Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 12

Contradiction

In the page it states that Bahá'u'lláh said, "Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power." (Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Aqdas, v. 5, p. 21). How is it then that the Bahai faith prohibits the consumption of Alcohol? Is wine not alcohol? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.34.242 (talk • contribs) .

Indeed the consumption of alcohol and all other intoxicants is prohibited in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, in one place prohibiting "any substance that induceth sluggishness and torpor." Abdu'l-Baha has also said that the Kitab-i-Aqdas prohibits "both light and strong drinks." Shoghi Effendi has also stated that the prohibition includes "everything that deranges the mind," and states that alcohol is only permitted as part of a medical treatment under presecription by a medical doctor.

The reference to "choice wine" is in the verse is in the symbolic sense. In another tablet Baha'u'llah wrote:

"Beware lest ye exchange the Wine of God for your own wine, for it will stupefy your minds, and turn your faces away from the Countenance of God, the All-Glorious, the Peerless, the Inaccessible."

Thus the reference to the "choice wine" is that of spiritual ecstasy found when following the laws of God. This use of the term in this way is not only found in Baha'u'llah's writings but also in the Bible and Quran.

In some other tablets, Baha'u'llah identifies the "choice Wine" with his Revelation whose "musk-laden fragrance" has been wafted "upon all created things." He states that he has "unsealed" this "Wine," thereby disclosing spiritual truths that were unknown, and enabling those who quaff thereof to "discern the splendours of the light of divine unity" and to "grasp the essential purpose underlying the Scriptures of God."

Hope this helps. -- Jeff3000 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Prophecy in Intro

Wow, today seems to be 'prophecy day' for me. I was wondering why in the intro it says: "Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and other religions"...what was the purpose in providing these three in written form. If it is in relation to the the teachings of the Baha'i Faith or its relation with these religions then I am not even sure it is correct. Then we would have to include Judaism and Zoroastrianism. But if it is relation to the influence of the above faiths, which is probably what one would do in an encyclopedia article, then it should include Hinduism. For now I will add Hinduism making it even with 2 religions from west and two from east. Let me know what we all think. I just found it odd, thats all. Nmentha 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote: To Israel He was neither more nor less than the incarnation of the "Everlasting Father", the "Lord of Hosts" come down "with ten thousands of saints"; to Christendom Christ returned "in the glory of the Father"; to Shí'ah Islam the return of the Imam Husayn; to Sunni Islam the descent of the "Spirit of God" (Jesus Christ); to the Zoroastrians the promised Shah-Bahram; to the Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna; to the Buddhists the fifth Buddha. [The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 234]

Hindu's await the return of Krishna, the worldwide Avatar expected after Buddha by Hindu's is sometimes refered to as Avatai Kalki. Also take a look at the list of 10 Avatars here: Avatar#The_Ten_Avatars_of_Vishnu.2C_or_Dasavatara. Notice how Avatar Kalki comes after Buddha at the End of Times to usher in a new age. What will raise eyebrows to a Baha'i is the number referenced for the length of the "Age" described. It seems awfully close or similar in digits as the number given by Baha'u'llah as the length of His Cycle (500,000 years). Nmentha 09:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I am pure Inuyasha, I changed my name because i don't want to be branded with a advertisment. I'm just telling you this because i'm rather active on the talk pages here. Zazaban 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Baha'i Faith in Fiction

I'd like to suggest a small section reviewing some of the more extended uses of the Baha'i Faith in fiction. I have in mind two short stories of Tom Ligon ("The Devil and the Deep Black Void" in Analog (New York), v.106 no.1 (Jan. 1986), and the sequel "The Gardener" in Analog (New York), v.113 no.11 (Nov. 1993) ) as well as a general reference to the work of Maya Kathryn Bohnhoff - notably The Meri series which uses extensive quotes from Baha'i and other scriptures as well as some themes in the books and perhaps some of her short stores. In terms of references there are materials at several websites - http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_bahai.html , http://www.angelfire.com/va2/TomLigon/Writing.htm , http://www.mysticfig.com/Maya_Books.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smkolins (talk • contribs) .

Instead of putting the content in this article, you should just create a new article (like Bahá'í Faith in fiction), and then we can link to that article in the See also section. Bahá'í Faith in fiction is not important to the understanding of the Bahá'í Faith to be included in a subsection of this article. -- Jeff3000 16:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget to mention the scene in the Simpsons, where lisa is searching for religion and sees a "Bed, Bath, and Baha'i" store. Cuñado - Talk 17:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I know of two references in The Simpsons! OK, The article is begun - see The Baha'i Faith in Fiction. It's really little more than a stub and I hope others contribute to it (and find references worth reading!)--Smkolins 18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So has the article progressed far enough along to be worth of being part of the "See Also" list here? I know the reference styles aren't consistent yet and the section on Joseph Sheppherd is still coming together but perhaps more exposure can improve the whole article more.--70.41.146.174 19:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Still wondering about linking to Bahá'í Faith in fiction - I thought about linking it to the Bahá'í literature but that didn't seem appropriate as that isn't so much "literature" as "Baha'i" if you know what I mean.--Smkolins 03:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, put it in the See also section. -- Jeff3000 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of the "See also" section in this article, and not the template. What do other people think? -- Jeff3000 03:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I say don't put it in the template. --Twilightsojourn 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some things I think there should be somewhere.

A list of all the people recognized by the Baha'i faith as Prophets, prophets, seers, and the religions recognized as inspired because of the spiritual revelation of a new Prophet (don't know how to word it).

That and we need an article like Seer (Baha'i) or something of that nature. Zazaban 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See Islamic prophets, and there is no such list as what you're talking about. See Manifestation of God. Cuñado - Talk 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I mean we should make it, not that i'm looking for it.... Zazaban 23:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Manifestation of God would be a good place to start expanding and creating a referenced list. Cuñado - Talk 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Manifestation of God would be the ideal place, especially since lesser prophets are discussed there. -- Jeff3000 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There should also be a mention of other Baha'i organizations such as the Orthodox Baha'i and Reform Baha'i. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.183.100.8 (talk • contribs) .

The fact that divisions exist is included in the section on the Covenant, with a link to the specific article that discusses the different divisions. Note that from WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." -- Jeff3000 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube

A long discussion on the presence of YouTube has been archived (again) to Talk:Bahá'í Faith/archive11. Cuñado - Talk 21:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The youtube discussion seems to have hit (another) concluding point, so it's archived again. One thing that should be brought back out here is a request from Cunado. He would like us to comment on this. -LambaJan 13:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The world is catching up to wikipedia's stance on copyright, look here RoddyYoung 11:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Youtube's status in Wikipedia is now made more problematic and links to Youtube even in the external links are discouraged. See WP:AN#External_Links_and_YouTube. No Youtube. -- Jeff3000 14:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

11,000 Youtube links in wikipedia in one year and growing. I wonder if youtube are as concerned about videos on or of wikipedia in their collection. The comment that I think sums it up is the paraphrase that 'news papers' are the only reliable source of information for wikipedia. I can hear the cave peoples' conversation (our distant ancestors 50,000 to 12,000 year ago) when a person drew in the sand with a stick and said that we could represent sounds with symbols. 'No we must blacklist that stick symbol thing because how would we know who the idea comes from if we can not see the face where the grunt is coming from'. 'Only communication can come from people's bodies especially the face' they said. 'Not an authentic reliable source is stick sysmbols' they said. 'Blacklist them, no sticksymbols'. As we know in time stick sysbols became news papers, news papers become c# computer code, and C# computer code became two internet cave dwellers fighting over internet moral high ground on the one hand and viewership on the other, they are named wikipedia and youtube. Now the internet people (sitting in frount of an open laptap screen) can have youtube and see how others clubbed their mates with a shovel or how to catch fire to a friend without facing the challenge of being the next victom. Humans are hard wired to take notice virtually or otherwise of threats to life which are historic events that just keep attracting our human attention. Now people do not have to debate sticksymbols and can just grunt into a camera and post it to youtube and know that those words came from a face they can trust or can they. That way the language will remain pure with no abstraction or can it. That way wikipedia will never have to achnowledge that with out people clicking onto it they would not have a forum or would they. I want to suggest that we see a disclaimer in wikipedia that says these audiovisual materials are unauthenticated but an audiovisualpicture is worth one thousand typed words not a static picture with out sound. I would continue 'Veiw at your own intellectual and moral risk, but you may learn something that relates to the wikipedia page here or here or here. Humor is an important part of learning and sifting true logic from fiction. RoddyYoung 11:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetic improvements?

I was looking at the page with an idea of aesthetics:

White space - as it loaded and I noticed there was a broad white space on the bottom middle and right but that might be somewhat about resolution and screen size? I'm at 1440x900 on a 15" screen. I checked at 1024x786 and I still see a fair bit of whitespace I think. If these system can allow for screen shots I can share one. I think most are at 1024x786 followed by folk at 800x600 and 1280x1024....

Slightly wordy - I wondered about simplifying the first paragraphs as well as using the actual words of a central figure one way or another to have their inherent charm play a role in defining the religion even here. For the wordy part I wondered if the three onesess could be presented as an elaboration of the teaching of unity itself.

Essentially static - I wondered if some tasteful but animated graphic could serve - consider this as an example - http://homepage.mac.com/smkolins/images/graphics/justice.gif Perhaps one with the Seat of the House, the Temple of the Bab, and .... The broad idea is to get movement as well as more than one thing in the same space...

Anyway, the basic idea is to make the page more interesting, beautiful, etc....--Smkolins 00:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm on Firefox at 1024x768 and I think the page is ok with whitespace. I know IE does things differently, so there definitely can be room for improvement (I refuse to use IE in any fashion so I can't check). As for slightly wordy, I don't think it's a good thing to use actual scripture unless in certain cases. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources, and using secondary sources seems more neutral. Remember, this page cannot be promotional. In regards to the graphics, I'm not a fan of animation on webpages; it takes away from the content (same reason why banner ads have basically been put on the backburner on the web over text-based ads). For the specific animation in question, I don't like it for many reasons, but mostly because it makes the page look promotional. -- Jeff3000 01:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff. The page has always looked pretty good to me, and I think that the use of secondary sources helps keep the page more neutral. The animation makes it look more amateur, I feel, especially the example given. The static image is more professional, and more encyclopaedic (the subject does not need to be illustrated with a moving graphic, which is more appropriate for something like lenticular technology (the image that used to be displayed in that article can be seen here[1]), or something else that can be better illustrated with an animated .gif). Thanks for your thoughts, though! It's great that you're looking for ways to improve this already great article. --Twilightsojourn 01:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm on Safari. My screen of the top of of the article is right near 50% whitespace. That seems excessive. Between Safari and Firefox it's about the same though in Firefox it's slightly less whitespace (the font of the text is rendered slightly larger but thin whereas in Safari it's smaller but thicker letters.... While experimenting I noticed that the text flexibly wrapped as I drug the browser window around. Good and a consideration when formatting....

To give a feel of when the whitespace was pretty much gone, I noticed the picture size was pretty fixed. If you drag the window around the white space is gone when the left edge of the picture is under the "i" in Baha'i in the disambiguation line. Then bring the bottom of the window up to "cite this article" in the left side "toolbox". Leaving the window fairly open and just changing the resolution it seems that the window is filled up to around 800x600. Starting at 1024x768 there is noticable white space in the bottom right.

As for promotional... well I suppose that can be debated - beauty is itself a positive thing afterall. As for the graphic I posted - I did so specifically just to give an idea of a Baha'i oriented animated gif. It specifically wouldn't do I think. It was just an example, as opposed to a specific suggestion. BTW the author has a page here http://www.bcca.org/hawaii/gif/ but I don't think anything there is specifically right for this page. --Smkolins 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a screenshot is in order. Do you mean the space beside the table of contents? -- Jeff3000 01:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's it. I can see as far down as just past work ethic... now how di I post a screenshot here? Or do I have to post it on my home site?--Smkolins 01:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You could post on any of the free anonymous image uploaders like imageshack.us/ The space beside the Table of Contents is the Wikipedia style, and ways to reduce it include (1) click on "hide" in the ToC (2) reducing the number of subsection headings or (3) moving the ToC to the right (which has it's own set of problems. -- Jeff3000 01:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. A few moments and I'll post the pictures somewhere - my daughter wants to go to bed and have a story read. Give me a few minutes plus the overhead of posting them somewhere... and converting from pdf to jpg....--Smkolins 01:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK... here's urls for the pictures - note they can display differently on your screen. To help adjust the scene, know that these views are of the entire usable space of the screen and the browser windows is full open (minus the fact of the tabs). What I did was change my screens resolution.... http://homepage.mac.com/smkolins/1440x900.jpg http://homepage.mac.com/smkolins/1024x768.jpg http://homepage.mac.com/smkolins/800x600.jpg --Smkolins 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I did an unscientific study of featured religions articles - the first four:

• Angkor_Wat
• Anno Domin
• Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.
• End times

And three of them have nice pictures of some kind in the top block, and 2 of the four have relatively little white space.--Smkolins 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Joseph Smith article has 8 images (all public domain), the Ankor Wat article has 13 images (all some sort of free license), End times has 2 images (both free). Compare that to 8 images in this article, quite a few which are fair use. So I'd say we're quite average in the number of images. -- Jeff3000 02:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture in the top block is a good thing and a fair number through the article is fine too. I was just looking around to see if anyone was really doing more than just a picture....--Smkolins 03:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's an example of a good animated gif image (not Baha'i related but example of good useage) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lunar_libration_with_phase2.gif--Smkolins 03:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

aesthetics... of words and pictures

well taking a quick gander at Christianity, Islam and Judaism as a snapshot I note all are similarly wordy but have even less graphicness. The picture of the Seat is a quantum leap better in my view.... But it still seems to me that an internet based encyclopedia should have more than what a printed one can do....--Smkolins 01:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

and they all have the whitespace problem too - they all have one of the templates on the right opposite the contents list which kind of exagerates the empty middle....--Smkolins 01:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that there are people who don't want an image in the lead at all (see some of the Talk archives). Also, too many images becomes disrputive to the reader. Images should be very relevant, and be GFDL, as most images right now on the page are fair use, which is not great. Someone could come and remove the fair use images right away. -- Jeff3000 01:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite aesthetics, I think it's important to keep a picture of the Seat of the House up front and on top. There are periodicly Covenant-breakers participating in wikipedia and the image is a flag waving, so to speak. Cuñado - Talk 04:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Flag-Waving?

Wasn't there a guy who edited the whole article out, put in a huge image of remey and wrote in huge letters "HE WAS THE GUARDIAN!!!!!!!!" Zazaban 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - but I bet that edit got reverted within 15 minutes! Obvious vandalism doesn't tend to last long around here... PaulHammond 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

End Times content

I noticed the End Time featured page had a Baha'i section and two followups occur - first Return of Christ is linked but not there, and wondered if one more sentence would be good - something like "For example, it has been argued that the Battle of Armageddon has already passed." The reference I have in mind is two sections of http://bahai-library.com/bsr/bsr09/9B3_lambden_armageddon.htm .--Smkolins 02:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Some content on that page would definitely be needed. My understanding of the Baha'i end times I thought was very similar to the one that is now in the Babism article. -- Jeff3000 03:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Some content added - and slightely amended the preterist section which had claimed an exclusive and unique interpritation that the end times were past. I also took note of the missing Seventh Day section in the talk section - didn't add that but then left very brief notes in Sevent-Day and Millerites that they were not unique in their acceptance of 1844 based on calculations.--Smkolins 04:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See Baha'i prophecies and its talk page. There are good references that show `Abdu'l-Baha in 1912 saying that the battle of Armageddon described in the book of Revelation would begin in two years. Cuñado - Talk 04:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I did see some of that... I've been casting about a bit trying to figure out how much to say - a lot in one place or alittle in lots of places.... I didn't want to just usurp a whole huge section of the article....--Smkolins 22:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My recent additions.

What exactly was wrong with them? Zazaban 00:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Already commented on your talk page. It leads the reader by making conclusions. Just present the facts, and let the reader make their own conclusions. That's NPOV. -- Jeff3000 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:NPOV, WP:Cite, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Notability together set a high bar for work to be included.

If one were to include something like: "There are those who think that Americans have collectively lost their minds since 9/11." Even if obvious to everybody but more than a few of us Yanks, you'd need to cite a notable, verifiable source. And even if you were citing Hugo Chavez, you'd still have to put it as "Hugo Chavez stated in a speech that Americans have lost their minds" for it to be NPOV.

There are Wikipedians that think that just because some point is verifiable it belongs in here. This misses the point of an encyclopedia. Jeff3000's right. We're here to present the facts. I'd add that, per WP:Not, we're not here to be a collective archive of everything anybody ever put down on a given topic.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, but nobody is entitled to the facts. Cheers, MARussellPESE 12:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Images and layout

As you will probably agree, the article is cluttered, which is something that many Wikipedia articles suffer from. There are images of various sizes pushed up against one another, and they displace the text and the headings. What do you all think about the selective removal of some of these (admittedly nice) images for the sake of the presentation as a whole? If you like the idea, it would be good to have your recommendations on which images to remove. If you don't like it, of course you should say that. modify 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It hadn't been like this before, but I know over the past 24 hours, some extra images were added to the article, that seems to have changed the overall text format. Most of these images don't seem to me to be a problem, but I think that where there might be a potential aesthetical and formatting problem is down at the "Places of worship" and "Symbols" sections -- is that where you're thinking, too? The Chilean temple photo extends past the "Places of Worship" section and into the first few lines of the "Symbols" section, which then has been squeezed between the nine-pointed star image but then extends off to the left, under the Chilean temple image.

Anyway, I think that this is another one of those things that is going to strike people differently, given their screen resolution. I'm looking at the page with Mozilla Firefox running in Windows XP, with a resolution of 1024x768 (which is what is the statistical majority, I think). Someone who had a lower resolution would see things as being more cluttered, while someone with a higher resolution would see things much more spread out (horizontally, anyway).

Those are my thoughts, anyway. To sum up, I think overall the page looks okay, with the one potential trouble area being the one around the "Places of Worship" and "Symbols" sections. What do other people think? --Twilightsojourn 06:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently, I don't think the page is cluttered except for the noted Symbol+House of Worship section. I would remove the Chilean House of Worship, and the rest of me seems well proportioned. The size of the images could be standardized though, but even that has it's problems because they are at quite different aspect ratios. -- Jeff3000 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, along the lines of Twilightsojourn's thought, it may be that I am looking at the article with a non-standard resolution (1024x1280, vertically oriented, like a page of A4 paper). If it looks good to everyone else, and I am the only one seeing things pushed up together, then it would seem to be an issue with my screen rather than the layout. modify 11:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

While we want to make the page look the best it can for everyone, in the end, if we can't practically achieve that (I remember reading an article on web design once, which was saying that it is pretty much impossible to design a web page that 100% of people will like, as there are simply too many browser and resolution configurations to find one layout that works for every single person), we should try and work with the layout that looks best for the settings that are the most common -- which, I believe, is the 1024x768 setting.

By the way, Jeff, you mentioned the photos having different aspect ratios. That's a good point, and I would also add that if we standardized the images, it might be difficult to see certain details in some, as the distance from the subject matter portrayed in each image is different, as well. For example, the image of the Seat of the Universal House of Justice at the top of the page, as well as the Chilean Temple image, show their subjects up close, so if they are on the smaller side, their contents will still be easily visible and recognizable. Something like the images of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament, or the Ruhi book, or even the pillar of the Wilmette House of Worship, would be much harder to make out if they were made any smaller.

In the end, though, it seems like the only potential trouble spot is the aforementioned area with the "Places of Worship" and "Symbols" sections. Modify, you didn't mention if you had any areas that you thought specifically were causing problems -- was that one of them? Were there any others? What do you think of Jeff's suggestion? --Twilightsojourn 13:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article could lose the Will and Testament and Ruhi book covers and the 5-yr Plan logo. These don't really add information to the presentation like the symbols and places pictures do. MARussellPESE 17:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the Will and Testament cover. The others I don't really care about. Cuñado - Talk 03:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Will and Testament cover and Ruhi book cover represent peaks and turning points in the history of the faith. If I had a choice I would keep the Ruhi Book cover over the Will and Testament cover as a picture that is important to the greatest number of readers. RoddyYoung 08:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, guys I really dislike both. The W&T cover is bland and the Ruhi cover is (was) busy. Neither convey any information to the reader in-and-of-themselves, and both required explanation in other articles. (I note that, as of this writing, the Ruhi cover is not in the article. I'm arguing to keep it that way.)

If we had a book cover or graphic for every "peak and turning point" we'd have a cover of the Aqdas, the Consitution of the UHJ, the Incorporation Papers of the American and New York City Assemblies, a screen shot of the Mona Video, etc.

Frankly, having been around for many years, I don't see Ruhi itself as any more significant a turning point than any other. Wasn't the election of the House of Justice significant? (Note: I'm through all but the last half of Book 6, including the elusive Book 5.) If anything these two five-year-plans are the turning point. Study circles are only a quarter of that process, although they've received a seemingly disproportionate amount of effort and attention — but that's another discussion.

If graphics are to be used they should make sense to someone who has no foreknowledge about the topic, or be explainable in a twenty-word caption. e.g. "This is the Seat of the Universal House of Justice, governing body of the Baha'i Faith." or, "This is the proposed Baha'i temple in Santiago Chile." In this case, neither picture does this.

May I suggest that the current Seat picture replace the W&T cover, and that a suitable picture of Mt. Carmel, including the Seat, be placed at the top? I'd go get one, but I'm pressed for time. MARussellPESE 12:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually really like the image currently at the head of the article. Since it can't be too big, I think that if the image was busier (i.e. contained more of Mt. Carmel, etc.), its details would be too hard to make out. The image we currently have is nice, and has good coloration/contrast, so that it stands out at the top of the article nicely, but not in a way that is too distracting. The Seat is the administrative focus, after all, and so I think it works well in that regard, as well. If you can find an image you feel works better, though, I'd really like to see it. --Twilightsojourn 15:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree to a point that covers of books are important. Why I support the return of the Ruhi book cover is that it is eyeconic, just as the Universal House of Justice building is at the head of the page. Ruhi is about children's classes and devotional meetings and youth as well as study circles. These topics are mentioned in the main page. So Ruhi book is about activity and the now on the planet. I am sorry to see it go but happy that one cover stayed. RoddyYoung 12:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

200 Countries

there is only 202 countries in the world and some of those wouldnt allow it so i think its a false number —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakerboy4 (talk • contribs) .

The Encyclopedia Brittanica from 2002 gives 218.[2] I don't know what there definition of country is, but it could be a lot of things. For example, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland could all be considered countries, or they could be included in one country the United Kingdom. -- Jeff3000 20:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually they define country to be "sovereign and nonsovereign countries", so I would guess that places like England would be considered a country. -- Jeff3000 20:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

From List of countries "there are 243 entities considered to be countries". -- Jeff3000 20:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a time when the Baha'i Faith, being the second most wide spread religion in the world behind Christianity, was emerging from obscurity. A concise note was acceptable, with crude measures around number of countries populated with a few Baha'is, as it emerge from obscurity. Now (2006, BE163), however, crude, blunt instriment of measure and indication lead presently to some obvious ambiguity. This ambiguity will persist until an encyclopedic statement reads "Baha'i Faith: the most wide spead religious faith on the planet". Future Encyclopedia Brittanica's may look to quantify the Baha'i Faith by number of countries in other ways that are less generalised. Until then it is important to become more and more accurate with the number of countries that the Baha'i Faith has National Spiritual Assemblies in. The degree the Baha'i faith is in a country in not accurate either as some civil authorities ban administrational structures of the Baha'i Faith incorporating in opposition to the Faith's emergence. Under the Baha'i principle of 'strict obedience to one's government' the extent of administrative structures are being artificialy suppressed. In time the measures and indications around the title of 'the most wide spread religion' will improve. Take for instance the statistical numbers collected around those attending the ruhi book study programme. These statistical numbers are collected and come out of each country of the world and are a good internal and external register of how many 'adherents' and friends are live where and interact with the wider community in a devotional and educative way. Statistical data of this nature in time will help with wikipedia's accuracy in reporting in future. This data will provide up-to-date statistics on the number of countries and to what extent those countries have a Baha'i presence. This discussion will lead to Wikipedia's numbers being more accurate and will be on a pa with Encyclodedia Brittanica for accurate mearsures and indicators of this report. This up-to the mark accurate informational status will swing towards electronic real time encyclopedic mediums, if not already the case, and may see other paper bound encyclopedia's reference wikipedia as to the religions that is the most wide spread in the world at any one time. For now it would be true to say that this discussion is an emerging academic discourse set to burn brighter over the coming years as data comes in. My advice is to keep on the topic and update as data that comes to hand. RoddyYoung 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? 130.113.111.214 17:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Marriage

I wanted to ask your thoughts on including the line into the main body at the end of the marriage section that reads "In future the law around dowry that young single males pay to the bride is conditions on male permanant residence with minimum 2.2 ounce of gold for city dwellers and maximum of 11 ounces of Gold. The permanant residence other than city requires the dowry to be paid in silver or to the value of at the time of marriage in form of promisary note. Note manslaughter has a price of 100 mithquals of gold (12 troy ounces) that the offender must by to the family of the dead." Jeff3000 I find the achive hard to search for early discussion on this matter if at all and wondered if you know of a time that it has been discussed and reference that discussion.? RoddyYoung 15:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a minute detail, and should not be placed in this article. Remember this is a summary style article. -- Jeff3000 15:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Already covered on Bahá'í laws#Marriage and Bahá'í marriage. It's not an important detail, and is on the list that the House says are not applicable to Western Baha'is. Cuñado - Talk 15:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link Bahá'í laws#Marriage and I found an error on this page. 2.2 Troy ounces is the correct conversion not 1 Troy ounce. Can I leave it to you to change please. You will find the reference in the glossary of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. RoddyYoung 203.97.2.34 06:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the change has been made and reads 2.22 troy ounces which is correct. A note on the point of Baha'i Dowry being 'a minute detail and should not be placed in this article.' and 'It's not an important detail, and is on the list that the House (Universal House of Justice) says are not applicable to Western Baha'is.' History shows, Gold standard, and the implications of the way Baha'u'llah has written gold into Huquq and Baha'i Marriage law that the expected 9 fold increase in the world population by 2050 will be dramatically effected. A massive reverse flow of rural to urban migration, starved of oil energy and substrate, will catapult the gold and siver price so high that the proportion of urban to rural ratio will be way less than the predicted 2007 figure of more than 50%. The metaphor would have to be the coming of the sound of a thunder clap where this discussion is the light first seen and due to the differential of the speed of sound and the speed of light the clap follows the flash of light in a time delay worked out on distance from the lightning strick from the observer and hearer. I am sorry I do not prescribe to the wording of "a minute detail..." in this matter of Gold standard discourse in relation to the Baha'i Faiths impact on world monetary history. RoddyYoung 16:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All this is original work and has absolutely no position in WIkipedia. Please read the appropriate Wikipedia policies. -- Jeff3000 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, it's quite a stretch indeed to assume that Baha'u'llah's usage of gold as a standard value for Huquq, the dowry, etc., necessarily leads a the Baha'i belief in the resumption of the gold standard and all these concominate social upheavals. Gold is probably the most fluid commodity on the planet, making computing its value for these purposes the advantage of being very easily determined, once you figure out what a mithqal is.

Agree with Jeff3000: this would be OR. MARussellPESE 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My response was to a person who minimised the importance of including the dowry weights and measures in wikipedia's main page. I offered the Gold standard Wikipedia site as 10,000 years of human history in interaction with gold. This was not intended as original thought and if so was tempered with reference in any case. If I stated that a dowry is conditional for marriage in the Baha'i Faith and that it has limits and that the male passes dowry to the bride, this is not original thought, it was written over hundred years ago and what ramification that this may have in future is only suposition from my perspective on the matter. The ramifications for the Baha'i community of adopting gold and silver in marriage dowry if implemented unversally by the Universal House of Justice will have demographic impacts on world migration flows. This already happens now with pioneering. It could be said that a person minimising dowry is original thought too. It you give me that then I am happy to accept my comments are original thought. But my comments are not intended for the wikipedia main page. I only wanted to have the gold and silver reference added and need to overcome a minimiser of the importance of dowry with argument. Discussion is where I hoped to make my point in refuting the minimal approach to dowry. I think I have offered some good points and referenced them and will leave it for others to think about the merits of these points. I hope to continue to consult and find consensus on this and other matters in the discussion page. Just a note that $1.65 billion dollars was paid by google for the company that shall remain nameless. This purchase is minimal compared to the implications of the gold standard discussion. Dowry is far more sensational than an internet company that has been around for two years in terms of substance. RoddyYoung 06:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I heard about the ...... sale. Roddy I think the point was that on the main page, more than any other page, the editors have to make decisions on relevancy. There are over one hundred pages relating to the Baha'i Faith on Wikipedia, and the main page has to be the most concise summary of all of them. To put it in another perspective, there are 15 or more laws that the Universal House of Justice have declared not applicable to the Western world, and others that are not applicable until a nation has a Baha'i society. To mention any of them here would be presenting a very obscure fact that would naturally be organized in sub-pages, already cited above. We could add to the page that any Baha'i who finds a treasure trove can keep 1/3 for himself, and the other 2/3 goes to the House of Justice, or that a person must wait one year before remarriage if the spouse disappears, but these, as well as mentioning an unbinding dowry law, are much less relevant for the main page. The dowry has already been expanded upon in three subpages, so I think this issue is settled, and thanks for bringing it up. Cuñado - Talk 06:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a note on the point that re-marriage can happen after on year if the spouse disappears, it is infact 9 Months, not one year, and that 9 months in a 19 months Bahai year is just over 6 months or half a year. It is interesting that over 100 wikipedia pages has Baha'i content. From what I have read so far the laws that are not implimented have some errors in discussion or on the main pages. This process of bring out the true nature is important. That is way the main page should have reference to what Baha'u'llah has left up to the Universal House of Justice to decide. This gives a fuller, encyclopedic, rendering of what the Baha'i Faith, is and is to be.203.97.2.34 05:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (RoddyYoung)

That's correct. It is 9 months.[3] I initially did that from memory. Cuñado - Talk 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

BahaiVideo.com

Youtube in now featuring videos that link to a site BahaiVideo.com. My question for discussion here is can a video link to BahaiVideo.com be used as a link on the main Baha'i page? Here is an example of a talk that ends on the subject of universal law. click to view (warning-I found the presentation style disturbing at first in this video clip)RoddyYoung 10:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the link is not germane to an understanding of the Baha'i Faith, but is promotional. -- Jeff3000 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Understanding of the Baha'i Faith is also making note of happenings and changes in the perceptions of the wider community. The tide is coming in with the large changes in technology from 1840's when the USA wanted to close the patents office because " all inventions has been invented ". Divine philosophy could be the understanding of the periodic table or it could be the understanding of broad band use and audio video streaming that superseeds over broadcast forums of 'air, fire, water and earth' (reference to elements Plato had in way of period elements to comment on in his philosophical thesises compared to us (wikipedia editors of the Baha'i phenomonon) with our understandings of the periodic table and DNA life coding elements). Wikipedia is the icing on the cake of 163 years of massive expansion of knowledge. Devine philosophy is closer than our life veins. The Baha'i page must reflect what has happened in technology change in the past 20 months as well as 163 years. Baha'i lore instructs that no proslitizing of Bahai faith is to happen, no knock on the door of people homes to proslitise and an no request to purchase a book on religion or no request to become Baha'is in a villiage in exchange for that the village have a hospital built conditional on number of adherents. This also applies on the web in cyberspace. No proslotizing. For example BahaiVideo is made and presented in a non proslotizing way, placed on youtube, if I have asked about changing youtube for bahaivideo consideration in discussion then that is a question around copy right and ogg format matter raised before and not proslotising. Having to read a posting to understand its worth is an editors job and I warned that the contents may have been disterbing for some editors before they decided to watch. Now I am interested in the concept that some matters are only able to be understood in an audio visual environment, hence a watching was required. I am suggesting that the Baha'i faith can not be fully understood with out watching audio visual material that is germane to the main page content. This same material that is presented with an inprovement of technology. I say that the main page should have critical links to audiovisual material on the internet that is germane to understanding concepts in the main page and that concept in the main pages are also fully inclusive of topics that are hard to understand and need audiovisual material to understand better. What is divine philosophy is central to what is the symptom of an international auxilary language, and symptomatic of what is universal law. Let discussion lead to including 'Divine Philosopy' in the main page and lets us try to encyclopedically devine what the wording means from 163 years of observation.RoddyYoung 18:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no!!! Read the Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- Jeff3000 18:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(Jeff3000 you posted unbeknown before I had finished my edit so I will publish it under as you responded to something above and I can not change it now.)

Understanding of the Baha'i Faith is also making note of happenings and changes in the perceptions of the wider community. The tide is coming in with the large changes in technology from 1840's when the USA wanted to close the patents office because " all inventions has been invented ". Divine pholosophy could be the understanding of the periodic table or it could be the understanding of broad band use and audio video streaming that superseeds over broadcast forums of 'air, fire, water and earth' (reference to elements Plato had in way of period elements to comment on in his philosophical thesises compared to us (wikipedia editors of the Baha'i phenomonon) with our understandings of the periodic table and DNA life coding elements). Wikipedia is the icing on the cake of 163 years of massive expansion of knowledge. Devine philosophy is closer than our life veins. The Baha'i page must reflect what has happened in technology change in the past 20 months as well as 163 years. Baha'i lore instructs that no proslitizing of Bahai faith is to happen, no knock on the door of people homes to proslitise and an no request to purchase a book on religion or no request to become Baha'is in a villiage in exchange for that the village have a hospital built conditional on number of adherents. This also applies on the web in cyberspace. No proslotizing. For example BahaiVideo is made and presented in a non proslotizing way, placed on youtube, if I have asked about changing youtube for bahaivideo consideration in discussion then that is a question around copy right and ogg format matter raised before and not proslotising. Having to read a posting to understand its worth is an editors job and I warned editors that the contents may have been disturbing for some editors before they decided to watch. The contention comes to light that some matters are only able to be understood in an audio visual environment, hence a watching is or was required. The Baha'i faith can not be fully understood by wikipedia readers with out watching audio visual material that is germane to the main page content. This same material that is presented with an improvement of technology helps independant investigation of the truth. It is the point of this discussion piece that the main page should have critical links to audiovisual material on the internet that is germane to understanding concepts in the main page and that concept in the main pages are also fully inclusive of topics that are hard to understand and need audiovisual material to understand them better like divine philosopy. What is divine philosophy is central to seeing the symptom of an international auxilary language foundation, and symptomatic of what is universal law. Let discussion here lead to the including of the wording 'Divine Philosopy' in the main page and lets editors try to encyclopedically devine (define, report published papers on the matter) what devine philosopy means in wording with experience from 163 years of observation.RoddyYoung 19:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (Jeff3000 you posted unbeknown before I had finished my edit so I will publish it under as you responded to something above and I can not change it now.)

I am suggesting not original thought but thought reported to be in Baha'u'llah's writting that needs explanation of what it means and how it is being acted out. Divine philosophy. All video material can not be original thought and thus discarded with no no no. If I read the wikipedia page out word for word that would be material that could be included as non original work because it has made wikipedia's editors OK. I am asking to include divine philosophy as a start of a new thread. RoddyYoung 19:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone has interpreted Baha'u'llah's words in Divine philosophy and published it in a reliable source, only then could it be put into Wikipedia, and not in this page, as this is a summary style article. As Cunado noted "There are over one hundred pages relating to the Baha'i Faith on Wikipedia, and the main page has to be the most concise summary of all of them.". It would have to go in a subpage. -- Jeff3000 19:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Open that subpage up now then and link it to the main page in terms of coming of age of the human race please. Divine philosophy as a subpage would start out with the link to the Most Holy Book and then address an international auxilary language. RoddyYoung 03:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There are already pages on the Kitab-i-Aqdas and Baha'i Faith and auxiliary language. -- Jeff3000 03:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes read both these pages Kitab-i-Aqdas and Baha'i Faith and auxiliary language but Divine Philosophy is more abstract that summing up the structure of a book or stating a principle of the Baha'i Faith. Divine Philosophy would have to come off the main Bahai page. Why, because the concept of 'maturity of the Human race' is being defined, and the coming of age, as a concept, is unique and a core part of the Bahai Faith, with symptoms being the attainment of the principle of the Bahai faith, and complimented by a vast growth in technology and the corrosponding theory. So I ask you again as to where on the main page would you logically include Divine philosophy as a concept of the Bahai Teachings and then who would create the subpage titled Divine Philosophy to discribe it? 203.97.2.34 06:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (RoddyYoung)

Nowhere. -- Jeff3000 13:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

BahaiVideo.com is created and maintained by an individual Baha'i and is sponsored and monitored by the Local Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai's of Moorpark Ca. Would you say that oversight by an Local Spiritual Assembly and for that matter Auxilary board members, National Spiritual Assemble and Continental Board Councillors that this published material would approach a standard acceptable for wikipedia? Is any of this material POV, not verifiable etc? Then could it be an external link on the main page?RoddyYoung 11:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do if the website is maintained or not maintained by Baha'is, it has to do if the link is germane to the understanding of the Baha'i Faith and it is not. -- Jeff3000 12:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Divine Philosophy

Divine Philosophy refered to in The Kitáb-i-Aqdas addressess Baha'u'llah's statement

'We have appointed two signs for the coming of age of the human race'.

Explained further

'The first sign of the coming of age of humanity referred to in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh is the emergence of a science which is described as that “divine philosophy” which will include the discovery of a radical approach to the transmutation of elements. This is an indication of the splendours of the future stupendous expansion of knowledge.'

My question to this discussion page of the Baha'i Faith Main page in Wikipedia is around the interpretation of the words 'discovery of a radical approach to the transmutation of elements'. Does this include nuclear transmutation, genetic transmutation of the code of life, the digital transmutation of analogue input to digital manipulated presentation, and could this also address the use of audio vidual elements into film, video and online video streams? If so what treatment of the 'divine philosophy' is worth note on the main page? With out treatment will the main page lack the quality of 'coming of age of humanity'? With out treatment will the main page always be in an immerture state, reaching but not grasping the next step to online encyclopedic mature status, and thus require this question to be raised. That is my question for discussion under divine philosophy. RoddyYoung 20:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Our work in Wikipedia is not to dwelve into what is the interpretation of different things is, since that is original research and (for the upteenth time) is not allowed in Wikipedia. We reference things that have been published in reliable sources; see verifiability. -- Jeff3000 21:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This "divine philosophy" could well be nothing more than the understanding of the periodic table and quantum mechanics. These taken together provide a complete theoretical framework for understanding "transmutation of elements". If you've ever seen a geiger counter measuring the radiation from a radioactive mineral, you have witnessed the transmutation of elements first-hand.

Sometimes Baha'is overreach for explanations and this looks like it's going in that direction.

But Jeff3000's right, any treatment on this without some solid reference is original research. Further these tangential topics would, even if they were supported, be very disruptive to the article(s). MARussellPESE 03:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Cuñado - Talk 07:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

1.4 Divine Philosophy. I would insert Divine Philosophy under Baha'i beliefs. Divine philosophy would then state. Baha'u'llah included in his writtings a defining concept to understand the large expansion of knowledge that spans the Bab and Baha'u'll's revelational period with the words Divine Philosophy. Link to Most Holy Book. ( who would like to suggest addional changes to 1.4 in the main page)RoddyYoung 19:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that that statement is as important as the fundamental beliefs of the Baha'i Faith, the Unity of God, the Unity of Religion and the Unity of humanity. Definitely not. There is such thing as context. -- Jeff3000 19:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to being original research this is entirely tangential to the main page. MARussellPESE 20:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do, take for a moment 'Unity of Humanity' a sign of the coming of age of the human race is an international auxilary language. Either history shows language is diversifing, which it has up until around 1840 and now languages are dying out, approaching a crunch point. 90 percent of children in the EU are learning english as stated in a book titled "Language policy, language planning". Divine pholosophy covers the three oneness that you speak of. It is an overall scope that was touched on by the bahaivideo link you watched that concluded, wait a minute I wrote it down next to me here, Universal law, thats it, a oneness that unites. Divine philosophy. Okay I will go and return with some papers on divine philosophy for you to read professor (a term of endearment in this context).RoddyYoung 03:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a page for content about auxiliary language: Baha'i Faith and auxiliary language. If you can reference material showing that the trend in language diversity changed in the 1840's, it would be a good edition. That page is linked on the main page. Other information you've pointed to seems to be opinionated or not relevant enough to be on a summary article of the Baha'i Faith. Cuñado - Talk 04:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The facts are about 6800 languages exist and 90 percent are expected to be lost in a very short period of time. Do you consider yourDictionary.com as a referencable source worthy of wikipedia and the Bahai pages? 203.97.2.34 06:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (RoddyYoung)

For Wikipedia sure, but since it doesn't mention or allude to the Baha'i Faith, it can't be used in the Baha'i Faith pages, since anything that is concluded from it in reference to the Baha'i Faith would be conclusionary. From WP:NOR, it is considered original research if "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" -- Jeff3000 13:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Many references in the Baha'i writings refer to music. Music is an established form of vibrational notation that records the discovery of sound pleasing to the ear. 'Music is the ladder to the soul' is a paraphrased reference. Also Baha'u'llah removed a few restriction from Islamic traditions around music. I will answer your point about Divine Philosophy (by replacing the word 'harmony', 'musical theory', 'counterpoint' and 'fugue' with Divine Philosophy) with a quote from abook titled 'Harmony by Walter Piston revised and expanded by Mark DeVoto, London, Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1991. "Introduction to the First Edition (1941). The first important step in the study of harmony (Divine hilosophy) is that of clarifying the purpose of such study. Much confusion exists today as to why we study musical theory (Divine Philosophy) and what we should expect to learn from it. In the present writer's teaching experience this confusion of outlook furnishes the commonest and most serious obstacle to progress in all branches of musical theory (Divine Philosophy). There are those who consider that studies in harmony, counterpoint,and fugue (Divine Philosophy) are the exclusive province of the intended composer. But if we reflect that theory must follow practice, rarely preceding it except by chance, we must realize that musical thory is not a set of directions for composing music. It is rather the collected and systematized deductions gathered by oberseving the practice of composers over a long time, and it attempts to set forth what is or has been their common practice. It tells not how music will be written in the future, but how music has been written in the past." pg xix. Your thoughts. My point is that Divine Philosophy is a practice already underway and that reporting it in an encyclopedic way is likened to the study of Harmony. RoddyYoung 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read no original research. -- Jeff3000 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A quote from your reference reads "Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Baha'u'llah wrote of Divine Philosophy (NPOV) as part of the Baha'i Faith ever advancing civilization, its in the KitabiAqdas published 1992 (Verifiable) and is not original reseach when discussed in the contect that Baha'u'llah wrote it. So as wikipedia states for the English Wikipedia my right to put this in a page as an editor 'cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."RoddyYoung 05:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. futher reading http://bahai-library.org/?file=abdulbaha_divine_philosophy

What exactly do you want to add to the page? If you want to add that Baha'u'llah wrote a book, then add it to the bibliography at Bahá'í literature. You can start a book page and add it to the book template. You can't start a page about conclusions that you come to after reading those books. Cuñado - Talk 05:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this explaination fits the purpose of your questions so click http://www.bci.org/bahaistudies/conferences/swaziland/robert01.doc RoddyYoung 06:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the article. It encourages the development of spiritual principles in professions and arguments based on reason to prove truths of reality. The article represents the opinion of the author, and I don't agree with his initial interpretation of the Kitab-i-Asma'. As far as relevancy, and avoiding original research, this information could be added by re-writing the Bahá'í Faith#Work section to include natural vs divine philosophy (in two sentences or less), or it could be added to Bahá'í teachings as a new section (two paragraphs or less). `Abdu'l-Baha's writings, especially Some Answered Questions, touch in dozens upon dozens of abtruse concepts and insights. Wikipedia does not need a separate page to document all of them, and any attempt to do so would be probably be original research. Read the summary by Shoghi Effendi. Those are the things that he considered the bedrock of the Baha'i Faith. Also read over the Baha'i teachings page and get familiar with the sub-pages of different teachings. I think much of your frustration comes from insisting on including things on the main page that would naturally be included in sub-pages. Cuñado - Talk 06:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very good comments and I fully support making these additions. I have read over the pages you pointed out in making your point and they cover the summary as you say. A summary of Divine Philosophy as is already define is a good first step that should not be minimised. Do you feel that you can be true to wikipedian principles and with out worrying about consensus lead off and write those lines of text. Give it a go and see how if feels. Individual initiative that provides scope for the maturation of the Local Spiritual Assemble and the National Spiritual Assemble was a paraphrase from a ridvan message from the Universal House of Justice before the present five year plan. It is about making the divine philosophy reality and then it can be written about in wikipedia. What do you say to this challenge? RoddyYoung 10:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Humanity is divided into two classes:--one is satisfied with the knowledge of divinity through its attributes and the other strives to understand the mysteries of divinity and be informed of the fundamental principles of divine philosophy.-AbdulBahaRoddyYoung 10:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay the strategic plan is to open a page called Divine Philosophy and cover the span of development in this philosophy as progressive revelation from Prophets unfold and the teaching on the matter is understood. One of these Manifestations will be about the Baha'i Faith's contribution to Divine Philosophy. When Divine Philosophy is explained in an encyclopedic way and is a good wikipedia page then the Baha'i main page discussion can be offered to look at adding a link to it. Words in the main page would say "The Baha'i Faith further expands on the concept of Divine Revelation that is found in other religions and unfolded progressively as a philosopical concept through a number of world religions over time." The world Divine Philosophy will be linked in blue. RoddyYoung 06:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been a month or so for the page Divine Philosophy to be developed and now it is ready for some comments and contributions from contributors of the Baha'i page and discussion page. RoddyYoung 14:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

This article reads like a brochure printed up in Haifa. Why is there essentially no criticism whatsoever in this article? There should be a section with a list of criticisms of the Baha'i faith from current and ex-Baha'is, such as:

Literature review (aka censorship)

Boycott of Kalimat press

Expulsion of dissidents by declaring them non-Baha'is (such as Allison marshall, Sen McGlinn)

Moralistic crusade to punish people for their private sex lives

Spying on believers through the Auxiliary board for protection and their "assistants"

Threats against Baha'i Academics who deviate from the party line. . . Sdaconsulting 14:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually most of the so-called critical aspects of the Baha'i Faith are already mentioned in the article as fact. Things are stated, and people make up their own opinion on what they believe is good or bad. That only men are allowed on the House of Justice is mentioned, that there are divisions is mentioned, that so-called covenant-breakers are shunned, and that homosexual acts are not allowed is mentioned. One of the Muslim administrators who commented on this page regarding criticisms stated that "So, before we start making value judgment we must discuss the Bahai position on issues in a coherent and neutral manner. That means that a bunch of the criticism section should be broken down and explained as law."

The further criticisms that you mention are held by a small minority of people, and for the most part are in the blogosphere which are self-published resources. In this case there is also Wikipedia's undue weight policy to consider. Regardless, most of the things you mention are already in Wikipedia in other articles where the undue weight policy does not apply, see Bahá'í review, and Bahá'í divisions#Other disputes, and they are linked from the Bahá'í apologetics which includes a list of critical viewpoints. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This article probably gets 10 times the traffic as "Baha'i apologetics" and the other articles combined. My point stands -- this is a puff piece, it could easily have been written and approved in Haifa.

Don't you think potential members would like to know that Baha'is are not allowed to write for publication without having their words go before a censorship board?

That there is a network of fellow believers who will secretly monitor what they say and if controversial that secret files will be opened on them with the auxiliary board?

That cohabitation without marriage will get them brought up before their local assembly on morality charges and likely removal of all administrative rights?

That almost all Baha'i academics who have written on the faith were driven out or silenced by the Baha'i administration?

This has nothing to do with "divisions" or covenant breaking. This is relevant criticism that the Baha'i administration seeks to keep out of the public eye. Why is there not a small section for criticism in this high-traffic entry? `Sdaconsulting

First of all, Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith. Second, this article sources many third-party articles. Thirdly there are some Wikipedia policies that are relevant: one is undue weight, which states: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." Other than Cole's published piece, almost all other statements are on personal websites, forums, and blogs, which according to Wikipedia verifiability policy, which states "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources", are not acceptable as sources. There are some people who have had disputes with the Baha'i administration, but the very large majority does not have any problem, and thus as Wikipedia's undue weight policy including those views is misleading, except when included on topics associated with those views. Finally, the statements which you bring up are expounded by that small minority, are very much simplifying and exaggerating the real position. Of course, you wouldn't believe my position, and that's not the real issue, but that Wikipedia's policies are used for inclusion of material. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your evidence that only a "tiny minority" of Baha'is and former Baha'is have criticisms about the Administration? I think the fact that most enrolled Baha'is eventually become inactive or leave would indicate otherwise. And of course the vast majority of personal criticisms of the Baha'i administration will only be aired on "personal websites, forums, and blogs".Sdaconsulting 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're rationale is that "Don't you think potential members would like to know... " then you don't understand what this is. Wikipedia is a presentation of verifiable facts, and tries to present a neutral point of view, not one trying to persuade or disuade. Many people have commented that this page is biased towards the Baha'i point of view, and I don't disagree. But keep in mind that most of the contributors are Baha'is, and they've tried very hard to present things factually and use non-Baha'i sources when possible. If you think you can improve the article go ahead, but biased polemic edits will be reverted. Cuñado - Talk 18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So there is an admission that this article is biased towards the Baha'i POV.

How is that NPOV?

The truth is, this article does not cover or glosses over aspects of the Baha'i faith that anyone who wanted an unbiased opinion would like to know. The most relevant are the items Juan Cole covered in his Panopticon paper, spying on the believers, secret dossiers, and other unsavory forms of opinion manipulation that many other Baha'is have also relayed to me, who are totally unacquainted with Talisman or Juan Cole.

I am convinced that Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah would scarcely recognize what has happened to this religious community and the insularity and fundamentalism into which it has fallen. Sdaconsulting 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy everything needs to be verifiable with reliable sources, and if there was a massive outcry, there would be much more published sources (other than a handful of blogs and forums) that are acceptable to Wikipedia policy about this whole conspiracy. Without those published sources, Wikipedia policy does not allow for their inclusion. Secondly, the Cole article is one reliable source, and clearly does not pass the Undue weight principle mentioned above. That you don't think Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha would recognize the religion is your view, and you are free to hold it, but Wikipedia documents material published in reliable sources that are verifiable. Also, I just re-read the article in its entirety, while some wording could be cleaned up (as I will try to do in a momement) in no wise is it blatantly POV. It is an article about the Baha'i Faith, and thus needs to explain the views and beliefs, and does so, without stating that those views are the right views, but that they are the Baha'i understanding. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have found many additional sources including newspaper articles, etc. documenting the controversy with a few minutes of research. I would not use the term "conspiracy" myself. For me the addition of Cole's "Panopticon" paper link is sufficient correction towards NPOV at this time, so unless it gets removed (again) or otherwise made more difficult to find, I am done making edits. The panopticon paper has plenty of additional hyperlinks for those who want more information. Readers of this article who want to conduct "an independent investigation of truth" will see quite clearly that this Baha'i Faith article is a puff piece and will click on the Cole article for a critical POV.

Also, you wrote: "but that they are the Baha'i understanding".

An article about a religion should not only present the understanding of that religion as presented by the members of the religion, but also some voice to the understanding of the religion by those who are not members, are former members (such as myself), or are members who disagree with some of their leadership's official positions.

Sdaconsulting 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's not too obvious to point out, Sdaconsulting above presents some important things that he/she wants to have included. Jeff3000 and others have pointed out that most of the facts involved are mentioned, with references to other pages with more detail. Not so usual for a "fluff" piece. I know Jeff3000, Cunado19, and a raft of others have worked hard to keep this from being brochure-ware. Mr. or Mrs. Consulting is writing a fairly old, often-discussed-on-this-page laundry list of "bad stuff" that he feels would make this NPOV. The critical word there is "Neutral".

The current page is not under serious neutrality dispute, and there are many non-Baha'i editors and admins who are neutral to the Baha'i religion who have contributed to the current state of balance, as well as some hard working adherents and some honourable opponents. Regrettably, Sdaconsulting doesn't seem to be behaving as the aforementioned group does, though I'm sure he or she is working with honourable intentions. This isn't about providing balance by throwing feces on an article, because it looks too clean; rather it's about increasingly improving the accuracy and fair examination of the available information. If this page doesn't convey the notion that there are oppoents of the Baha'i faith without, and dissatisfied members within, then we would need to examine it. However, those two facts are not the main point. They are, unless one can provide referenced evidence to the contrary, side-issues, almost by definition. Sdaconsulting asserts "most baha'is become inactive", and:

• Literature review (aka censorship) (Interpretation)
• Boycott of Kalimat press (Stated as if it was, a-priori, a bad thing - or for that matter, as if it was actually a boycott)
• Expulsion of dissidents by declaring them non-Baha'is (such as Allison marshall, Sen McGlinn) (Asserted as if this were a bad thing without explanation of why)
• Moralistic crusade to punish people for their private sex lives (Pure opinion and interpretation)
• Spying on believers through the Auxiliary board for protection and their "assistants" (Asserted as if commonplace and unjustified)
• Threats against Baha'i Academics who deviate from the party line. (Threats of what nature? Counter examples? What party line? Are such "threats" unreasonable for a religious organization?)

This is an excoriating list of heavily partisan rhetoric. Such statements are not (in their current form) supported by referencable material, or (I assure everyone from long experience) it would be listed and referenced. The facts, from which these purely interpretive statements are drawn, are already included in the main and in more detail in daughter articles. Such interpretations could be referenced, if they occur in wikipedia-referenceable states, but should not be presented as facts. The fact that there is literature review, for example, does not automatically mean, however passionately this former member may believe it, that the majority, or even a significant minority care that it exists, or even see it as a bad thing. I could examine each of these and argue both (or more) sides in volumnous detail, but that's not the point. The point is that the underlying information needs to be separated by the interpretation, in accordance with Wikipedia Policy. To slam something in order to "provide balance" is a fairly cable-news-media style of balance, and really isn't academically or intellectually honest. -- Christian Edward Gruber 03:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm sorry that Sdaconsulting had such a bad experience with the Baha'i Faith, and that he/she feels that he/she couldn't continue to participate in the Baha'i Community. I also don't wish to slam, or in any way take away from the negative experiences that real people do experience in their interaction with the Baha'i community. As with any community it is an organization in flux and evolution, and many Baha'is have made many mistakes over many years. It is, I hope, a learning community that is finding creative ways of being in community. It is, however, at heart, a religion and a religious path in a revelatory tradition, with obligations and laws. It's not a free-for all. Additionally, presenting critique, when done in an angry or contentious spirit is also contrary to the teachings of `Abd'ul-Baha and Baha'u'llah. Someone attempting to say "You all are being bad Baha'is because you violate people's rights and threaten them and do all sorts of nasty stuff", when he does so in a contentious spirit, vitiates any solid ground he had to stand on. Of course, this goes for Baha'is too. Ultimately, I hope Sdaconsulting and those like him or her recognize that most of the folks on this site are just doing their best, and try to keep the pages from getting too far in either direction. Otherwise, you get someone with a chip on their shoulder and a really extreme POV who will come along and find something to hold on to, as they try to lever the article over to their point of view. Many compromises have gone into this article. We need to all try to keep working in that spirit. -- Christian Edward Gruber 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I chose not to follow up Sdaconsulting references as seen in discussion as I justify it as being in the 'not dwelling on the unpleasent things of life' category. 'How does one know the heat if one does not know the cold' is a sturdy paraphase of a Baha'i quote. The irony is that wikipedia gives publishing freedom that a community news letter may not give but in fact a community news paper carries many of the same principles of wikipedia. Baha'i faith is experiencing growth and coming out of obscurity and the pain of Sdaconsulting is heart felt. What good advice was given on how to express the point better and in a way that requires a greater amount of reflection. The criticism may lessen over time as a new group of mates are forged with interaction on the www. Again do not dwell on the unpleasent things of life. The advice was to keep searching for material that supports your contributions. If it is verifiable and is NPOV then you have every oppertunity again to make your edit regardless of concensus. RoddyYoung 11:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "Personally I chose not to follow up Sdaconsulting references as seen in discussion as I justify it as being in the 'not dwelling on the unpleasent things of life' category". Actually what I'm attempting to do is make it easier for people to "see with thine own eyes and not with the eyes of another". How many westerners would want to join the Baha'i faith if they knew beforehand that a network of informers was secretly watching the community to ensure that no enthusiastic and charismatic Baha'is were "developing a following"? That the lay community would report them for personal, private behavior? That the Baha'i administration had driven out a large number of Baha'i academics who had actually studied the history of the faith? Not many. These are the hallmarks of cultism, phenomena more at home with the Watchtower organization than with the spirit of the teachings of Baha'u'llah.

The Baha'i faith has the advantage of the spirituality of the writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. That is the attraction. But the actual administration of the faith has turned into a secretive, control-oriented, fundamentalist (think Ruhi), top-down, one-size-fits-all fiasco, driving out countless believers through its blunders and its deliberate actions.

Look at the fortunes of the Baha'i religion. Stagnant growth, especially in the west. Massive loss of believers to inactivity and outright departure. It's because those who have taken over leadership of the community have missed the entire spirit animating the central figures of the faith: "Wherefore it is incumbent upon all Bahá'ís to ponder this very delicate and vital matter in their hearts, that, unlike other religions, they may not content themselves with the noise, the clamor, the hollowness of religious doctrine. . ."

I haven't been a member of the Baha'i faith since 1994, and I certainly have gotten on with my life. You might enjoy reading my blog if you are interested in seeing how I understand spirituality now. This entry is a good starting point. I quote from the Baha'i writings and many others. Lots of pretty pictures too :-) Sdaconsulting 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite the warm feeling inside that this discussion brings, Wikipedia is not a forum, and I thought this was resolved four comments ago when the discussion of page content was over. Cuñado - Talk 16:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia is not a forum, and looked at the 'Lots of pretty pictures too' so that I could comment on criticism. Divine Philosophy, above criticism, relates to Baha'u'llah's and AbdulBaha's comments on a topic that I would place at the other end (Hot/Cold) scale of what Sdaconsulting is asking for on the main page. Both topics are not accepted presently under discussional consensus. However the chances of Divine Philosophy getting more traction on the main page is due to the fact it is part of the Holy Text for which the Universal House of Justice in future will fill in gaps. God forbid we take the criticism to its extreme and arrive at what is paraphrasingly termed "foam upon the sea blown by the wind". This discussion must not be luke warm and I hope Divine Philosophy has raised the temperture to ironically cool things off but minus some dross. RoddyYoung 10:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Roddy, as multiple people have mentioned multiple billion times, please stop. You are not going anywhere. If you want to add something to the artilce, propose the exact text here, and we'll see if it can go anywhere. Instead you are constantly giving opinion which has no place in Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sdaconsulting, as you can see form the comments of Jeff3000 your pictures become more appealing for their beauty. When criticism is in an exaggerated form (I have been told by Jeff3000 a million times to not exaggerate) more is less. It is time to offer something to the concensus discussion for both you Sdaconsulting and Jeff3000 and that is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia. Both of you may find something else in wikipedia that you can both be proactive about and it will require no opinion what so ever on your parts personally. It will add to the wikipedia experience for others and limit your criticism. I look forward to hearing from you both.RoddyYoung 06:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Persia (Persian_Empire) vs. Iran?

Openning sentence claim that Bahai' faith has been founded in "Persia" with it being linked to "Persian Empire". At the time of this religion foundation, there was no "persian empire". Obviously, the editors don't want to have the bad media of "Iran" influence their religion, which is flat wrong. Persian Empire is not a country, and was not a country at the time of this religion inception. Dylan Lak[[User:Dylan Lake/Esperanza| responded to my change of Persian --> Iran saying "For the purposes of this article we use the historical name for the country now known as Iran." My response: "who is this 'we' that you are talking about? The name of the country is Iran, and was Iran at that time" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.68.169.84 (talk • contribs) .

From the Iran naming dispute, "The name "Persia" until 1935 was the "official" name of Iran in the world" and since Persia is a disambiguation page, which nothing should be linked as per WP:DPL, one of the choices from the page should be linked. Given that the period from 1722-1914, which the Baha'i Faith originated in, is explained in the Persian Empire article, that is the best link. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Say I have a friend named "Gholi" who choose to change his name to "Jack". I will call him Jack, right? Even when I'm telling a story about 10 years ago (when his name was Gholi), I still refer to him as Jack. Persia is name of NOWHERE in middle east now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.22.228 (talk • contribs) .

It's not about now, but then. In Wikipedia when referring to historical times and places we use the historical name. For example, when referring to the British in the First World War we link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland not the United Kingdom, because that just refers to the modern state of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". -- Jeff3000 14:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jeff3000. The Ottoman and Persian empires are not existent any more, and to link to the modern states that were created after their downfall would not make sense. Cuñado - Talk 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the article on the Iran naming dispute, and I just wanted to point things out from the perspective of folks from Iran. I have had this discussion with other Baha'is when I've heard them say things like "It used to be called Persia, but they changed the name to Iran." Persia and Persian actually imply a specific ethnic group and region in Iran that became dominant in the Achaemenid and Sassanian periods. They were from the city-state of Parsa (Perse-polis in Greek). Today the region uses the arabic name Fars (there is no "p" in arabic). The Farsi/Persian debate for the language name is silly since the two terms mean exactly the same thing: the ethnic language of Pars/Fars. The larger plateau as a whole was always called Iran, even in Sassanian times. I have Sassanian coins that are over 600 years old that say "King of kings, Iran." The dispute article says that before 1935 "Persia" was the "official" term in western countries, but gives no reference from that period. Sure, Englishmen back then probably called Iran "Persia", but that's probably due to their classical education and their knowledge of the ancient Greek-Persian wars. Those particular ancient Iranians were ethnically Persian. However, there are a great many other ethnic groups (and languages) in Iran besides the Persians. It's a bit culturally biased from the perspective of many Iranians. It's a bit like the American Amish people calling outsiders "The English." The truth is all of the people in Iran in the 19th century would have called the country "Iran", not Persia. The term Persia is too geographically specific. In a sense, Bábism started geographically in "Persia" (Pars/Fars), but the Báb was ethnically Arab (a descendent of Muhammad), while Baha'u'llah was from Mazandaran (Tabaristan), but was ethnically Persian (he was a direct descendent of Sassanian kings). -- Parsa 00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The two written languages that the Baha'i faith was founded in are Arabic and Farsi. Neither of these languages are specifically confined to one country. Arabic had its origins 1400 years ago in written form and Farsi is a language that relates to Persian identity. I do not know the nationality of the first Baha'i to walk on the moon, if it has yet happened, but the language may be the universal auxilary language, agreed to by all the world's governments and taught in all the world's schools, so I understand your point in asking the question. RoddyYoung 10:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo not loading properly

Is anyone else having a problem with the second image on the page, the close-up of the Wilmette temple? I've tried it on multiple computers, and it doesn't load completely (leaving an empty white space where the bottom fifth of the image should be). --Twilightsojourn 06:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia (the software that deals with Wikipedia) is having problems with thumbnails currently. They are working on it. I can fix the problem by changing the size to 199px from 200px. -- Jeff3000 14:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a surprise, edition 492

I see Cunado19 has taken the occasion of commemoration of the Birth of Baha'u'llah to remove a link with pointed criticism of the Baha'i administration (yet AGAIN!) from this high-traffic article and drop it into the Baha'i Apologetics article (where it will receive an order or two of magnitude less attention, particularly from non-Baha'is).

It appears to me that perhaps Cunado does not want potential converts to find out anything about how the Baha'i administration actually controls the community.

Wikipedia is not brochureware for religious authorities and their fellow-travellers to quietly "disappear" inconvenient truths into oblivion.

I'm putting back the link to the Cole's research paper. Sdaconsulting 18:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See this edit by User:Aaron Brenneman, an administrator for the English Wikipedia. People were piling up websites in the external links over time and he reduced them down to two links, citing Wikipedia:External links, which indicates that sites should not be linked if promotional (or likewise dissuasive), should not contain "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research", should be relevant to the article, and so on. Any Baha'i links associated with a particular country or demographic were also removed.

Your addition of Juan Cole's article does not even come close to meeting the standards for inclusion, and I was just humoring you by not moving it before. It is dissuasive, full of factual errors, cites his personal unverifiable experience as a representation of the entire Baha'i community with no research whatsoever, is limited to criticism of only the United States, and was torn apart by two other Baha'i reviewers here and here. Cole is obviously not an objective observer commenting on the community, and is on a personal crusade to defame Baha'is in the US because they rejected his radical views (which contradicted Baha'u'llah) and gave him the boot. Thanks to his extra-curricular antics in politics he was named as one of the most biased professors in America[4]. He also thinks Jews control the US and the world through "sneaky methods of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of intelligence".[5] Maybe you'll have better luck adding one of his articles to the Zionism page.

By the way, I didn't realize it was Baha'u'llah's birthday when I removed it. Cuñado - Talk 18:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Houri

• Out of curiosity, I ventured over to this article and saw that the Baha'i reference was replaced. I no longer monitor religion-related articles (other than various angels, and that is purely from the perpsective of a storywriter), so could someone take a look at that and see if it merits inclusion? I'm a little concerned that an unofficial translation of a tablet by Bahá'u'lláh is used as a source. Danny Lilithborne 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Farsi Wikipedia Main Page Article

The Farsi Wikipedia website has the Baha'i Faith as the Main Page article. Unfortunately it's a poor article citing non-Baha'i sources, and evidently written by a non-Baha'i. The photo of Baha'u'llah is at the top of the page. According to my wife, the discussion seems to be between non-Baha'is, with a lot of biased (read: bigotted) comments. Several non-Baha'i Iranians are defending the Baha'is and the Faith. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it's unfortunate that an article considered non-neutral should be right up on the front page of a Wikipedia site. -- Parsa 03:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:( --dragfyre 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's unfortunate. What's more disturbing is that I'm not surprised. It is, however, quite noble of those editors who are not Baha'i who are trying to keep it neutral. -- Jeff3000 03:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we have Iranian Baha'i editors around that could work on the page? Why is the Arabic page a featured article while the Iranian page is neglected? The bahai.org link is about the 4th or 5th one down instead of the first. I suspect the others are anti-Baha'i sites. -- Parsa 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)