Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 6

message: Archived 14 November 2005
Cuñado  - Talk 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

message: :I think the changes look great. I put back the 6-9 million adherents. I think it should say one of the following...
:*while legitimate non-Bahá'í sources estimate 6-9 million.
:*while non-Bahá'í sources estimate 3-9 million.
:Unless of course you can provide some kind of decent source that shows 3 million. I have no doubt someone will throw "propaganda" at me again, and I don't care. Number of followers has nothing to do with how true it is. The only sources that I've heard quote such low numbers are either outdated or extremely biased, so it's misleading to call them legit. Cunado19 3 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)
And I changed it back. The population of Bahá'ís is a topic that comes up now and again on bahai-library.com, H-Baha'i, religionandethics, and similar places. Basically, nobody knows. It's hard enough to decide in principle what to count, and impossible just now to actually do it. (Minority populations spread out all over the globe don't show up that well on surveys.) Bahá'ís selectively quote a couple of encyclopedias that were foolish enough to ask them for their own population estimates, which has led some members to insist that they know the unknowable, and that the answer is upwards of 6 million (or one metric holocaust). Skeptics accuse the Bahá'ís of inflating numbers, and their own estimates have been known to dip below a million. I personally think the "true" number is between one and two million. Now the question will arise, how do we decide what a "legitimate" source is, given that most of the discussion on this is going to be found on the internet? Dawud 4 July 2005 12:52 (UTC)
::Hmmmm... between 1 and 2 million? Where do you get that number from? Maybe you've been selective about your sources and chosen the most pesimistic one you could find? You won't find a discussion about religion's sizes on other articles, and they suffer from far more dubious methods of counting believers (such as including those who have been Baptised - long before they consciously decide to join). -- Tomhab 4 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
I don't want to sound like we're ganging up, but even the lowest references I've ever seen have never been lower than 3.5 million, and like I said those came from sources that had obvious bias, like Christian attackers of the Faith.
And as promised I took out the word "legitimate". And if you want to argue validity of number estimates, Christianity flaunts upwards of 2 billion, where they blanket entire populations with the tag of "Christian", when their level of participation is almost nonexistent. The estimates for Baha'is are references from encyclopedias, almanacs, and other such published books who have some kind of standard for judging. They don't just copy down what Bahá'ís say, cause in most countries independent polls show more people claiming to be Bahá'ís than the official Bahá'í lists have (see Baha'i statistics). I don't have a reference for that off the top of my head, but I can find it if necessary. 
And if you're questioning the claimed minority populations, I've personally lived in the US, Mexico, Ecuador, Spain, Qatar, and right now I'm living in China. Bahá'ís I've known have lived in a hundred other countries, and yes there are tons and tons of Bahá'ís in every city, every country, in every part of the world. I know my personal experience is not a good reference, but you're making an accusation that is almost impossible to verify, claiming that the impossibility is why Bahá'ís made the claim. And that's a cheap way of arguing. Cunado19 5 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
:::My reasoning is based on comparisons of "official" versus apparent actual (asked around) Baha'i populations in about eight regions. This yielded a "discount" rate such that the stated Baha'i population was usually between 4 and 10 times the actual. Oh, and as for Britannica, they didn't do a survey or anything. (How could they?) They just asked the Baha'is, and now the Baha'is trumpet the reference around as if God himself had put his imprimatur on it. 
:::Cunando, I think the onus ought to be on the "high-ball" side to show why "low-ball" estimates are illegitimate or deserve to be ignored. Dawud 6 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)
So, you're source for estimating 1-2 million is... you. Need I say any more? Cunado19 6 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
I am the source for my own estimate, yes. The population issue has come up a number of times on various Baha'i discussion fora, however, in which some posters occasionally "guesstimate" less than a million. 
The way I originally phrased it was that estimates tend to cluster between 3 and 8 million, but the "true" number might well lie outside that range. Plus an explanation of why counting is hard, and a link to adherents.com Apparently this was too wordy, and/or offensive to Baha'is. Dawud 8 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)
::I just changed it to 4-8 million. 
::I've seen an almanac quote over 9 million, but after searching for a long time I couldn't find a source. The same goes for the lower limit, there is no source that is up-to-date and somewhat legitimate that claims less than 4. And right now there are no sources quoted for under 5, so that's being generous.
::You're right about the difficulty in counting, I've read the explanations on adherents.com, and I think they did a good job of explaining. If you want to edit Baha'i statistics be my guest, it definitely needs some less biased observations (I wrote it).
::I gave my personal experience to show that the established facts seem to be accurate, and you gave your personal experience to propose a conspiracy theory against the Baha'is. The fact is, you're right, only about one fourth of the community shows up to events. But we're not counting attendance, we're counting how many people call themselves Baha'is (which can be done privately). Independent statistics are taken all the time (I don't know how), and they show that the Baha'i estimates are accurate, if not lower than the true number. On this one I'm not gonna budge without some evidence, and I don't mean from the I Hate Baha'is.com website. If you can't provide a good recent source I'll move it to 5-8 million.  Cunado19 03:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: I rearranged this to make a running list of recent new pages.
*Bahá'í apologetics
*Mishkin Qalam 
*Bahá'í symbols. 
*Bahá'í teachings 
*Bahá'í laws 
*Homosexuality and Bahá'í Faith.  
*Continental Counselors 
*study circles
*entry by troops
*Seven Valleys
*Shaykh Ahmad-i-Ahsa'i   Cunado19 12:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Running List

message: ::Cunado, it's Dawud. I assure you that none of my edits today were disestablishmentarian by intent. I thought that now that other pages go over these controversies, the Baha'i central figures could be summarized more concisely without them. (Does Mason Remey really need to appear in an article which is now exclusively about the Haifa group?)
::As for the laws, I fail to see what distinguishes the first three from the "other" laws and ordinances. Why not just have one list?
::Sorry for not signing in, but frankly I don't see why you get so worked up about it.218.167.176.136 12:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. Now the section on "Apostolic"/"Iron"/"Golden Age" is doubled.
Hi, for the laws, it was only a formatting thing. I tried my best to incorporate your content changes. It just wasn't pretty having one enormous list with no sub-bullets.
The anti-establishment comes from the title and content you changed. Having the Baha'i Faith "become institutionalized", and then giving the impression that the Hands of the Cause were "regents" is a little fishy. You took out some important information about how the Faith went from Abdu'l Baha to present day. I don't feel the need to mention Remey, I left it because people were calling me a propagandist. Frankly, I'm glad you cut out a lot of bulk from the article.
These pages are targets for a lot of people trying to do damage to the image of the Faith at any cost. An open IP is a red flag to see if something crazy was done. Cunado19 14:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Open IP Edits

message: I just moved (and edited) the sections on the Golden Age. Since the preamble of the "history" section starts with the Bab and ends with the Golden age, it makes sense for the content to reflect this. And it flows better, I think. Plus puts the House in context.
I deleted the American stuff, mainly because I couldn't see the point of it. I think it might be meant to underscore demographics or emergence for obscurity.
In general, I suggest approaching a page like this from the perspective of somebody who knows nothing about the topic (like my mother), and isn't that interested. But maybe she needs to know for some reason, like when one of her colleagues turns out to be a Baha'i. So, what information would somebody like that want / need to see? And in what order?
Newspapers are very good about getting the basics out in the first paragraph, and I think this entry does that reasonably well. I've been stripping down the historical material not because I don't love the history, but because they've all got their own entries now, and all my mother would really need to see are a few key names with capsule descriptions (and a bit more for the founder). 
On laws, think about what non-Baha'is most need to know. In this light, the law against drinking alcohol is probably more deserving of inclusion than the ones concerning Baha'i funery practices. Marriage is important, because a lot of people can be expected to want to know about the Baha'is because someone is marrying one, and who are these people?
There seem to be a whole lot of new Baha'i-related entries now, which aren't reflected in the capsule at the top. So far it hasn't been very systematic. For instance we've got Baha'i humor and Continental Counselors but nothing for the Seven Valleys or Four Valleys, let alone Writings of Baha'u'llah. 
Since Baha'i apologetics is turning out so huge, and Baha'i teachings probably will too, I propose that a logical progression would be to do a separate entry for each social principle. Homosexuality and the Baha'i Faith already exists, and the three onenesses could be pressed into service. Comments? Dawud 13:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're edits are getting much better. And I like the idea of keeping the main page as brief and condensed as possible, with tons of links to more pages. I like how the page is developing, so that every section has a link to a "main article". speaking of new pages, try study circles and entry by troops. They still need a lot of work, but they were empty before. Cunado19 14:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven Valleys, the Four Valleys redirects to the Seven, see the intro. Ask and you shall receive. Cunado19 15:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where Now?

message: I know, I know, talk pages are to discuss what should be done with the page, not places for discusission, but I want to take just a moment to congratulate the constellation of editors who have been working on the various Baha'i pages over the last ten months.   
When I began editing the Baha'i pages in February 2003, there were a total of six pages related to the Baha'i Faith.  The feasts and holy days were not in the day pages.  Even as recently as when the Faith was a front-page featured article last October, the page, and the cluster of pages was primative compared to what you have all achieved since.  Thank you all for your good work. Congratulations.  Rick Boatright 02:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General page improvement over the last year.  

message: I'm going to move the 'Teachings' section to above the 'History' section. I had a thought that people would want to see that before they get an introduction to the Bab. Cunado19 02:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving sections 

message: #Cunado19 03:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert section to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith&oldid=20108570#Criticisms_of_the_Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.AD_Faith this version]

message: Hey all. I just made a template to put on all the book pages, like Hidden Words and Seven Valleys, and others. Can I get some critiques before I go put it on a bunch of pages? 
Please edit away, I wasn't sure about wording, size, spacing. It's at :Template:Bahá'í books, with redirects made. Cuñado  - Talk 06:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about keeping the Baha'i templates in line with each other? So match colours - not labeling a preference, but just - well why not? :)  -- Tomhab 16:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Template 

message: I think changing that to => couples wasn't a good idea. Any comments? Cuñado  - Talk 03:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not much activity here, so I'll just change it back now. Cuñado  - Talk 10:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a Man and the Orangutan to whom he is married 

message: Hello, I've edited here before, but given that I wanted to make some comments as to why I've made some changes, I'm logging in and writing here.
Under "Current Plans and Focus"
- Added reference to the Ruhi Institute as it is the most well-known and widely experienced form of the study circles/institutes, and for many Baha'is has become synonymous.
Under "Laws":
- wording more gender inclusive (husband and wife) rather than "a man and his" by implication his possession (eg. wife).  
- I took out the polygamy reference because strictly speaking the Kitab-i-Aqdas does not prohibit polygamy.  It limits polygynous marriages to a man and two wives.  The fuller restriction on polygyny occurs in the writings of 'Abdul-Baha, but this section is on laws in Baha'u'llah's Kitab-i-Aqdas.  
- As well, the concept of homosexual marriages is not considered in the Kitab-i-Aqdas.  What is prohibited is an allusion to a homosexual act which was then interpreted by Shoghi Effendi to mean the prohibition of all homosexual activity, which was then codified into Baha'i law.  But again, as this topic is on the Kitab-i-Aqdas, I've deleted it.  Small detail, but important.
- Under "Symbols"
I've changed the text to read that the five-pointed star is technically the official symbol.  See Lights of GUidance, page 110: "Strictly speaking, the five-pointed star is the symbol of our Faith." 
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, Oct 28, 1949)
- Corrected the transliteration for Baha' which needed an apostraphe to indicate the hamza.
- Under "Unofficial Websites"
Re-added "The Baha'i Religion" as it is an academic introduction and there isn't a similar resource listed.  Glad to see H-Bahai is still up.
Sufisticated 07:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you add the five pointed star discussion to Bahá'í symbols. And good job with the husband and wife, that seemed to take care of it much better. Cuñado  - Talk 16:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various Minor Edits 

message: The Baha'i temple in New Delhi has been described as the most visited building in the world, with 4 million visitors per year. A quick scan through the Internet shows the Parisians claim the title for the Eiffel Tower with 6 million. New York claims the title for the Empire State Building with 3.8 million www.esbnyc.com. Washington DC's National Air & Space Museum claims 8 million []. The Vatican museums have 3 million visitors. So the honour of most-visited seems to be with the National Air & Space Museum, though there could be another that I missed. --Occamy 07:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the British Museum has over six million visitors a year. --Occamy 19:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Visited Building in the World 

message: Can a Bahá'í Faith expert look at Great Disappointment and verify the dubious paragraph about the Bahá'í?  Tempshill 05:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tempshill, the paragraph is correct.  Bahá'ís do believe that the Báb fulfilled the prophecies of the Bible and heralded the coming of Bahá'u'lláh, who Bahá'ís believe is the return of Christ.  But Bahá'ís also believe that the apparent fulfillment (for Bahá'ís) of these prophecies is not what should be used to confirm one's faith, but instead through independent investigation of the teachings of each faith. -- Jeff3000 14:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph, though, says that the Bahá'ís believe that that prophecy — William Miller's prophecy — was fulfilled by the Báb.  Tempshill 00:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't read it that way.  As I understand the article, the "prophecy" relates to Jesus' return as stated in the Bible, and William Miller predicted that it would happen in 1844, and when that prediction apparently did not happen, there was "the Great Dissappointment".  Bahá'ís believe that the claims of the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh fulfilled the prophecies of the Bible, and since they started in 1844, the "Great Dissappointment" did not happen (and I think that is what the last statement is saying). -- Jeff3000 00:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jeff3000, but I can see the confusion in the text as written. Perhaps it should read: "Members of the Bahá'í Faith believe that the Great Disappointment wasn't a disappointment at all, and that these Biblical prophecies were fulfilled by the coming of the Báb, who heralded the coming of the return of Christ: Bahá'u'lláh." (Emphasis added for the discussion only.) That should, I think clarify the distinction. Thank you Tempshill for opening this discussion up. MARussellPESE 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Made the changes suggested by MARussellPESE -- Jeff3000 03:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Disappointment 

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Bahá'í Faith and Science that has turned into a revert war today. I would like to invite anyone interested to participate in the discussion, even if it doesn't favor me. Cuñado  - Talk 21:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need some contributors

message: I've probably jumped the gun a bit by editing the titles anyway, but I wanted to point out that having a list of "Official" and "Unofficial" Websites is not neutral.  There are official websites of the Baha'i International Community, and webpages authored by other Baha'is and non-Baha'is writing about the Baha'i faith.  Baha'is who don't belong to the Baha'i International Community (eg. disaffiliated/unenrolled, members of groups like the Orthodox Baha'is etc.) wouldn't consider the websites of the Baha'i International Community to be "official" for them.  
Having said that I think given the prominence of those published by the Baha'i International Community, means it is probably worth marking them off from the rest in some fashion, hence my current titles: "Official Websites of the Bahá'í International Community" and "Other Bahá'í websites".  A little bit clunky I know.
Sufisticated 06:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Versus Non-Official