Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Biographies

Section on Abdu'l-Baha

I have changed some elements of the section on 'Abdu'l-Baha that were added by Amir. Others I have incorporated in the article slightly higher up. In particular I have removed the polemical statements about whom 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi expelled, since these state strong opinions that cannot meet the Wikipedia criterion of a neutral point of view, and are not completely accurate. 'Abdu'l-Baha did not excommunicate all the members of Baha'u'llah's family; he expelled Mirza Muhammad-Ali. 'Abdu'l-Baha's position on this is recorded in his Will and Testament, which can be found here: [1]. If one is looking to find edicts of 'Abdu'l-Baha that expel from the Baha'i Faith by name the many people that this contributor is claiming, they will not find them.

Also, there is no indication that this expulsion "turned out to hurt the entire Bahai movement in a much greater dimension." If that was the case, one would expect its effect to be seen. However, despite internal opposition and external attacks, the growth of the Baha'i Faith only increased. The statement made in the article is an unsupported opinion only.

There is no shortage of published material available on this aspect of the Baha'i Faith, but to include it both out of context and as such a large element of a very small section about 'Abdu'l-Baha has the effect of distorting the history of the Baha'i Faith for the audience of the Wikipedia. If the contributor is able to incorporate this information in a way that is balanced, that conveys accurately the intricacies of the issue at hand and at a scale that does not distort the article, then I am sure no one here would oppose his posting this material here in the talk page so that we can discuss it and come to some general agreement, in the spirit in which the Wikipedia is meant to operate.

Furthermore, I cannot find any source for the comment that Shoghi Effendi expelled Diya Khanum, his mother, from the Faith. If this is the case, no doubt there will be decisive documentary evidence provided by the contributor.

Wives and children of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha

Recent additions have included paragraphs concerning the wives and children of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. I find that these paragraphs do not fit in very well in an article about the Baha'i Faith, which to me should be more focused on the religion. Inserting paragraphs about the wives and children of Baha'u'llah seem to detract from this purpose. Perhaps these paragraphs are better suited to the pages of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha respectively. I have not, as yet, removed these paragraphs, because I want to see what others think. So, what are your thoughts? --oazizi

I have moved the details on marriages to the Baha'u'llah article and made some adjustments, but you are right that they do not really fit here, with the way the article is currently written. However, to remove it completely would contravene some principles of Wikipedia, so I have tried to place it in as appropriate a context as I can, but the real solution is to expand the articles so they do have an appropriate place. I will work on that a bit, since the Baha'u'llah article, for example, doesn't yet have the scope to properly accommodate such information, and it should. --Jmenon 07:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article contained two separate sections on Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha, and I contributed one small paragraph to each section about the lives of these two individuals. My contributions were factual, academically correct, and worthy of any encyclopedia article on this subject. If you have objections to my English, feel free to improve it, in fact I will appreciate it. But do not try to manipulate the article cunningly in that process to favour a certain perspective. --Amir 11:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

no one (maybe you) is trying to manipulate the article, the article is about the RELIGION not the individuals, as such, details as "wifes" and "marriages" should be in their respective articles of the individuals not in the religion article since they have to relevance. just because something you write may be factual, it can still be removed if its inrelevant/unnecessary to the current article and as a more suitable place to be (such is the case).

i will rv again, and please please do not revert again until this is discussed here WITH consesus achieved. - --Cyprus2k1 11:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am restoring it. You cannot just delete correct information out of articles just because YOU don't approve of them. This is a wikipedia article about the Bahai Faith, the article already contained sub-sections about bahaullah and abdul-baha, and i simply added some correct and useful (maybe not useful to you) information to those sections. You have no right to just decide on your own that you want to remove them. If you cannot respect wikipedia's stated policies, please feel free to go somewhere else. If you have decided to use wikipedia, please first read the stated policies of wikipedia, and then abide by those rules, otherwise, it will be a chaos here. --Amir 11:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yes of course, and you can put information because YOU aprove it? :)

im sorry but, you just arent being constructive. reasons(oazizi,Jmenon,Cyprus2k1) have been given, and you just seem ignore them and keep saying the same thing.

i was kindly asking you not to revert again until a consesus could be reached, i will not follow your example and revert it again, instead i will wait that you discuss with something constructive... (besides, i have to go study calculus ;) ) --Cyprus2k1 11:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amir, I do not object to the content of your additions (for the most part, anyways). Its seems from an encyclopedic point of view, however, that these facts should be listed under the articles of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. For example, the wikipedia page for Islam does not mention anything of the wives of Muhammad. The facts related to Muhammad's family are contained within the Muhammad article. That is the sort of organization that makes sense, and should be followed in this article as well. I am not suggesting the information you have added to be thrown away, just to be organized into the appropriate article. --oazizi

I think a brief mention of their family and marital status is well placed. Why would you want to exclude the women and the significant role they played in the lives of these Bahai leaders? The article already has separate sections for biographical synonpsis of their lives, what's a few additional lines to mention their wives as well? I am sure our Bahai friends would not appreciate the exclusion of the wives of these two Bahai leaders as the Bahais take pride in equality of men and women in their faith. I also think perhaps a mention of Shoghi is also not a bad idea. Why is he not included? --Amir 02:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A summary of other religious pages and how they deal with their history and specifically the history of personnages.

Hinduism: No history, no history of the founder

Zoroastrianism: History of where it was spread and how it declined. No history of the founder.

Islam: just pointers to the History of Islam and Muhammad, brief mention of Islam today.

Christianity: Link to History of Christianity and Jesus and then briefly (one paragraph) talks about who Jesus was (stating he was a descendent of Judah) and how he was persecuted. No mention of His mother Mary.

Buddhism: Large section on the Life of the Buddha (4 large paragraphs), one mention of his family "He decided to abandon his worldly life, leaving behind his wife and child"

Judaism: Gives history from Jacob to Moses to Samuel to David to Solomon. No mention of their family.

Given these standards it seems that the history of the faiths and their personages have generally been limited in the religion's main page and abrogated to other articles, and where there is history it is usually very limited. Thus that would point to limiting and possibly even removing the history of the Baha'i Faith from it's main page. What do other people who are not already involved in this discussion think? -- Jeff3000 03:10, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

It depends on the length of the article. I am guessing that the historical part of Islam was hived off because that article got long. I noticed just now that this article is getting long (the 35k warning came up when I took Baha'u'llah's picture out), so if someone wants to do the work of refactoring it, maybe the details of the Baha'i history could be made into a seperate article too. -- PaulHammond 20:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

A fresh perspective

As an outsider who has no bias, and someone familiar with Wikipedia's dispute resolution, I was asked to take a look at this dispute. I looked at this page diff. It seems to me that the only substantial differences here are:

Whether or not to say if Bahá'u'lláh is from Persia. That sentence (as it exists in the diff) was particularly clunky, so I rephrased it without changing it in any substantial way. I don't think it's a big deal whether or not to mention his nationality, but if I had to pick I'd say that it's better to err on the informative side.
Bahá'u'lláh's wives and children - since this paragraph makes no mention of the religion itself (it's wholly biographical) it should be in article on the man rather than the faith. I recommend taking it out.
I do agree with Amir that the information about the excommunications belongs here, since it apparently did impact the religion. However, I think you need to cite a source on this before you can make the claim - preferably quoting a reputable source. →Raul654 04:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no hard evidence (e.g., paper document) which shows that Shoghi excommunicated his own parents. He certainly did excommunicate all his siblings and their families (in most cases, because they married, or remained married to, Covenant Breakers). However, as in Bahai religion consent of parents is required for marriage, how could they have married Covenant Breakers without their parents' (which would also be Shoghi's own parents) consent? Therefore, logical conclusion is that Shoghi did also excommunicate his own parents, without leaving hard evidence. Regarding his excommunicating his own siblings, I don't think any Bahai would dispute that claim. --Amir 06:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I've just read a paragraph that claims Abdu'l Baha excommunicated all his siblings, which then gets into a whole lot of non-NPOV stuff that tries to make him out to be a pretender making a power grab (which is what Muhammad Ali, who incidentally was named by Baha'u'llah as AB's successor, was claiming back in 1910ish). In fact, Ali attempted to get him killed when he was in dangerous situations just before the Young Turks released him. Sure, there can be a controversy over whose interpretation of the facts during these troubles was right, but I don't think the casual encyclopedia reader is that bothered about the details of the leadership controversies of the past when they have only just heard the name Abdu'l Baha. Right now, this section reads like what it is, a piece with controversial sentences levered into it by someone who wants to argue with the mainstream Baha'i interpretation of their own history. not the kind of thing people should expect to see in a Wikipedia featured article. PaulHammond 20:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Finally someones said it... -- Tomhab 20:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ahem - Wikipedia:Cite sources. →Raul654 07:26, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Could one solutions merely be that a bit more explanation be made? Why they were excommunicated etc. That way it remains factual - they were excommunicated for a reason (which I won't go into in case I get my facts wrong :D).

Personally I don't think that any of Amirs comments are actually wrong and and I do feel a bit about the excommunication have a place in a section about the history of the faith, but I reckon the entire history section should be gutted and made be an article in itself. Someone wanting to know what Baha'is are all about doesn't need all this. Perhaps a mention about starting in 1863 in Persia in he first paragraph. Just an opinion heh. -- Tomhab 21:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right Tomhab, a seperate section on the history of the Baha'i Faith is probably the right way to given that the article is already larger than 32kB. Once I have the time, I'll take it out, if no one objects. -- Fadeaway919 22:04, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've just added a few small edits (that will clear up a few things) and grammar and semantic fixes which I hope no-one will argue with. In my opinion they don't remove emphasis from any parts of the sentences. I can see its a bit of a contentious paragraph so if you do have a problem with the small edits part could you leave the grammar bits in at least! -- Tomhab 15:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Translating Baha'u'llah

I have noticed that the translation of Baha'u'llah has been changed from "Glory of God" to "Glory of Allah". I have done some limited searching and it seems to me that Allah is just just the Arabic word for God. See, for example, the comments in the following: http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=71. I also came across other websites stating the same thing, so I hope it is true. Since the purpose of the sentence is to translate the term "Baha'u'llah" to an English audience, I will change the translation back to "Glory of God". - Oazizi

I concur with Oazizi. "Baha'u'llah", in Arabic, means "Baha'u'llah". In English, it means the Glory of God, or if you like, the Glory of the Lord. This is common knowledge, so I am surprised as to why this was changed. I have also removed the Persian reference to Baha'u'llah in the first paragraph since there is scarcely a paragraph in the whole history section of the article that does not mention it, and it makes the article seem repetitive and badly written. The Baha'is of Persian descent are today a minority in the Faith, approximately 5%, although deeply revered, loved, and respected. Out of about 7 million Baha'is worldwide, there are only about 300,000 Baha'is in Iran. Overall, the largest community, in India, is of primarily Hindu background, and the next largest communities are in sub-Saharan Africa and South America. --Jmenon 04:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jmenon, you can '''concur''' with our now anonymous friend all you want. Wikipedia is not a Bahai Faith promotional pamphlet. The articles here should be like encycolopedia articles, not written from the point of view of any particular groups, faith, party, etc. Also, I don't know how much you are familiar with Arabic, I guess not much since you translated Baha'u'llah as "The Glory of God", there is no "The", that would have been "Al-Baha'u'llah" .. but anyway, it is Allah, and any English dictionary contains Allah. For your information, in the Bahai Faith the proper salutation is "Allah-u Abha". The word they use, and this has even been emphasized in Bahaullah's writing is "Allah". Even in Persian language, in which the word for God is not "Allah", the Bahais use the word "Allah". Let's be honest, the only reason "Allah" is being removed from this translation here, is because these days "Allah" is less marketable than "God"!! hehe amazing how brilliant some people are!! :-) --Amir 11:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Allah" is the arabic word for God, therefore the correct translation of "Baha'u'llah" is "Glory of God". - --Cyprus2k1 11:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amir, I agree with you that Wikipedia is not to be a Bahai Faith promotional pamphlet. The articles should indeed be like encyclopedia articles. Further, it is true that Allah is a tricky word to translate (like you say, it is in the English dictionary). Having said that, I still honestly believe the proper translation for this article is God. Being a Persian, I can say with no hesitation that when Baha'is speak to one another in Persian, they refer to God as "Khoda", the Persian word for God; they do not use the Arabic word for God as you suggest. Similiarly, in English, Baha'is use the word God. It is for these reasons that I believe the correct translation is "Glory of God". - Oazizi

Agree with other comments here. "Allah" is arabic for "God". "Allah" is not an English word, it is just a word that is now widely understood by English speakers because of their exposure to muslims and Arabic in history. "Glory of God" is the correct translation. PaulHammond 20:03, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Reference removed to Baha'u'llah as "prophet-founder" of the religion

Raul654 made an adjustment to the first paragraph that omits the mention that Baha'u'llah is the prophet-founder of the Baha'i Faith, stating only that he is a Persian whose name means the Glory of God. Was there a reason for that omission, or is it an oversight? If the former, could you please explain? If the latter, then may I propose the following wording:

"The Baha'i Faith is a monotheistic religion whose members follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah (1817-1892), the faith's prophet-founder. Born Mirzá Husayn-Ali, into a family of Persian nobility in Tehran, his name is Arabic for "the Glory of God."

Could everyone please comment. Thanks. --Jmenon 01:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reference to him as the religion's founder was removed (incorrectly, in my opinion) serveral days ago. I have remedied it. →Raul654 03:01, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sanctioning the removal, but... I thought general consensus was that Baha'is don't see Baha'u'llah as a Prophet, because he didn't prophesise or something along those lines? Maybe all those years of Bahai class are failing me, but isn't there a distinction between prophets and Manifestations of God?

oh and as for the founder bit - yeah no reason to change that. Tomhab 15:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In Baha'i literature there is a difference among prophets and Manifestations of God. Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, Moses, Krishna, and some others who are not in history books, due to the amount of history the world contains, are Manifestations of God, and prophets, for example, are prophets of the Old Testament (not including Moses), among others. The word prophet outside of Baha'i literature however, I feel, represents both the Baha'i idea of prophet and the Baha'i idea of Manifestation of God. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be for the general populace, I think the word prophet is correct. -- Fadeaway919 22:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. "Prophet" is a good shorthand for what Baha'is mean by "Manifestation". The general reader wouldn't understand "Manifestation" without explanation. Baha'is definitely think of Baha'u'llah as a prophet... -- PaulHammond 20:11, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

three wives (concurrently)

OK, OK, I can see this is going to get dodgey. Is there some way we can agree on making sure it doesn't imply he was married to one wife at once without whilst keeping it neutral. I was under the impression that saying "He had three wives" would be enough (if someones divorced you'd say they were "married three times"), and seemed to me that adding "(concurrently)" was unneccessary but I guess not... How about one of these:

According to Islamic tradition and before the Bahá'í faith came into being and introduced a ban on polygamy he had three wives
According to Islamic tradition he had three wives

I reckon they're both neutral, factual and don't sound like they're trying to credit nor discredit the guy. Personally I prefer the second as it flows better but comments are welcome. If no-one complains I'll change it in a couple of days. Please submit an alternative if you do though.

Oh and cheers for the 14->7 mistake -- Tomhab 20:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When he married his third wife, one of his house maids, a young girl who was the personal maid of his first wife, he was not a Muslim, he was a Babi, and according to his own claim, some 10 years before that time, he was already "inspired" by God of his new mission (implying that he was already a Bahai, waiting to declare his "mission" to the world soon.) To say that his three concurrent wives was just "normal Islamic practice" would be dishonest. Martin2000 20:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

btw - the claim that he had three wives is controversial. He had two, and the status the the third is disputed. I've also heard stuff about another alleged wife, Navvab, but information on her seems to be sketchy indeed. If we are going to put this stuff in at all, we need better research on it. Two wives was the rule that Baha'u'llah gave for his followers. Abdu'l Baha later interpreted this law such that Baha'is can only marry one wife. (Marrying two was meant to depends on being able to treat them equitably. Abdu'l Baha ruled that this was an impossible condition for any normal human being to meet) PaulHammond 21:05, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not mixing up with his first wife Assieh Navab? -- Tomhab 21:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. i couldn't recall if Navvab was the first wife, or the mysterious fourth. Thanks for the correction. Whatever the case, more and attributed research needs doing, and probably it would best for all this stuff to go into a new "History" article. PaulHammond 21:48, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Baha'u'llah did indeed had three wives. I don't disagree with that. The point of this discussion is that should this information be in an article on the Baha'i Faith or Baha'u'llah (it's already in Baha'u'llah). As indicated above in the talk page, all other religious pages do not talk much about the history of their founder (especially with regards to family), and instead take it to the other pages (i.e. History of Christianity). Also for example, the the marriages of Muhammad have their own page. -- Jeff3000 21:16, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking more about keeping it neutral and factual. Don't forget that Babis are an Islamic movement not even 20 years old so talking about Islamic tradition covering it would be fair. And he didn't introduce the Bahai law for 10 years. Also as for "Normal islamic practice" the current version implies it isn't normal for a nobleman to have more than one wife. Just trying to keep it fair and neutral. If you still have a problem please submit an alternative. -- Tomhab 21:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant "not even 200 years old" here! PaulHammond 21:48, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

My point was between 1844 and his third marriage was less than 20 years. He was born a Muslim in a Muslim country, was a member of an Islamic movement/sect so I think saying that he is covered by Islamic law is fair. -- Tomhab 21:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is pure BS. He was a Babi long before he even left Persia. In Babism only two wives are allowed. He married his third wife (a very young maid of his first wife) in Baghdad. out of his three wives, only the first one is from the time when he was a Muslim. The second one was after he had become a Babist in Iran, and the third one in Baghdad. At the time he took his third wife, he was still officially a Babi, but according to his own claims, in his heart, he was already inspired by God about his new "mission" long ago, while he was in a dungeon in Tehran! Martin2000 22:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just removed my edit here as I've just realised it was unneccessary flippant and counter-productive. Sorry -- Tomhab 23:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Martin. If you can write a well-sourced paragraph discussing the history of Baha'u'llah's marriages, and the children who resulted from them, that strikes most people as being written from a neutral point of view, then I'm sure we can find a good home for it, either here, at Baha'u'llah, or in the putative "History of the Baha'i Faith" article. Can you do that?

Your edit history strongly suggests to me that you would be incapable of writing such a solidly-researched, unbiased paragraph. PaulHammond 02:14, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Biographical articles/details

I had thought someone was removing the details and controversies around each central figure into the biography pages. Right now, it looks like someone has put the links in at the top of each section, but that there is still the same amount of detail here as ever there was. - PaulHammond 12:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

an anon user putted it back, and calls anyone who removes it a "bahai bigot" ;) - --Cyprus2k1 13:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was me who put the links up to "gently" encourage people to move biographic stuff to where it belongs or - at least - to stop people adding stuff all the time so that we re-hash everything twice or thrice on several pages. This is standard practice across Wikipedia. The trouble obviously is to cut stuff so much down to leave it meaningful without glossing things. Refdoc 13:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So, basically the information has been copied, but the attempt to abbreviate these sections has not been made yet? I'll have a go at it myself sometime then, maybe. -- PaulHammond 15:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Should the paragraph of Baha'u'llah (and `Abdu'l-Bahá) wives be on this page

i had removed the paragraphs based on lack of response on [[Talk:Bah%E1%27%ED_Faith#Changes_based_from_comments_from_Neutral_Observer]], some anonymous users kept putting it back despite appeals to comment on the same talk section (and as "punishment" the photo of Baha´u´llah was added too..). i think a vote here could settle this and leave to room to doubt - --Cyprus2k1 08:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no way voting is bad try and settle by disscussion firstGeni 10:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you've got to love the politics of this all... -- Tomhab 10:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

wikipolitics does seem to be a little overcomplex but it is simple enough if you are prepared spend hours on it. Surfice to say right now would really be a bad time to hold another voteGeni 17:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Geni, i did try, the only thing i got was flamming calling me a "bahai bigot" - --Cyprus2k1 12:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

lets try again. Can anyone think of a reason why that paragraph should be in the article. It really doesn't seem to be part of the flow.Geni 17:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that this article is about "What it is to be a Baha'i" (this would be in line with Christianity and Islam). Although there should be a mention of the key figures, I'd quite like to keep it to a single paragraph or at most two. There are detailed articles on all the figures and a whole article dedicated to Baha'u'llah's family, so not strictly necessary to go into detail here. -- Tomhab 18:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK family link should work now?? -- Tomhab 18:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)