Talk:Universal House of Justice

message: Peter Khan and past members should not forward to this page. They should have their page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.229.193 (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Khan

message: The term "UHJ" was first used by Abdu'l Baha in a wide-variety of documents in order to distinguish between the supreme body and the local 'houses of justice'.  As far as I know, the distinction was first raised in an attempt to explain a section regarding intestate distribution of property under the terms of the Aqdas, which required Abdu'l Baha to explain what administative level the funds went to, and to distinguish it from the Huqugullah.  (The 'right of God'.)   Martin is, as usual, just wrong. Rick Boatright 22:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Universal" house of justice term 

message: Any reason why that paragraph was deleted in the introduction? For someone who doesn't know, the belief that the House has some kind of infallibility is pretty significant. Cuñado  - Talk 01:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know I agree with your (cunado's) revert. Its an important point -- Tomhab 19:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infallibility 

message: Not sure what the origin is of the statement saying Baha'is never refer to the Universal House of Justice as the UHJ. In my experience they often do.
By way of evidence:
* Planet Baha'i: "Former UHJ Member David S. Ruhe Passes Away"
* BahaIndex.Com: "1995 UHJ letter" 
* "Scottish Baha'i" No33 - numerous references to UHJ 
AndrewRT 20:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While, Baha'is do use the term, I believe I have seen somewhere that we should not use the acronym. -- Jeff3000 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the reference, but I understand that we're encouraged not to use the acronym out of respect. The NSA just lost a case trying to get the rights to UHJ.NET based solely on the fact that UHJ is not an acronym used in the Faith. Other than that they had every right to take the domain name away from the Covenant-breaker who is using it. Cuñado  - Talk 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not based on people's understandings - it's based on verifiable sources. The fact is, many Baha'is use UHJ as an acronym. I would be interested if you did have a source to back up your claim, but if not I will put it back in. AndrewRT 12:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronym UHJ 

message: I would like to suggest an additional section (or possibly part of the responsibilities section) of the House, to include:
*in respect of individuals - declaring someone a Covenant Breaker, or disenrolling them
*appointed arm - appointments of Counsellors, certain committees (e.g. Persian and Arab Affairs Committee) 
*role in countries where no NSA present
*power to dissolve NSAs (e.g. Albania 1990(?))
Any thoughts? AndrewRT 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather send people to Bahá'í websites where these are discussed so that the content won't morph into something that's incorrect. MARussellPESE 14:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powers 

message: Anyone know if this building has been hit yet? --Joffeloff 13:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily, none of the missles have been close to the Baha'i World Centre. -- Jeff3000 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I call it luck still ;) 60.224.228.203 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I hesitate — to say the least — that when things go my way it's Divine intervention: because the obverse assumption is equally valid. I don't think it's Divine intervention that sent rockets into Israeli neighborhoods or cluster bombs into Lebanese ones, so I don't think it's His intervention that kept them from these sites. MARussellPESE 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah missiles 

message: Should we add biographies for the current members? 60.224.228.203 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. This article is about the institution, not it's members. -- Jeff3000 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise agreed. Besides, this would be terribly difficult to tease out. The UHJ doesn't publish this information generally. MARussellPESE 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bios? 

message: A figure indicating the cost would be helpful in this article.130.113.111.214 19:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a press release from the Baha'i World Centre it was $250m to build, in a period of 10 years, all the buildings and the terraces.  See http://news.bahai.org/story/131  k1-UK-Global 11:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't even begin to imagine what it would cost in America. Peter Deer (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much did it cost to build this thing 

message: I'm proposing to merge several articles on individual House of Justice members into this article. I think they need more notability to have individual articles, and more importantly, better references. Many of the biographies are unreferenced, and could invite vandalism. Also, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As most of them are alive, we have "an ethical and legal responsibility" to follow WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR more closely than articles such as fish or fork.
I propose keeping Adib Taherzadeh, and any other individual who has notability other than just being a member. At the very least, there should be a reference in addition to the article Two new members join Universal House of Justice.
As to the House of Justice article, the BWNS article can be used to add a few notes on the individuals. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep: With all due respect, and in full understanding of the above mentioned objections, I see no need to merge these articles. First, I do not share the concern of notability. All members of the Universal House of Justice would more or less automatically succeed a notability debate, just in the light of their seat. I agree to that there are non-referenced articles, and I agree that this creates a problem. A more constructive solution would be to find third-party sources of reference and add them. This way the end result would be an improvement. Also, the norm on Wikipedia is to create individual articles for individual people, and any listing of people (who are notable) beyond that of a pure bullet name list would induce separate articles. Please point out otherwise, but I cannot find any violations of WP:LIVING (save the lack of references as mentioned above) among the articles. There are multitudes of living people with Wikipedia articles about them, and most of these are fully within the limits i WP:LIVING. Deletion of an article just because it could be vandalized seems to me at bit excessive, though I agree that caution and care must be given in the matter. Arsenikk (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that I'm proposing to redirect the articles to this page, not delete them. The work you put in will still be in the history, and if more sources are found, I'm not objecting to having articles. The bottom line is that most of these are unreferenced and about living persons. It is not my responsibility to search out and find more secondary sources, that's up to the editor wishing to add content. Aside from that, I honestly don't see any notability here beyond "he was/is on the House of Justice." Most of their names are not familiar to Baha'is. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge - Notability has to do with the number of secondary sources about the individuals, not about their status, and given the almost total lack of secondary sources about the individuals, there is no point in keeping the articles.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep - I believe that due to the nature of their position they should have their own articles.  Anyone who is interested in the Baha'i Faith would be interested to know who the worldwide leaders are.  Wikipedia is about expanding knowledge, and the best way to do that here is to let them have their own articles.  If they are all inside the article on the House of Justice it will limit their growth I think and make the article too long.  T0lk (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just noticed a couple of sections up under "Bios?" jeff says "I don't think so. This article is about the institution, not it's members."  Good point jeff. T0lk (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those pages can't be kept under current wikipidia policies of notability since there are virtually no secondary sources, and notability is defined with secondary sources about them. If what little information is citable merged into this article, I will nominate them for AfD, and they will surely be deleted.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep The way I look at it, that would be like merging every senator there's ever been into the senator page. Not practical. Peter Deer (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the issues of notability and verifiability. A senator not only has tons of published sources about them, but they are much more notable than a member of the UHJ, who individually has no authority. Contrast that with the absolute lack of published sources on members of the House, and we don't pass standards for biographies of living persons. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I am curious as to the combination and permutation of how 184 National Spiritual Assemblies could potentually be made up along gender lines. The National Spiritual Assembly is elected by all adult Baha'is and all adult Baha'is in good standing are elegable to be elected. Both women and men. It is possible that all women could be elected to the number nine and this election trend could happen over the 184 National Spiritual Assemblies of the world. In this permutation it would be so that the universal house of Justice would be elected by an all women body (184 NSAs by 9 women members equals 1656 electors). Nine men being "chosen" or elected by 1656 women voters at the National Spiritual Assemble level. In light of this combination possibility I was hoping that the main page could mention the equality of rights and privileges of men and women in this way. To provide a concrete example at the cellular level I suggest the gametes that contain DNA known as the sperm and the egg. Each cointain half of the genetic code. The Eggs size is far larger that the size of the sperm at fertilisation. Considering 1656 electors to the 9 member body to be elected the analogy is applied. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down the mothers line in the egg while the XY chromosome is passed down the mail line in the sperm. Each pathway dates back one billion years and the alleles back another 2.8 billion years to when DNA and RNA life began 3.8 billion years ago.
What do you think would be fair selected text to go on the main page to bring out equality of rights and privileges of men and women?
RoddyYoung (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As before with the suggestions you bring Roddy, Wikipedia has a no original research policy, making all of what you suggest against policy.  If it's not published by a reliable secondary source, it doesn't have a place in Wikipedia.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I delete this section from the talk page? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Equality of rights and privileges of Men and Women