Talk:Persian Bayán

message: The only notation of this book I can find online is in passing here. It does not mention that this is Azal's completion of hte Bayan. There's no record of this book in English on [www.bayanic.com], which is very strange. One would think that this is a ranking text. 
Actually bayanic.com says that Azal did not finish the Bayan, but only added two section to the Persian to bring it into parallel with the Arabic. Is this the Motammem Al-Bayán? MARussellPESE 05:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Motammem Al-Bayán''

message: Can Jeff300 explain to Wikipedia readers why he reverted my change which included changing the reference to  'Babism' to be 'Bayani faith' but without providing any reason?
The following was provided in support of the change I made:
The author of the Persian bayan himself believed that what he was founding was the religion of Bayan. The book itself has many references to the 'Bayani faith'. It is interesting that Bahaism which claims to be succeeding Bayan appears in Wikipedia as 'Bahai Faith' but the religion preceding it appears in Wilipedia as 'Babism'. 
If Sayyid Ali Muhammad of Shiraz believed he was the founder of the Bayani faith then we should give him the credit of being known as the founder of 'Bayani faith'. In his book of '5 Grades' (Panj Shan), Sayyid Ali Muhamad of Shiraz refers to the first five years of his mission as having the title Bab only: 
"You named me after that which has a numerical value of five (i.e. BAB) since you had set four Gates for me; Then, after these years, you made me manifest over all things by the name Qaim and elevated the mention of your self in the year five with glory. In the sixth year, you mentioned the name of your self, your glorious and mighty name." 
Panj Shan (5 Grades, Professor Browne Collection F.15(19)=BBF.2 University of Cambridge. In other words he believed that he took up the title of Bab during the first 5 years, then he took up the title 'Qaem' (He Who Will Arise) and then claimed to have been elevated to being the manifestation of God. Bayan was written by him during the period that he considered himself as manifestation of God.
(Nekunaman)
:Because it is original research and not allowed in Wikipedia.  Virtually all reliable secondary sources call the religion Babism, and that's what Wikipedia has to use as per the verifiability and no original research policies.  The usage of primary religious material cannot be used as sources as per those policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia's policies above.  Wikipedia is not about Truth (with a capital T), but about Verifiability.  It's about what contemporary neutral sources say.  Your two first sources are primary sources because they are quoting from the Bayan, and cannot be used (i.e. It's the Bab saying something, not a secondary source).  Neither MacEoin or Browne ever uses the name "Bayani faith" in their own description of the name of the religion.  When I was saying virtually all reliable sources I was referring to the prefix Babi versus Bayani.  In regards to whole word (Babism verus Babi faith) it becomes a case of which one is used more by contemporary reliable secondary sources.  Iranica for example uses Babism, the Encyclopedia of World religion uses Babism, but their could be case for calling it the Babi Faith.  Regards, - -Jeff3000 (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Nekunaman, a translation is not secondary material, but still primary source material. If I translate Das Kapital from German to English, it doesn't change the fact that it is material from Das Kapital written by Marx, just in another language.  Also note that Selections from the Writings of Bayan is included as further reading and not as a reference.  As I mentioned before, the Bab's own writings cannot be used as references.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Look Nekunama, you got a long review of the idea of Truth vs Verifiability and you go off about how one of the scholars cited got it all wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for that debate. Write your own article and submit it to a journal somewhere if you think the scholar got it wrong. Until then there's not even a hint of a debate about it. You are promoting a point of view of about 1. Smkolins (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe Interpretation 

message: Nekunama, Browne's principle correspondents were Azalis. Azali dissimulation and taqiyyah, unfortunately, renders many Babi texts themselves unreliable, much less Browne's interpretations of them. Please see the discussion here.
Miller's book is a discredited source, and nothing more than a re-hash of Azali talking points.
Neither source pass muster as reliable and have to be excluded per WP:Sources.
At best, their inclusion would provide the opportunity to, yet again, highlight the Azali distortions that plague analysis of Babi texts and the period. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browne and Miller as [[WP:RS|Reliable Sources]] 

message: What does Bayán mean?--98.199.22.63 (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bayán