Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 10

message: There is, to my knowledge, no compulsion to strictly use the Arabic names for the calendar's subdivisions.  I don't think there is any guidance either way; the communities I've been in usually use either the English alone, or both, but never just the Arabic.  Keldan 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we just strike that comment then? Cuñado  - Talk 01:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that unless we can find corroborating evidence of such a policy, we should probably strike it.  Keldan 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calendar

message: I tried adding a link of a site I run, which is hosted on blogger.
I do not have any ads because I don't want to use the Faith to make money.
It is a site that is updated often, hosting quotes from the Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha for the most part.  There are occasional comments and discussions.  Though it is hosted on Blogger, it is not site with personal rants, personal promotion, personal blogging.  It is a site so people can receive Baha'i quotes in their own RSS readers or come for pre-selected Readings.
I do understand the danger of linking to such sites on the other hand.
There are some sites that claim to be Baha'i but seem to be sowing doubts in others' minds.  If we allow any site that claims to be Baha'i to be added under  "other Baha'i links"  then soon this site could be flooded with links that do not represent the Baha'i Faith accurately, causing confusion and misunderstanding.
I also understand that sites run by an individual,regardless of who hosts it and how it may look now, the site could "hook people in" and then turn around and do something misleading. (Which un such a case the link should be taken down.)  The trustworthiness of a site and the individual running the site is something that could not easily be established.
So I understand the want to control what gets on here, but I am not sure if the review process was fair either, as the link was taken off very quickly, claiming it was a link spam of a sort.  Perhaps there is a guidline some where which I do not know about.  Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaijin21 (talk • contribs) .
: I can't answer it exactly what the "Rule" is, but in general this is an encyclopaedia.  The issue isn't control of content, it's cleanliness of the article.  It is not about "representing the Baha'i Faith" in an advocacy sense, nor about adding every possible link in the internet universe that might be of interest.  Therefore, sites that have material referenced in the article, or that are informational articles themselves that might shed light on the topic would be considered relevant.  However, applications, sales sites, unless seen to be highly relevant, wouldn't be linked to.  I suspect Jeff3K removed your link because while you blog writings, there is a link to library.bahai.org which is a reference site itself.  The selection of writings in a blog, or the opinins expressed in a blog are not really encyclopoedic, and while a particular blog might be referenced if its content is cited in an article, linking to the blog site itself starts to get in to spreading opinion, rather than verifiable information on the topic.
: There are many sites that Baha'is would not consider to be representative of the Baha'i Faith, but a neutral observer would see as nevertheless connected, because such a neutral observer wouldn't be examining the Baha'i Faith from the context of a believer, nor from the context of any particular interpretation of the Covenant.  Because of this, this article cannot always have a set of links that are "comfortable" for Baha'is, but the editors try to keep Baha'i, non-Baha'i, and oppositional external links to those that could be considered "sources" for the articles, or "see also" informational links.  
: If you think it's worth inclusion, think of why it might be included in a Britannica or a World Book encyclopaedia, and make the argument.  Most people here are reasonable.  The snap decision probably has more to do with a conservative position on article change, because there has been so much adding of irrelevant links, POV material, etc.  Cheers.  --Christian Edward Gruber 11:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Christian.  A couple other points: (1) currently there are already too many links, and unless a link provides something quite unique I think it should be removed.  All the writings are already linked (multiple times I should add).  (2) Also, to remain neutral Baha'is can't just add every Baha'i website; currently there are a fair share of third-party websites. (3) Most importantly though is that blogs are not allowed to be links in Wikipedia.  From the Wikipedia:External links style guide: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to."  Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the rule on adding other Baha'i links? 

message: :Main article: Bahá'í history
:Bahá'ís regard the period from the Báb's 1844 declaration in Shiraz, to the 1921 passing of `Abdu'l-Bahá, as the Heroic, or the Apostolic Age of the Faith. This was the age when its founders lived, its martyrs died, and its foundations were established in several countries around the world.
:After `Abdu'l-Bahá's passing, the Faith entered the Formative Age, which would be characterized by its rising administrative institutions, worldwide expansion, and a transition into the future Golden Age, the consummation of the Bahá'í dispensation.
Uh, yeah, that is totally coherent.24.254.232.33
:It is verifiable information, see God Passes By. -- Jeff3000 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The pronunciation of (ba-haa-ee) was changed to ( or ). The average person has no idea what those IPA pronunciation characters mean, and they still won't know how to pronounce the word. Even worse, now the intro has a bunch of extra stuff in it which is distracting. I suggest we change it back to the readable version. Cuñado  - Talk 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, let's change it back. -- Jeff3000 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a fan of that transliteration because it's not clear whether the vowels are long or short or if there are any pauses. I suggest keeping the IPA and, if you feel it necessary, re-add the other version. -LambaJan 22:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really disagree with using the IPA version. I would rather not add phonetics than use that. Cuñado  - Talk 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why we can't use both.  The Appalachia article does so quite well.  I agree that having the general transliteration is good for laypeople, but IPA is an international standard (which, Heaven knows, Bahá'ís are all about) which is both unambiguous and really useful.  I think both easily qualify as useful information - let's keep them both.  Keldan 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: this online dictionary translates Bahá as :MAGNIFICENCE, GLORY, ECLAT, RADIANCE, GLITTER
Someone just added the definition of "light" to the page. I would like to delete it because it distracts from the point, and there is no reason "light" should have priority over "radiance" or "magnificence" or even "glitter". Glory and splendor gives an idea of the meaning. We don't want to be known as "the people of the glitter". Cuñado  - Talk 16:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes light does not reflect the meaning, radiance does moreso, but I think glory and splendour are good enough. -- Jeff3000 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh... "people of the glitter".  Makes me want to go to a rave.  That's it... "people of the glow-stick".  That aughta appeal to the under-25 set.  Wow Cunado19, you've really thrown my brain into a strange place. :)  --Christian Edward Gruber 18:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  meaning of Bahá 

message: Where are all the controversies, and things that make this cult look as bad as it deserves to? An innocent reader might walk away thinking that the Bahai Faith is united, up-to-date, and on the march. Fuck you, Baha'is--and fuck Wikidia's presumption of "good faith." I can see what you're doing and I promise, you won't get away with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.126.125.111 (talk • contribs) .
:Actually most of the so-called critical aspects of the Baha'i Faith are already mentioned in the article as fact.  No women on the house of justice, the divisions, that covenant-breakers are shunned, and that homosexuality is not allowed.  Moreover, more than 99% of all Baha'is are part of one group.  I have reverted your addition due to Wikipedia's Undue Weight policy, it is a point of view held by a very small minority of people, and it is dealt with accordingly in a subpage according to many different Wikipedia policies. -- Jeff3000
:: I'm entirely failing to see how the anonymous author above can structure complaints against assumptions of good faith manage to sit within a paragraph that shouts prejudicial obscenities. There's also a logical falacy that's rather amusing.  Either anonymous is shouting at baha'i generically, in which case he must believe that they are at least united and on the march, or he's merely smearing and tarring those supposed "poor benighted victims of a cult" whom he feels are victims.  It occurs to me that, if this were more sincere than the religious equivalent of outright racism, then it would be phrased with more care.  However, it does seem clear that this author/editor has no interest in preserving wikipedia, since he abandons all decorum and hurls abuse, entirely in contravention of wikipedia policy on personal attacks and harassment.  I had seen the edits, but not this vitriol, initially and believed, for a moment, that there could be a good-faith effort from all parts to improve this article.  I, for one, am thoughouly disappointed.  
:: You'd think a declared opponent of a religion would display some more finesse.  If I were interested in pilloring an identifiable group, I would, at least, attempt to make my own case somewhat sympatethic, or so I imagine not having any such inclination.  This, sadly, was just a pathetic flailing out of a clearly frustrated soul.  I'm not even sure why Jeff3000 answered it directly.  Truly sad.  Whatever he thinks Baha'is are trying to "get away with", it won't be stopped by juvenile ad hominem.  Perhaps if said editor were to propose some changes that met wikpedia's standards or relevance, verifiability, and NPOV, he might have somewhere to move.  Indeed, however, this editor displays similar behaviour to others who have merely lurked on this page and others, only to harrass the Baha'is present, and generally distort the presentation of the Baha'i Faith.  The Baha'is who are editors here have displayed remarkable ability to absorb views with which they do not agree, and work very hard (as to the other editors, of course).  Those who have spent enough time here, without at all implying perfection, surely recognize this.  --Christian Edward Gruber 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a whitewash

message: I found This at the serbian wikipedia. What do you think? Pure inuyasha 15:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like it.  It's too busy, not english, and it wouldn't fit in any of the sections. -- Jeff3000 15:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, all these images are on commons  and .  This page has enough figures at the moment though. -- Jeff3000 18:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefull image? 

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

message: Hey all.  We have a list of references in the "References" section, but we have many of these duplicated in <ref> tags.  Does it make sense to remove items cited in the References section that appear in the citations using the new footnote referencing system?  -- Christian Edward Gruber
:Yes it does, let's get rid of those that are duplicated. -- Jeff3000 12:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If the <ref> formatting is done properly we shouldn't need a separate references at all. Every time something is referenced it can be footnoted to the notes. Cuñado  - Talk 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations generally included in References section, vs. by <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags. 

message: I mean, isn't it the same thing? Pure inuyasha 21:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.  Beliefs are generally held beliefs and explain the Baha'i view on history and other religions, and the teachings are much more specific. -- Jeff3000 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I kind of agree with both of you.  Jeff3000, they are different, and should be sectioned appropriately, but Pure Inuyasha, they are highly related, and teachings (particularly social practices and priorities) stem from Baha'i beliefs.  I think that some combination of the sections would make sense, but I'm still playing with how, to achieve both the right level of verbosity, right level of clarity, and clean sectioning to make it a high-quality wikipedia section. --Christian Edward Gruber 14:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge beliefs and teachings 

message: Where do I find something about this subject in this article? --84.162.84.66 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An extremely good question, and one that is, embarassingly, not really mentioned in the article.  Now that I think of it, it's kind of strange that it not be here.  I will try to make a short version of an answer to this question right in the article.  In the mean-time, a more fleshed-out answer should really be in a daughter-article. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added a few words, which are wholely inadequate, but should suffice as a summary.  I'll try to reference it later, but for now I have to run.  A whole article could be written on this topic. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to start a daughter article, but for the meanwhile, here are two links that somewhat explain it (one and two).  In a quick summary, Baha'is believe that there is life after death, and that the soul continues to progress towards God in the spiritual worlds.  Heaven and hell are not physical places, but the states of being close to and far from God respectively.  There is a continum of being close to God (not just close or far). -- Jeff3000 23:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just got of the phone with an LSA member for our community, I was a national delegate to the election of the National Spiritual Assemble in New Zealand, and our dicussion looked at the use of technology to improve consultation. Text messages, Phone trees for LSA members to make quick decissions after feast on recommendations, having all the community with access to the internet and broad band. My grandparents have all passed away, there names on the maternal side are Jessy and Alfie Marks, on Dads side, Walter and Alison Young. I have just said a prayer for them, Allah u Abha and for my parents. The souls of my grandparents, who are dead, and the souls of my parents, who are alive, are influenced by my prayer for them. Advancement of a soul towards God can be progressed and like wise the soul can also be retarded in its progress. An example of regress is the matter of back biting. Those that back bite about another soul retard their own souls, both the speaker and the listener, as well as the soul they are talking about, who may or may not hear. Life after death is very real in the Baha i faith and protection of our soul and others is very important.RoddyYoung 08:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO the teachings about the Human Soul and Life after Death are very essential to understand all of the other Bahai teachings. --Mipago 11:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life after Death 

message: Moved from brenneman's talk 
*Edit removing links
Aaron, why did you remove many Baha'i related links from the Baha'i Faith page? I am none the wiser after reading the External links style guide. Your clarification would therefore be appreciated. Thanks. --Occamy 13:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the guideline, the removed links do not "provide a unique resource."  There is some good information in some of them, and if they are used to directly support a statement using a citation the bar is much lower.  If there are any in particular that an editor feels should be replaced, I'm happy to discuss it here. - brenneman {L}  00:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The shah actually wanted to talk with him in person! it was his son who started persecution. Pure inuyasha 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Shah's prime minister prevented the meeting, but the persecutions began in 1844. Nasiri'd-din Shah came to power in 1848. Cuñado  - Talk 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't use the word support; as Cunado mentioned the Shah wanted to meet the Bab, but the prime minister sent the Bab to Tabriz where he was imprisoned to stop the meeting.  So the Shah could be said to be curious, but the prime minister who was probably the main guy in charge of the government did not support the Bab at all.  -- Jeff3000 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The persian government supported The Bab at first.