Talk:Kitáb-i-Aqdas

message: Seems like some of the content in here comes from http://bahai-library.com/encyclopedia/aqdas.html. Not familiar with the copyright rules...is this an issue? Dremo 04:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. My incling is its bad, but I'll ask someone to take a look -- Tomhab 19:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well it's pretty clear that that is the source for most of but there doesn't seem to be much, if any, direct cutting and pasting. Geni 04:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: I would prefer the previously used picture (the blue version published by the Bahá'í World Centre). The Kitáb-i-Aqdas is the 'Most Holy Book', and I feel that cover is more fitting to such a status. The quality of the scan is better as well. Wiki-uk 16:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I like the blue cover better. -- Jeff3000 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I changed it because on the blue version it's harder to read the words on the front. If you find a third option that is nice and readable it would be nice. But go ahead and change it back to the blue one. Cuñado  - Talk 16:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Book cover

message: I wish to have some mention of the amount of gold and silver is prescribed in this Book around Dowry. A line as simple as "A dowry of gold for a city dweller, silver for outside the city, is conditional on marriage for the male to pay the female. The minimum ammount is 2.2 ounces and the maximum amount is 11 ounces."RoddyYoung 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it as a note beside the bullet on the dowry in the Laws section of the Baha'i marriage page. -- Jeff3000 15:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would suggest adding it to this page and Baha'i laws. Cuñado  - Talk 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've added it to this page, the Baha'i laws page, and the Baha'i marriage page.  I've used the metric equivalent of approx 1 troy ounce. -- Jeff3000 16:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dowry

message: The article doesn't state how to recite from scripure. Should it be done in a somber serious tone, a pleasant singing-like tone, or should it be hymned like as with the Quran, or just plainly as most Protestants do with the Bible? Someone65 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no rules as how to read Baha'i scripture.  It varies from culture to culture and from person to person.  Prayers are sometimes just read, or some people put them to music.  The Kitab-i-Aqdas is not typically recited out-loud as the Quran is, unless it is being studied in a group, and people take turns reading paragraphs.  But again there are no rules, and in fact Shoghi Effendi stated that there should be no rituals involved in any part of Baha'i life.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of those are covered in Baha'i laws for the laws that have been written down.   But to answer your specific questions (1) yes (2) no (3) no (4) see Baha'i concept of God (5) See Allah-u-Abha (6) Only alcohol (7) None specifically written down.  I believe you are coming this down from the wrong perspective.  As I mentioned above, Baha'i practice varies significantly from culture and culture due to Shoghi Effendi's prescription that there should be no rituals.  I would read the section Baha'i_laws#Individual_conscience. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: I've reverted the edits by Mentious because they are using self-published sources which are not acceptable by Wikipedia policy. Self-published sources are links such as websites, blogs, etc.  Also religious primary source material cannot be used unless there is a a secondary source that backs up the claims and interpretations (See no original research.  Also statements that were referenced to reliable sources were changed by the editor with his own viewpoints, but rather need to include what was in the original source.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He's done it again. Smkolins (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Again removing cited content and putting in place POV. From the history on his page and contributions he's had ample review of the requirement for referencing and seems to ignore this rule of wikipedia. Smkolins (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Hey, I assumed "good faith" until I saw the inclusion of the highly-interesting "adultery fine" deleted, plus my actual quotes of the Aqdas on the marriage issue deleted 2-3 times and replaced by fiction. Somebody keeps talking about "vandalism." Verily, my straightforward, factual contributions have been getting regularly vandalized here. Now, about that matter:
Activist editors keep placing statements like this on the page: "[marriage] is highly recommended but is stated to not be obligatory." (Currently there.) I don't know where this comes from. I have  found no such statement in the Aqdas studying 3 translations for 30 years. In replacement of this incorrect statement, I have stated what Baha'u'llah ACTUALLY SAYS in his short marriage statement, using 3 translations including "Authorized": That "God has ordained marriage for you" (Elder-Miller), that marriage is "enjoined on all" (Haddad), and "prescribed" (Authorized.) These actual quotes from the Aqdas -- a generous portrayal that actually quotes three translators -- keep getting deleted and replaced with the fictionalized "not obligatory" line, which is more of a Baha'i talking point. Note that the editor presents it as if reporting the contents of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, but does not quote any actual text. If editors can find a statement by Baha'u'llah in the Aqdas that seems to contradict his other statements, like the line "marriage is not obligatory" -- you should post it. Pointing to later books that opine about the Kitab-i-Aqdas, as justification for statements, is not the same thing as reporting the contents of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. This page should be primarily about the Kitab-i-Aqdas with later Baha'i books opining about it -- secondary.  Mentious (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, using of the actual Kitab-i-Aqdas (original or translation) to back up sourced statements in the article is not allowed by Wikipedia policies.  See no original research.  What is stated by policy is that reliable secondary sources, and there are tons of secondary sources that stated the above (that it is not obligatory), and the sources have been included, and I have others from various journals and books published by university presses, which are considered the most reliable.  Also you need to continue assuming good faith, and comments above such as "activist editors" is not assuming good faith, and if you continue such behaviour, your actions will be reported to the administrators.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

text: About the "vandalism" the issue to me is that you regularly remove cited content and then place uncited content or use citations entirely out of bounds in wikipedia. If you were a novice editor I could understand but you've been in wikipedia some time and an introduction to the policies and spirit of things has been repeatedly offered to you. You have an awareness of the editing of wikipedia enough to read and use the edit summaries - how is it that you systematically fail to respect the need for good sources? This is absolutely central to wikipedia and breaking that standard attracts sharp response and eventually administrative reaction. I've seen people permanently blocked who don't "get it" and simply do about their own pov arguments. Smkolins (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Marriage "highly recommended" but "not obligatory"?? 

message: "Now specifically, comparing translations would clearly be original research and not allowed, unless you have a reliable source that compares the translations. Regards, "
 
Posting an Elder translation beside an "Authorized" translation would not be "original research." These translations are by others, and long-ago published. In fact, published much earlier than the "authorized" translation. This is not the same thing as "criticizing a translation." It is a simple matter to post two different translations of a verse, by two different translators, and let the reader compare. It happens all the time in study of literature. Such side-by-side translations are common and typical to any study of texts. The reader can compare them himself; seeing the differences between them, etc. A translation is a translation. Are you saying that only Wilmette-Authorized translations of the Kitab-i-Aqdas will be allowed to be seen on this page? Earl Elder was a competent Arabic translator with his Arabic translations published by Columbia University. It should be no problem to occasionally post more than one translation so that readers can make their own comparisons.   Mentious (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read my comments.  Noting that an earlier translation is available is well sourced by secondary sources, and can be included in the article.  Similarly that a newer Baha'i produced translation is also available is also well sourced by secondary sources, and can be included in the article.  But comparing and contrasting specific verses from the two translations cannot be included unless that type of analysis has been published in secondary reliable sources.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not saying that only Baha'i translations can be used, but in fact saying that no translations can be used, unless backed by a secondary reliable source, because that is considered original research.  While the study of literature does in fact compare and contrast translations, Wikipedia is not itself an avenue to publish original research, but can only publish and link to research that has already been published by reliable publishers.  So if you can find an literary analysis of the translations published by reliable secondary sources that can be included in Wikipedia, but otherwise it cannot.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative translations natural and appropriate in presentation of any text

message: The second sentence of the text now says, "It has the same status as the Quran for Muslims or the Bible for Christians."  I object to this.  To a Christian, the Bible is the whole body of Divine Revelation.  To a Muslim, the Quran is the whole body of the Divine Revelation in Muhammad's dispensation, and encapsulates all previous revelations.  To Bahá'ís the Kitáb-i-Aqdas is not the whole of Bahá'í revelation; it is not clear to me that the book even outranks the Íqán.  I therefore intend to delete this sentence. J S Ayer (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the wording is clumsy. It's clearly a book of laws and the "choice wine" thereof. I agree it is not comparable in the sense of the total of the scripture and the Aqdas is not. But is the "Most Holy Book" serving a central role including defining the first steps of the Baha'i Covenant. But I think article would be better served if these individual points were made. Smkolins (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of the book