Talk:Baháʼí Faith

Active discussions
Baháʼí Faith is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 22, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 30, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
June 1, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Archive
Archives (Index)
Archive 1 02/03 – 08/04 Archive 2 08/04 – 01/05
Archive 3 01/05 – 02/05 Archive 4 02/05 – 06/05
Archive 5 03/05 – 07/05 Archive 6 07/05 – 10/05
Archive 7 10/05 – 11/05 Archive 8 11/05 – 12/05
Archive 9 12/05 – 04/06 Archive 10 04/06 – 07/06
Archive 11 08/06 – 09/06 Archive 12 07/06 – 12/06
Archive 13 12/06 – 02/07 Archive 14 02/07 – 03/07
Archive 15 03/07 – 12/08 Archive 16 03/08 – 12/10
Archive 17 05/08 – 08/14 Archive 18 06/14 – 04/17
Archive 19 04/17 –
Biographies for discussion of material relating to the history of Baha'i figures
Picture discussion of the display of Baha'u'llah's photograph
Request for comment discussion generated by a RfC of Feb 2005
Off Topic discussions removed per wikipedia policy (Wikipedia is not a discussion board)

'Derogatory towards Ahmadiyya'?Edit

The claim that the Baha'i writings are derogatory towards the Ahmadiyya movement seems to be the center of a brewing edit war on this page. I think citations should be provided here to support that claim since it's being used to justify an edit. UrielvIII (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe the conflict is how the first paragraph describes it as "... a religion teaching the essential worth of all religions..." or "... most religions..."
The source uses the phrase "all", and the description of "essential worth" accurately carries the idea that there is value in all religions. That doesn't mean that every doctrine is considered true or that every claim to prophethood is accepted by Baha'is. Remember this is the first sentence, it can't get bogged down in details. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I did follow up and searched the available Baha'i writings for Ahmadiyya and found only a trivial mention of them as a sect, "If I remember correctly the same issue was raised as an open challenge in India by some spokesman of the Ahmadiyya sect." (Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 424)
Regarding Joseph Smith, there are several mentions by Shoghi Effendi but none of them derogatory: "Joseph Smith is not a Manifestation of God." "[the Mormons] have many good principles, and their teachings regarding chastity, not drinking or smoking, etc., are quite similar to ours, and should form a point of common interest." "As for the status of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Faith, he is not considered by Bahá'ís to be a prophet, minor or otherwise. But of course he was a religious teacher sensitive to the spiritual currents flowing in the early 19th century." "The Mormons are a people with high principles and ideals..." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Lacking any sources otherwise, it should then be the weight of what should be said. Smkolins (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a better approach is to define more precisely what it is that Bahá'ís believe. dictionary.com is a tertiary source and we should be able to find a secondary source that's more precise. My understanding is that Baha'is do not believe in the truth of all religions, but rather that certain individuals are "Manifestations of God" / "Messengers of God", who are the founders of the world's major religions. I can think of a few different ways of phrasing this. One option might be to say that it's "a religion teaching the essential worth of the major world religions". Another might be, "a religion that teaches the essential worth of religion". (Where the second has a substantially different semantic meaning, but I can also find sources for this). I'll look around and see if I find something.Rm9820 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Help!Edit

Someone redirected this article to the article "Nazism", and now we really need someone to fix it! A planetree leaf (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know how to fix the problem so I'll stop messing around ): A planetree leaf (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the problem. A planetree leaf (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it for you - the "undo" function is your friend in these situations! Yunshui  11:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks :) A planetree leaf (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

First sentenceEdit

"is a religion teaching the essential worth of all religions, and the unity and equality of all people.[1]"

This should have a better source than an online dictionary, and has a notably different tone than leadsentences at Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Perhaps this is the agreement of WP:RS on the topic, but it sounds like an internal description. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It should be wikified and changed to a neutral tone. Khestwol (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it is an accurate definition. Taking a look across several references: 1) ...emphasizing the essential oneness of humankind and of all religions and seeking world peace. 2) ... teaching the essential worth of all religions, the unity of all peoples, and the equality of the sexes. 3) ... a religion advocating universal peace and stressing the spiritual unity of humankind. 4) ... The principal Bahāʾī tenets are the essential unity of all religions and the unity of humanity. 5) ... a religious movement originating in Iran in the 19th century and emphasizing the spiritual unity of humankind. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Are those references independent of the topic? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Those are dictionaries and encyclopedias. Sorry for the lack of links. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think it need to be cited - things in the lede don't have to be. I think the general mention among many references are along the lines as stated among any of them through I like 4 and 5 above more than the rest.Smkolins 12:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"supreme manifestation" and what that means.Edit

Per recent edit, @David1212, this quote may be relevant if you are looking at primary source material: "Bahá’u’lláh is not the intermediary between other Manifestations and God. Each has His own relation to the Primal Source. But in the sense that Bahá’u’lláh is the greatest Manifestation to yet appear, the One who consummates the Revelation of Moses, He was the One Moses conversed with in the Burning Bush. In other words, Bahá’u’lláh identifies the glory of the God-Head on that occasion with Himself. No distinction can be made amongst the Prophets in the sense that They all proceed from one Source, and are of one essence. But Their stations and functions in this world are different."(published in muliple places but originally[1]) And this article is not one for defending Christian beliefs. Smkolins 16:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The mainstream understanding of what "supreme" means is not one of intermediary but in the cycle of dispensations idea of Progressive revelation (Bahá'í) - see something like [2] Smkolins 16:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of how you or someone else wants to interpret this, I am providing what the actual text says, that "His Holiness the Abhá Beauty (Bahá’u’lláh) (may my life be a sacrifice for His steadfast friends) is the supreme Manifestation of God and the Day-Spring of His most divine Essence. All others are servants unto Him and do His bidding.” As for defending Christian beliefs by noting conflicts with a prior faith that the bahai faith references, the article is supposed to be providing information about what that faith teaches, and with unity among all religions being a primary theme, thus differences with others would be something many readers would want to know, versus basically a infomercial. Stop trying to hide such. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding. Smkolins 01:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
So you say, but it remains that your reference, including "Each has His own relation to the Primal Source," simply does not negate what my quote said. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC).
You are ignoring the rest. Like the very first sentence. This is a trivial biased mistake you are making. Smkolins 01:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Daniel, I think what you're trying to add is on Criticism of the Bahá'í Faith, it is not hidden. Any information must use reliable, notable, secondary sources. You (or I) can't piece together an argument from primary sources. The few times original sources are used on the page is when Shoghi Effendi or `Abdu'l-Baha are summarizing the key teachings of the religion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Certainly if you disagree with what primary sources state than it is criticism, and I am providing more than an infomercial, which apparently that is not tolerated. It is not hidden And of course I use primary sources for what the faith plainly teaches, since this is how and why that faith presents them. And which are not "novel interpretations of primary sources" in which case secondary sources are needed. And primary sources may be used on Wikipedia "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." (Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources) Which is the case with my edits. And which contradicts your premise for deletion, that that "Any information must use reliable, notable, secondary sources." If you want me to only provide direct quotes i can do just that. In contrast, you have not substantiated how "the supreme Manifestation of God" is contradicted . Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Daniel, addressing the specific issue that you're trying to shove into the article, Baha'u'llah wrote the Kitab-i-Iqan, which is the foundational book for the Baha'i understanding of the Manifestation of God. Most of the book is dedicated to explaining the concept that all Manifestations of God are equal and none should be regarded as inherently greater than another, only that over time people's capacity increases and thus the revelations get more advanced. Knowing that a thorough review of primary sources would not come to the conclusion that you were trying to insert, that your "criticism" is not seen anywhere among reliable secondary sources, and that it appears that you cherry picked a quotation somewhat out of context to make a novel interpretation of primary sources, I removed it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

To the contrary of a "cherry picked" "quotation somewhat out of context to make a novel interpretation of primary sources," you are imposing your own synthesis of a work as being in opposition to a simple plain straightforward, descriptive statement that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. Meanwhile "reliable secondary sources," yet you do now show how your source contradicts what i provided, while numerous secondary sources state such things as,
Baha’u’llah received, as attested by Him in His Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, the first intimations of His station as the Supreme Manifestation of God—He whose appearance have been foretold by the Prophets of old in such terms as ‘the reincarnation of Krishna,’ the ‘fifth Buddha,’ the ‘Shah Bahram,’ the ‘Lord of Hosts,’ the Christ returned ‘in the glory of the Father,’ the ‘Spirit of God,’ and by the Bab as ‘Him Whom God shall make manifest.’ – Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Baha’u’llah, Volume 1, p. 10.
One is astonished at contemplating Baha’u’llah’s station as the Supreme Manifestation of God, for an overarching cycle of divine revelation due to last no less than half a million years....Until the coming of Bahá’u’lláh, no Manifestation of God in history produced in His own hand any explicit document creating His Covenant, thereby conferring supreme authority upon an individual or institution upon His passing. This distinction alone is sufficient to set apart the Bahá’í Revelation from all of its predecessors." [3] (Segment 10 – Bahá’u’lláh: The Supreme Manifestation – by Dana Paxson)
The succes­sion of the gift of prophecy was not passed on beyond Baha'u'llah, who, with Bab, occupies a position more unique than that occupied by those who followed them. This is stated clearly in a quotation from Abdu'l-Baha.: "...His Holiness, the Abha Beauty (may my life be a sacrifice for His steadfast friends), is the Supreme Manifestation of God and the Day-spring of His Most Divine Essence. All others are servants unto Him and do His bidding."—Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 87.[4] (Bahaism, World Faith Maybelle Vandermark. Instructor in Religion, Washington Missionary College)
Who is Bahá'u'lláh, the Supreme Manifestation of God, “the royal Falcon on the arm of the Almighty,” the Voice in the Burning Bush, the “most precious Being ever to have drawn breath on this planet”? [5] (K. Dean Stephens, BAHÁ'Í MYSTERIES)
:How does  such  contradict what I provided, that  Bahá'u'lláh is declared to be the "supreme Manifestation of God," with all other manifestations being servants unto Him and do His bidding." 
And or,
The Báb was acclaimed by Bahá’u’lláh to be the One “from Whom God hath caused to proceed the knowledge of all that was and shall be,” Whose “rank excelleth that of all the Prophets."
Where in your source are these statements truly contradicted?

“At the heart of Bahá'í teachings is the goal...”Edit

Can this sentence be revised reworked or omitted? The sentence states: “At the heart of Bahá'í teachings is the goal of a unified world order that ensures the prosperity of all nations, races, creeds, and classes.[6][7]”

It seems it’s an opinion that a unified world order is 1. at the heart of the Bahá’í teachings and 2. that it is it’s goal.

1 Why for example, is peace not stated to be at the heart of the Bahá’í teachings or the age of maturity of the entire human race? The stages of peace are written about in depth. As well as the roles of justice and unity in the establishment and emergence of peace.

2. As to a world order being the goal, to quote Shoghi Effendi in World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, chapter titled, World Unity the Goal:

“Unification of the whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage which human society is now approaching. ... The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes...”

A world commonwealth is implied and encompassed by the goal of world unity. -All of which having to do with peace and how the stages of peace emerge.

The implication of the sentence now could be interpreted as a religion whose goal is to impose a world government. (Bahá’í writings say the lesser peace will occur after nation states on their own accord will unite)

In general, there is no context or other teachings other than progressive revelation in the section (or much of the page) and then the last sentence talks about establishing a world order as the goal at the heart of the religion, which itself is an opinion and the citations to support it aren’t from recognized authoritative writings of the Bahá’í Faith.

Could it be revised reworked or omitted? Wordsaresounds (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Rather than not being from recognized authoritative writings of the Bahá’í Faith, they abundantly support that "the future New World Order...is at once the promise and the glory of the Dispensation associated with the name of Bahá’u’lláh." (Shoghi Effendi. The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 6: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/ADJ/adj-1.html) "It is towards this goal—the goal of a new World Order, Divine in origin, all-embracing in scope, equitable in principle, challenging in its features—that a harassed humanity must strive." (J. E. Esslemon, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 274, http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BNE/bne-197.html) And under the title of "The Goal of a New World Order" that the realization of this practical goal is at the heart is affirmed by Shoghi Effendi, "The inexorable march of recent events has carried humanity so near to the goal foreshadowed by Bahá’u’lláh that no responsible follower of His Faith, viewing on all sides the distressing evidences of the world’s travail, can remain unmoved at the thought of its approaching deliverance." (The Goal of a New World Order, p. 29, http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-14.html) Just searching the authoritative texts online will yield more.
"… abundantly support…" is pov.Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
2. As far as "impose" is concerned, the writings also clearly state that this envisioned new world order would "consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature." "A world federal system, ruling the whole earth and exercising unchallengeable authority over its unimaginably vast resources.." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh. p. 204), http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-56.html) You do not need a international Force exercising unchallengeable authority if "the entire human race" has reached the "age of maturity" as defined by the Bahá’í faith.
"…do not need…" is pov.Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
In other words,to some degree, it is peace thru strength even if the world executive himself is a means leading to the Bahá’í world government with its the International House of Justice which necessitates "the recognition of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, not merely as one of the recognized religious systems of the world, but as the State Religion of an independent and Sovereign Power." Yet contrary to universal "maturity" as defined by the BF, the vision is that when its truth will be "embraced by the majority of the peoples of a number of the Sovereign States of the world, will the Universal House of Justice attain the plenitude of its power, and exercise, as the supreme organ of the Bahá’í Commonwealth, all the rights, the duties, and responsibilities incumbent upon the world’s future super-state. It must be pointed out, however, in this connection that, contrary to what has been confidently asserted, the establishment of the Supreme House of Justice is in no way dependent upon the adoption of the Bahá’í Faith by the mass of the peoples of the world, nor does it presuppose its acceptance by the majority of the inhabitants of any one country." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh. p. 7, http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-3.html#pg7)
"…In other words,to some degree…" is pov. Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
3. This goal of a New World Order with its government is not opposed to the premise of peace being "at the heart of the Bahá’í teachings or the age of maturity of the entire human race" for the former pertains to the practical outcome of the degree of the latter, and lack of universal consent, and the practical means of government. You could thus add, "In practical terms, the goal Bahá'í teachings is a unified world order…"
"… is not opposed…" is OR. Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
4. The reason authoritative writings are not cited is likely because of the absurd opposition to "primary sources" which I myself faced, since they also clearly state that Bahá’u’lláh "is the supreme Manifestation of God and the Day-Spring of His most divine Essence. All others are servants unto Him and do His bidding.” (The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, p.133; http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-39.html) Which is forbidden from appearing in this article under the false premise that was an false interpretation of primary sources, since it does not conform to the controlling editors commitment to prevent this article from revealing anything that sounds negative about the Bahá’í Faith. Likewise spurious is your own premise that " culminating in a New world order with the Bahá'í Faith as the "State Religion of an independent and Sovereign Power" is a "editorially selective and subjective opinion" even though this is what authoritative writings teach, as substantiated. Rather, it is your sanitizing that is selective and subjective opinion and may be reverted.
"…are not cited is likely because…" is not following the values and policies of wikipedia.Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
5. If anything, this article is cherry-picking statements that avoid such clear teachings as above in the interest of promoting a one sided benign view of Bahá'í teachings, and now even the nice-sounding statement "At the heart of Bahá'í teachings is the goal of a unified world order that ensures the prosperity of all nations, races, creeds, and classes" is opposed. As it is, despite its prominence in Bahá'í teachings, the "new world order" is only mentioned once in the article, under a list of authoritative principles, and by just a link Maybe you want to eliminate that also. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
"…this article is cherry-picking…" is lacking in good faith of the years of work contributing to making the article one that has been ranked a high quality "Featured Article" in the past. Your edits are unconstructive and do not follow a representation of a consensus that has exist much over the years. You are fringe editing in other words.Smkolins 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Rather, this article is more of an infomercial that has been protected from conveying much of anything that might seem to impugn a desired message, regardless of the FACT that the censored parts are well documented. Thus your and your comrades censorious edits are unconstructive towards providing the public a fitting fuller description of the Bahá'í faith. As shown above, you really do not have a case except what is basically an appeal to tradition, with your specious featured Article rank, which is hardly warranted and likely the result of promotion by Bahá'í faith advocates.
These editors evidence they really do not want the public to know that the goal of the Bahá'í faith is achieving its New World Order, "the establishment of a world commonwealth consisting of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, with "A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature," (The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, by Shoghi Effendi) With a "world federal system, ruling the whole earth and exercising unchallengeable authority over its unimaginably vast resources..." (Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, by Bahá’u’lláh; http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-56.html) With the world executive leading to the Bahá’í world government with its the International House of Justice, which necessitates "the recognition of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, not merely as one of the recognized religious systems of the world, but as the State Religion of an independent and Sovereign Power." Not that all will embrace it, thus the need for an international Force, for "the establishment of the Supreme House of Justice is in no way dependent upon the adoption of the Bahá’í Faith by the mass of the peoples of the world, nor does it presuppose its acceptance by the majority of the inhabitants of any one country." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh. p. 7, http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-3.html#pg7)
Such must be dismissed as irrelevant or fringe editing, cherry-picking "editorially selective and subjective opinion" even though this is what authoritative writings teach, as substantiated and can be. Which at least has been exposed on this talk page, yet which I expect will be shortly buried or deleted. But deception will be exposed. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
A determination of irrelevant or fringe editing or cherry-picking is why people use reliable sources and not primary material. People can *interpret* primary material in all kinds of ways. you see it that way. Is that substantiated by the experience of people and the policies of institutions? That would show up in scholarly review of the religion. That's what the body of the article is based on. My advise? Do unto us as you would have us do onto you. Smkolins 10:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
You censors tried this before, but the FACT remains that primary sources may be used on Wikipedia "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." (Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources) Which is the case with my edits. And the reality also is that the authoritative canonical writings of Shoghi Effendi are meant to provide the interpretation of the writings of the three central figures of the religion, and which is not one of diverse denominations.
Nor is what I provided that of some peripheral issues, including the place of the New World Order and its basic nature, a most predominate issue in authoritative writings, yet which only gets a bare mention in your article. Thus your charge of irrelevant or fringe editing or cherry-picking is fallacious, and a poor attempt to justify your censorious actions. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
"It's basic nature" is something that requires judgement. The accepted judgement in wikipedia is reliable sources. Accusing me of censoring isn't helping. Smkolins 14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
[Where did my comments below go?] Your deleting of "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source," are due to your erroneous judgment that this are POV. And the tactic here is to latch on to a word and place the POV label on it, which is spurious. I did not use "basic nature" in the article, and my use here of "basic nature" refers to letting the very words of the religion describe the basic nature of the OWO, not what I think it means, or going on at length about it. −
Likewise is your assertion i missed before that "abundantly support.." is pov in "authoritative writings of the Bahá’í Faith abundantly support that the future New World Order...is at once the promise and the glory of the Dispensation associated with the name of Bahá’u’lláh." (Shoghi Effendi. The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 6) is POV, when again, I did not use the term "abundantly support" in the article, but used it here as a demonstrable fact that validates the warrant for including the statement that was provided.
Also spurious is your charge that "…do not need…" is pov in "You do not need a international Force exercising unchallengeable authority if "the entire human race" has reached the "age of maturity" as defined by the Bahá’í faith," for "do not need" is an appeal to reason in the debate here in response to the objection that "At the heart of Bahá'í teachings is the goal of a unified world order that ensures the prosperity of all nations, races, creeds, and classes" "could be interpreted as a religion whose goal is to impose a world government." Which means that .you want to censor something that does not state the latter based upon your POV that someone might interpret it as that, and which comment is likely a prelude to deleting it. And thus even "New World Order" only gets a bare mention, while any mention of the government and authority it envisions (as clearly stated in its unambiguous writings) must be disallowed lest it have a negative connotation.
I need not cite more examples, and denying that this is rank censoring isn't helping. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
"It's basic nature" is something that requires judgement. The accepted judgement in wikipedia is reliable sources. Accusing me of censoring isn't helping. Smkolins 14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, no matter what you want to call it, my use here of "basic nature" refers to letting the very words of the religion describe the OWO, not what I think it means, or going on at length about it. Deleting what I said here will not make that fact go away or excuse your censorious actions and spurious changes. Just how would this be treated by you: , "The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded. This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature.." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 203)?
Evidently such must be disallowed, or a summation of it, but a positive summation of what some scholarly source (mostly unavailable on the Internet) would be.!!!!

Daniel, nothing is being censored. You're trying to introduce the concept you think is most important to the first sentence of the article. It's an issue of weight, and the preponderance of sources do not mention your viewpoint in a summary of the religion. Check out WP:UNDUE for more details. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No, this goes beyond that. I could not even merely expand the intro to, "with the recognition of the Bahá Faith culminating in a New world order." Anyone who actually reads the authoritative texts can hardly deny that this is a major theme, and while I sure the preponderance of sources do mention this, yet they should not be needed for such when the religion is very much unified and explanative of its faith. And even if scholarly sources did provide this, and the nature of it, then I do not think it would be allowed. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I could come up with 20-30 "major themes" of the Baha'i Faith. You are trying to insert the one that you think is most important in the first sentence. Read two sections higher in the comments about "First Sentence", I copied in the summary of the Baha'i Faith used by a variety of dictionaries and encyclopedias. The weight given to a high level overview must reflect the weight given in reliable sources. As far as your accusation of censorship, there is a page (New world order (Bahá'í)) dedicated to the topic that you think is being censored. The page includes the quote "A world executive, backed by an international Force" and so on. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the NWO is given great weight in reliable sources, those of the authoritative texts of that faith, and which are not ambiguous nor contradictory but "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source," and should be part of the intro. Sure, there one link to the brief NWO article, but leaving that info on a major theme to another link is akin to leaving the second coming of Christ to such in the Christianity article. Such inclusions are not "fringe editing" but considering the editor postulated removing even "At the heart of Bahá'í teachings is the goal of a unified world order" then such charges are not surprising. But for now I will leave it as it is. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Archives are missingEdit

WHERE are all the talk page archives for this article? (Deleted?/ by whom? / WHY??)..

Thanks! 2A02:120B:2C26:79C0:4E3C:16FF:FE2A:C48E (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(So called) Islamic countries who have persecuted members of this religious faithEdit

Yet again, Wikipedia looks towards people who label themselves as Muslims or those who state they are practicing Islam, and totally ignores the source of Islam, which is the Quran.

The article states that "Islamic" countries such as Egypt and Iran have been known to persecute people of the Bahá'í faith, right? Let's break this down this statement in its relevance to Islam. 1. Egypt, Iran and et al, label themselves as Islamic. 2. The article states that these countries, who are Islamic, perform the said actions of persecution. 3. Finally, by saying these countries who are Islamic, are doing Islamic things, you are saying that their actions are part of Islam.

In actual fact, the Quran makes clear, that there is no compulsion in religion, and each to their own faith. This is the actual Islamic view on other people having their own religions and practicing their own faith.

This concept of labelling something Islamic, is similar to what is said about ISIL/ISIL, as in yes, you can call them the Islamic state in context because that is what they call themselves, but to call their actions as Islamic is another matter. You cannot say, well, they call their actions as Islamic therefore they must be right, or their word is the final say on the matter, the religious scriptures are, as in the Quran.

My proposition is that you label them as just "countries" or countries who refer to themselves as Islamic, (or something similar) especially if you are trying to be factual. Again, there should be no problem with pointing out that these countries refer to themselves as Islamic, and anything written in the point of view of the country and its government, but when you say "Islamic" to something that is not part of Islam you are encorcing the idea that these actions are art of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccarran (talkcontribs) 23:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

LeadEdit

Regarding this edit. The lead should be concise and doesn't need to be overly detailed. The original wording <<Established by Baháʼu'lláh in 1863, it initially grew in Persia and parts of the Middle East, where it has faced ongoing persecution since its inception.>> was carefully laid out to incorporate some key details as concisely as possible without getting involved in the technicality of starting in Baghdad among Persian exiles. It gets across the Who? Where? When? and mentions the persecution faced in Iran today. The phrase "initially grew in Persia" gets across that it has Persian origins, but doesn't get into the detail of where the announcement was made to break with the Babi tradition and start a new faith. Also, Baha'is consider the Bab's declaration in Shiraz as their origin. The first paragraph needs to hit a bunch of high level points without detail, keep nice sentence flow, stay technically accurate with the split between the two faiths. All the details are below in the article, it's just a question of priority and style.

If you want to change it, please get a consensus on the talk page. I don't think adding "in Baghdad, Iraq" and splitting the sentence is an improvement. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

agreed. Smkolins (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
If "Baha'is consider the Bab's declaration in Shiraz as their origin" then the lead paragraphs should clearly state that and the year of its origin be changed to 1844. If the beginning of the Baha'i Faith is from the declaration of Baha'u'llah in Baghdad (Iraq) in 1863, then, it should be clearly stated so. Adding "Baghdad" makes it clear that Baha'i Faith, specifically, started in Baghdad. Most people are under impression that it started in Iran, which is technically incorrect. Adding "in Baghdad, Iraq" is not going to spoil the "high level points". We may request an outside third opinion if you disagree.Serv181920 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
It's hard to add details without mucking up the lead paragraph. Imagine someone who knows nothing about the subject comes across here, they just want to know what part of the world it's from, not what city. They probably want to know roughly where, when, some basic teachings in a few words, and how big is it. The preponderance of media reports on the persecution in Iran while mentioning the Baha'i Faith, so that needs to be tucked in somewhere. The nuances of Baha'u'llah's declaration are below in the article for people who want to go into details. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not convinced with your argument. How come adding "Baghdad, Iraq" mucking-up the lead paragraph? The readers deserve to know the place where the religion was founded. Generally, people think that it was founded in Iran while it was the "Babi faith" that was established in Iran and the Baha'i Faith was established in Iraq when Baha'u'llah declared himself as the promised-one of the religion of Bayan in 1863. I would prefer adding "Baghdad, Iraq" to the lead paragraph for more clarity. You are free to recompose the sentence to accommodate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serv181920 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
And sorry, I don't think you have consensus to change the lead paragraph. The religion is of Iranian origin and the majority of all Baha'is were Iranian for the first century of the religion. There are a hundred details that could be thrown into the lead paragraph. Baghdad does not seem to be an important detail for a 3-sentence overview and it is not mentioned in the preponderance of sources. The original wording remains technically accurate and conveys that it started in Iran and then grew into the Middle East: "it initially grew in Persia and parts of the Middle East". Britanica's article starts with an overview on teachings and then moves into the history starting in 1844. Further down it mentions: "He was released in 1853 and exiled to Baghdad, where his leadership revived the Bābī community. In 1863, shortly before being moved by the Ottoman government to Constantinople (now Istanbul), Bahāʾ Allāh declared to his fellow Bābīs that he was the messenger of God foretold by the Bāb." Another, URI, starts with: "It began in 1844 in Persia". The BBC says "It was founded by Baha'u'llah in Iran in the 19th century." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
One more from the Economist. In a four-paragraph overview, here is the mention of origins: "In 1844 a merchant who called himself “the Bab” (“the Gate”) began preaching in Persia. He reinterpreted Shia Islam, and said that God would soon send a new prophet in the manner of Moses, Christ and Muhammad. Bahais consider one of the followers of the Bab—Baha’u’llah—to be this prophet, and the official founder of their religion." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
"The original wording remains technically accurate".
No. The original wordings are not technically accurate. Technically speaking, Baha'i Faith started in Iraq when Baha'u'llah claimed himself as the promised one of Bayan, the declaration was done in the Garden of Ridvan, in Baghdad. I agree that it had Iranian followers and the prophet was himself Iranian - but it started in Baghdad with Baha'u'llah's declaration in that Garden!
1844 is the starting of the religion of the Bab. Baha'i faith is an "independent world religion" which started in Baghdad in 1863 with Baha'u'llah's declaration. It is a fact that Baha'is believe in the Bab as its predecessor but that was a different religion and Baha'i faith is different. 1884 in Iran is 'correct' for the Babi religion and 1863 in Baghdad is 'perfect' for the Baha'i faith.
If you feel I am incorrect, let us take a 3O or may be we can involve an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serv181920 (talkcontribs) 06:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The very fact this is being discussed at length is why it doesn't deserve to be in the lead. It's a detail with nuance and context. Smkolins (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Any point being discussed at length should not prevent it from taking place in the lead paragraph! If the place of establishment is not clearly stated, most readers would assume that it started in Iran, because Baha'u'llah and most of his earlier followers were Persians. "Established in Baghdad, Iraq" makes it clear that Baha'u'llah was following the Babi religion till 1863.
"At the end of April 1863, shortly before leaving the environs of Baghdad for Istanbul (known as Constantinople in the English language of the time), Bahá’u’lláh and His companions resided for twelve days in a garden which He named Ridván, meaning “Paradise”. There, on the banks of the River Tigris, Bahá’u’lláh declared Himself to be the One heralded by the Báb—God’s Messenger to the age of humanity’s collective maturity, foretold in all the world's scriptures." https://www.bahai.org/bahaullah/life-bahaullah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serv181920 (talkcontribs) 14:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You aren't building consensus. You are just stating your pov. Other obvious facts exist - like the experience in the Siyah Chal, the direct relationship between the Baha'i and Babi Faiths and therefore the immediacy of the founding of the Babi Faith. Many articles more to the point of the Ridvan event clearly relate Bagdad. It isn't being hidden. Why does it deserve to be here - to de-emphasize Iran? Why? Smkolins (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The details of Baghdad, the transition of identity from Babi to Baha'i, the tensions with Azal, all that is lower in the article. In fact the NEXT PARAGRAPH in the lead mentions 1863 as the year of Baha'u'llah's claim. The first paragraph has to paint the broadest possible strokes of what the subject is, with minimal detail, and somehow keep good readability and sentence structure. There is a lot of nuance to how the Baha'i Faith started, and you're trying to insert a detail that doesn't really matter all that much, so I'm wondering what your motivation is here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I will try to take this forward through proper channel, according to the policies and framework of wikipedia. I don't have an experience in editing like you guys have. But engaging and discussing is helpful for my learning experience. Thank you for training me. :)
I still think that the edit is good. "Baghdad, Iraq" should come in the lead paragraph because of the fact that the religion is established in Baghdad. Baha'u'llah declared himself in Baghdad in 1863 thus starting the Baha'i Faith there. He was a Babi till 1863. Having vision of the "Maid of Heaven" is not considered as the "establishment" of the Baha'i Faith! Usually, people think that Baha'i Faith was started in Iran which is technically incorrect. And I believe that Baha'is purposefully don't want to give importance to Baghdad and keep their popular-incorrect-narrative going on for more time.Serv181920 (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Baháʼí Faith" page.