stands. We should not sacrifice image quality. Therefore, I will attempt to note every free-use image that is bad quality so that we can find a better one. I do not advocate not using free images. This would be an incorrect assessment of my comment. Once again, I am simply asking all of us to search a little harder. Nmentha 16:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture at the top of the page 

message: Hey all.  The list of prophets was fleshed out to the closer to full list of known, accepted prophets.  I knwo this list has been kept short by agreement way back, so i'm putting this topic here to allow people to discuss which prophets should be listed, if any, and how many.  I believe there's a more comprehensive list elsewhere in the Baha'i articles which mention Hud, the prophet to the Sabeans, Noah, etc. all prophets that would have to go into a full list of "prophets accepted by Baha'is".  I think it's all two long.  
My own view is that Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad make sense, because these are central prophets to religions that are typically seen as "Abrahamic" religions.  Buddha is added (I suspect) to clarify that the religion is not outside of connection to Dharmic traditions either.  Obviously a full treatment of prophets, the nature thereof, and the relationships between them would be inappropriate in the lead paragraph.  Anybody have a bright idea for better summarization of the point without toasting off the lead paragraph as unreadable? --Christian Edward Gruber 08:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you mentioned what I was thinking. I would be happy to shorten it to Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. Those are basically the three biggest religions in the world. A belief in Buddha implies a belief in the Hindu books, as does a belief in Jesus imply an acceptance of the Jewish prophets. Mentioning those three keeps it to the point and doesn't distract the reader. Cuñado  - Talk 09:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't want to get into a conversation about Buddha, but he came from a predominantly Hindu society, and his teachings were a counterweight to the corruption of the Hindu teachings. He frequently commented on the abuse of power of the caste system. Cuñado  - Talk 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the point is rather moot.  No one is arguing that Baha'i teachings do not accept the validity of these, just what would be easiest in the article to summarize the point without becoming too long and unreadable.   --Christian Edward Gruber 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  I'm rethinking this, especially since it's not really in the intro, but in a section on beliefs.  I have no problems summarizing, especially if there's a main article on "Manifestsations" linked in, but if we're really summarizing, then adding in Adam, Hud, and Noah in that location is just adding lists of trivia, which are more encyclopoedically included elsewhere. --Christian Edward Gruber 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not tie the prophets mentioned to the religions mentioned that they founded? It says "He claimed to be the expected redeemer and teacher prophesied in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions," - or combine the two threads of information - "the founders and religions they founded" or some such....--Smkolins 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went the extra mile and removed both the list and the follow up list.  The list of which prophets isn't important to make the point, and it distracts people into the "but do you accept this or that one?" discussion.  The list is available on Progressive Revelation which has been made a see-also there, so it's close at hand --Christian Edward Gruber 18:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the issue here is that people want to be inclusive out of either habit or just simple courtesy.  But the list is not exhaustive, and cannot be taken as such.  I don't think people except Baha'is will care if the summary list is not complete, so long as it's not incomplete in a POV or distorting way.  I would tend to keep Hinduism in, not so much for niceness, but because between the largest four they constitute the vast majority of the planet - espscially now that we don't have a second list makign this one redundant.  I think four + "other" is good.  So for me, it's: "Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other religions."  I put in many because not all religions match the criteria of independent revelation in Baha'i terms. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wonder, now that you've changed it, Cunado19, whether it doesn't make sense to completely eliminate that list too, replacing it wtih seomthing like most of the world's religions. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that a short list is useful to the article, but can see the problems since it won't be all inclusive.  I think the current list is fine, and so would be replacing Hinduism with Buddhism. -- Jeff3000 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of prophets in intro 

message: Where "Bahá'ís continue to be persecuted in Islamic countries, especially Iran, where over 200 believers were executed between 1978 and 1998[citation needed]." It would be nice to go for the best citation of course. Briefly a couple turn up but perhaps a better one can be found - this is what I have so far -
*1995-96 Update: The Situation of the Bahá'ís in Iran This article appeared in the 1995-96 edition of The Bahá'í World, pp. 139-144.
*1997 U.N. General Assembly Resolution This article appeared in the October-December 1997 issue of One Country.
* But does anyone know a third party reference?--Smkolins 04:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this one? World Wide Religious News - "Shiite regime's persecution keeps Baha'i faith in shadows of Iran" by Robert Collier ("LA Chronicle," December 4, 2003) --Smkolins 04:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already added the citation, it comes from .  201 Baha'is killed from 1979 to 1998. -- Jeff3000 05:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  for citation needed of more than 200 killed... 

message: I think would someone can put some article about Bahá'í Art, involving many types of works like musics, verses, films... or famous bahá'ís artists. Just an idea, i wont create any article because my english is bad.. thanks! Alláh'u'abhá! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.2.37.138 (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of bio's of several artists who are Bahá'ís - and many of them have some comment about how the religion affected them. Many profiled are Jazz musicians and a few do other art including some actors. Check the list of Bahá'í individuals].--Smkolins 11:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahá'í Art 

message: I started the Religion and politics page as a hub article to go with the Christianity and politics page. The Bahá'í Faith and politics section is large enough to stand alone as a separate page - can someone check the information and create the page with appropriate links please. Jackiespeel 14:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look at sometime this weekend when I have more time.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and Politics