Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:05, 10 March 2005

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles.

Discussions from this page are archived under the following headings

• /Biographies for discussion of material relating to the history of Baha'i figures
• /Picture discussion of the display of Baha'u'llah's photograph
• /Request for Comment discussion generated by a recent RfC
• /archive3 for other non-current discussions from this page

There are also two older archives at archive1 and archive2

Baha'i censorship/literary review

As a way of getting a consensus how about we lay down some facts which we need to put in the article. Feel free to edit this and add your own comments. Once we have a list of things we know to be true that need to go in, all we need to do is put the NPOV padding around it.

• Introduced by the Guardian.
• From a neutral website:

The Bahá'í authorities impose prepublication censorship on all material written by members about the Faith. All such material must first be scanned by a review committee of the Bahá'í National Spiritual Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published. This was a temporary policy introduced many decades ago, which is still in force.

• The same site claims that the closing of the Talisman listserv is not conclusively attributed to the Baha'i World Center, however an investigation was under way.
• For obvious reasons, non-Baha'is are exempt from this censorship.
• In the US a series of scholars became disillusioned and left the faith following the Universal House of Justice's refusal to remove the review process. For everyone's reference this includes Juan Cole. I'm pretty certain none were labeled covenant breakers.
• Here is a guideline provided by the House of Justice:

The standards to be upheld by reviewers are the following: (a) conformity with the Teachings, (b) accuracy, (c) dignity in presentation. Taken from a here. The article is written by the present day secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of the UK.

Again, try and keep it based on facts. We want both sides of the argument. Misplaced Pages is neither a judge nor a jury, but is to present the facts. I suggest we leave the paragraph for a few days for people to add comments here until we can build a better paragraph for it. -- Tomhab 14:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add my comments below

• Introduced by the Guardian.

We need dating and a quote for this. "Shoghi Effendi stated in a letter of (year) that: quote establishing review" PaulHammond 16:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

• From a neutral website:

The Bahá'í authorities impose prepublication censorship on all material written by members about the Faith. All such material must first be scanned by a review committee of the Bahá'í National Spiritual Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published. This was a temporary policy introduced many decades ago, which is still in force.

Sounds good to me. PaulHammond 16:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

• The same site claims that the closing of the Talisman listserv is not conclusively attributed to the Baha'i World Center, however an investigation was under way.

• For obvious reasons, non-Baha'is are exempt from this censorship.

• In the US a series of scholars became disillusioned and left the faith following the Universal House of Justice's refusal to remove the review process. For everyone's reference this includes Juan Cole. I'm pretty certain none were labeled covenant breakers.

I know for a fact that Dr Cole was never declared a Covenant Breaker. Basically, that status only goes to descendents and supporters of the Remeyite groups. PaulHammond 16:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Here is a guideline provided by the House of Justice:

The standards to be upheld by reviewers are the following: (a) conformity with the Teachings, (b) accuracy, (c) dignity in presentation. Taken from a here. The article is written by the present day secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of the UK.

this is what i wrote that martin reverted (no reasons given):

" In order to have some Official "Accreditation", books published by Bahai´s on the Baha´i Faith are required to go through a literary revision process that verifies the correctness of the references and if the views expressed are in accordance to baha´i doctrine. This process was created by Shoghi Effendi as a form of protection from misinformation, this has however lend some Baha´i scholars to leave the Baha´i Faith, acussing the Baha´i Administration of Censorship. "

please give yours suggestions/opinions on what you may see wrong with this and that may be improved

i had changed the title from "Bahai Administration and censorship" to "Bahai Literary Revision" since its more neutral and more in accordance to what is done.

On the "entry by troops" section, what is wrong with changing from "Faith of Bahá'u'lláh" to "Baha´i Faith"??

also, the phrase "Although most non-Bahais, and probably even most reasonable Bahais, " clearly looks POV, and the rest of the paragraph just doesnt seem to make sense. should we remove it or write it in a more clear way?

Thanks :) - --Cyprus2k1 17:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes you'll never win though I guess, but it is a bit of a textbook Baha'i response :). Although I don't have as much problem with it as most, I think generally a lot of people (ie - the neutral point of view) would find this as censorship so this should be reasonably prominent. By the way I might be wrong in thats its not a "Literary review" - its just "the review process" or the "Baha'i studies review" process. Mixing it up with my dissertation where a literary review is when you review other related literature on the topic - Sorry!

If I were to write it I guess it would be a little like:

Title: Baha'i Studies Review process and censorship

The Bahá'í administration impose prepublication censorship called the "Baha'i Studies Review Process" on all material written by members about the Faith on the topic. All such material must first be scanned by a review committee of the Bahá'í National Spiritual Assembly of the country in which the text is to be published for:

• Conformity with the Baha'i writings
• Accuracy
• Dignity in presentation

This was a temporary policy introduced many decades ago by Shoghi Effendi, but is still in force. Although Baha'is defend this as a way of protecting the young religion from misinformation, some this has led to some Baha'is being disillusioned and leaving the Faith citing it restricts their freedom of speech.

I think that puts the right emphasis and put in a bit of a defense for the Baha'is. Input welcome. -- Tomhab 21:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tom, I don't like the word "censorship" in an encyclopedia article. It sounds too negative. Yes, it's a horrible policy. Yes, its insensitive application has caused prominent academic former-Baha'is to leave the faith. But it's not like what used to go on in Soviet Russia, where people who published things the authorities didn't like were sent to prison/psychiatric wards. -- PaulHammond 17:37, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed that the word "censorship" appeared in the neutral source you were quoting, and you have basically quoted that along with working in what the Baha'i guidelines on review say. I think the result is quite balanced, so the paragraph as you suggest is fine, but the section heading should be something like "Baha'i prepublication review", or, if there are any details about how this policy affected academics like Denis MacEoin and Juan Cole, the title could be "Baha'i prepublication review controversy". Also, there should be a link to your source after you quote it. - PaulHammond 19:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The section "Restrictions on freedom in the Bahá'í community" refers to "certain limitations on personal freedom in the Bahá'í community" without being specific. It refers only to prepublication review and inappropriate debate on listservs. These relate to publishing only. Baha'is who do not publish--and that is the vastest majority--are not restricted. What we non-publishers have to do is merely practice healthy self-discipline. For example, I try not to make unsubstantiated claims on Misplaced Pages, but that is not a restriction of my freedom. The "Restrictions on freedom in the Bahá'í community" heading and the first sentance are therefore grossly misleading. I therefore consider that (1) the title should be "Prepublication Restrictions in the Baha'i Community", (2) that the first sentence should refer only to publishing, and (3) "For example" should be deleted. I altered and tidied up the paragraph earlier but 163.17.101.125 (from Taiwan?) changed it without explanation apart from saying it was 100% correct and that I'm a bigot...well that's a first! The Jargon File defines Bigot as A person who is religiously attached to a particular computer, language, operating system, editor, or other tool..., which I find reassuring to some extent. --Occamy 19:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There have not been any dissenting opinions to what I wrote above, i.e. that the restriction is on publishing and not otherwise. The title is therefore misleading by referring to "Restrictions on freedom in the Bahá'í community". It should read " Publishing Restrictions in the Bahá'í Community". Occamy 11:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not want to engage in Wiki ping pong with Martin2000 over "Restrictions on Publishing in the Bahá'í Community" section. He wants the title to be "Restrictions on Freedom in the Bahá'í Community" but refers to no personal restrictions except for speaking with Covenant-breakers, and that subject is covered amply in the Laws section lower in the article...In addition to observing religious laws (see below)... Being declared a Covenant-breaker is similar to Cherem in Judaism, Excommunication in Christianity and Takfir in Islamic law, so this is not unique to the Bahá'í Faith such that it needs to be amplified in this section. Therefore, by removing the superfluous Covenant-breaking issue, the only issue being dealt with is pre-publication review and publishing on the internet. These are not restrictions on personal freedom. Also the statement "Such restrictions can be seen as..." is literally POV. The situation is clarified by reference to "Opponents of the Bahá'í administration...." It is for this reason that I am insisting on the unambiguous NPOV "Restrictions on Publishing..." references. Occamy 20:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted Martin2000's reversion but have added a paragraph about the restriction of not being permitted to associate with Covenant-breakers, as a compromise; it looks odd but.... The point is that all laws are restrictions on personal freedom, and this article is not the place to discuss whether laws are needed or not; that anarchist philosophy is likely discussed elsewhere in Wiki. Therefore restrictions on publishing freedom should either be presented in a separate section--as it is now--or be discussed under the Other Laws and Ordinances section.

Putting things in perspective, the Restriction on Publishing Section should be presented after Other Laws and Ordinances, which itself needs tidying up as a major section on its own. Occamy 09:36, 8 Mar 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Covenant of Baha'u'llah and division

Hi - I took out "according to Baha'i sources" from Abdu'l Baha, and put the ref back behind "Baha'u'llah appointed...". Mirza Muhammad Ali (AB's half brother) did criticize AB's leadership, and tried to usurp his position, but if we are going to talk about this, I think it needs a paragraph in "Covenant and division" after the mention of Subh-i-Azal, not something this oblique. Haven't put this in yet, since the article is long and will need some work on other sections too once we have settled where all the critical comments are going to live in the end. How much about Mirza Muhammad Ali is there at `Abdu'l-Bahá already? PaulHammond 16:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

And why does `Abdu'l-Bahá have a dash in his name? PaulHammond

Sorry to be obstructive here, but I think this should not be taken out. The half brother "tried to usurp" is alrady POV, implying he had no right to that position. He probably thought otherwise - otherwise he would not have tried - unless of course you can give evidence that he knew he was not supposed to but decided to give it a go anyway. I do not suggest that we go into a major discussion who waa sright here or not, but either teh Acc Bahai sources go in - or and probably better - we report simply the fact of his succession - without commenting on legitimacy or otherwise and leave this debate to teh article on the man himself. Refdoc 17:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well , he was apointed to that position by Baha´u´llah himself (in his testament i think?), so isnt it POV to say "Baha'u'llah appointed..." ? - --Cyprus2k1 21:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is the text of Baha'u'llah appointing Abdu'l-Baha:

The Will of the divine Testator is this: It is incumbent upon the Aghsan, the Afnan and My Kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch. Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: 'When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root.' The object of this sacred verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch . Thus have We graciously revealed unto you Our potent Will, and I am verily the Gracious, the All-Powerful. Verily God hath ordained the station of the Greater Branch to be beneath that of the Most Great Branch . He is in truth the Ordainer, the All-Wise. We have chosen 'the Greater' after 'the Most Great', as decreed by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Informed. (Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 221) --Occamy 22:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does it make sense to add the specific texts to the article that pass authority to Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice, i.e. the Covenant? --Occamy 06:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No it does not. This page is not about the jsutification of succession, but about the Bahai faith. If I as an outsider read it I do not want to know how various middle eastern princelings justified their succession or competing claims, but I want to know waht Bahai faith is about(World peace and the lot) . We do link to the Orthodox Bahais, We do explain in a short sentence each time that this succession did not go completely unchallenged, but that the majority followed the main man. An dthat should be enough. More on the biographgical pages.

Then we have a section on the convenant itself and there we explain why it is an important thing and how it works and how it is justified. We explain the gist and leave plenty of references for the interested reader. My 2p Refdoc 08:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - are you British, Refdoc? (2p?) As I understand it, Baha'u'llah's Will and Testament appointed Abdu'l Baha as his successor, and Mirza Muhammad Ali as the leader of the faith after Abdu'l Baha. About half of Abdu'l Baha's Will and Testament was all about justifying to the Baha'is why it was necessary that he change the order of succession to Shoghi Effendi, and make a new post, the Guardian. (It's fairly obvious - instead of supporting Abdu'l Baha, Ali had acted to undermine him at every turn, making trouble for him with the Ottoman authorities, and IIRC attempt to poison him. To me, the question then becomes why didn't Baha'u'llah realize this was likely to happen?). But, the order of succession was clear in Baha'u'llah's Will. - PaulHammond 12:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale Cull

I am somewhat fed up with the dublication of effort both on this page and on the biographical pages. Every addition will only lead to further additions here and on the biographical pages. At the same time we get all the time the warning that the page is too long.

I have therefore conducted a wholesale cull, removed absolutely everything which is worth debating within the biographical sections and hope this will make the article more lightweight, allowing concentration on the doctrinal etc matters. Revert me if you are unhappy, but please do debate it. Refdoc 21:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the latest two edits, Amir has deleted substantial biographical parts referring to Baha'u’llah and Abdu'l-Baha, yet added back the paragraph on Baha'u'llah's wives. A rigorous and NPOV Baha'i Faith article requires biographical information, but only information that explains why the Baha'i Faith is what it is now. Using this clear--and belatedly obvious--criterion, (1) the wives entry becomes irrelevant and (2) too much about Abdu’l-Baha has been deleted because it no longer explains how the Baha’i Faith grew so fast in America and Europe. Comments please.--Occamy 06:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was not Amir who deleted stuff this time. It was me - as I explained - and i put it up for discussion. I thought carefully and still think the doubling up of information here and on the biographical pages invites to go overe every debate twice - how many wives did Baha'ullah have and was he justified to have them, why did Abdul Baha become successor and not his brother - are the scriptures given justifying this actually trustworthy etc etc etc. You see wo could go on and on and on. While I think this is good and worthy, it does not need to be done twice - here and on the individuals pages. It needs to be done once and thoroughly, while all other pages simply contain the barebones of these biographies and refer otherwise. I do see you point wrt growth in Europe etc, but again this is a point much larger than just Abdul'Baha's biography and needs to be dealt with explicitly. One needs to take into account the post war situation where a lot of people were disillusioned with traditional values etc, etc etc

Wrt Amir, I would simply ignore him. He is a law unto himself, does not discuss and certainly does not take anyone's views into account. I am not aware yet of him having actually made any worthwhile contribution on this page (or any other). Once he becomes bored he will stop and move on - or otherwise one can go down more formal routes - RfC, arbitration etc. Do after his 'edits' a diff and see whether he has added anyting useful otherwise continue editing on the page version just before his last edit. Refdoc 07:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh!! the reason you are unaware of any worthwhile contributions by me to this and Bahaullah articles, is because you are clueless on this subject -- otherwise, you would know that I have brought to light a number of very important issues and historical facts in these articles. In fact, it seems it is only me and occasionally other random users to bring "outsider" points of view (which are more often than not factual and researched) into the article, and the rest are just a bunch of Bahai zealots working in concert, who are interested in making a colourful, pretty pamphlet for religious promotional purposes out of this article. Oh, and of course, we also have you who is here for ... hmm ... not sure for what, for playing the role of class teacher, I guess. Have fun. --Amir 09:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

things to do:

*No personal attacks

*Concede a point, when you have no argument against it. Declare when your disagreement is based on intuition or taste.

*Work toward agreement

*Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party.

*Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.

- --Cyprus2k1 09:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great, I got you engaged in debate.... Now if you would move on and debate the issues you bring here on the places they belong - i.e. the biographical pages a lot would be gained Refdoc 09:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have brought issues on the bio page of bahaullah of course, but bahaullah and bahaism are not inseparable subjects. Therefore, some overlap of content between the two articles is normal, natural and even preferred. But I agree that the two articles should not be growing in parallel with excessive content overlap. --Amir 10:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree - some overlap is necessary. But I would suggest that any overlap resulting in major debate and major parallel growth is not necessary and not good, beyond a minimum note - e.g. "He published 1000 books pamplets and letters (for more information see...)" This makes it clear that the literary activity is crucial and important, but more is there to know - and then go into the full length and detail of the debate on the individual's page. Similarly I pressed for saying simply "Abdul Baha succeeded Baha'ullah" rather then debating the ins and outs of teh succession and the relevant Ketab-e Aqdas quotes as this would bulk up the page without any clear benefit, but then have a thorough discussion of claims and counter claims at the relevant biographical page. Refdoc 11:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "excommunication"

PaulHammond removed a sentence just now wrt Abdul'Baha removing as covenant breakers large parts of his father's family. This is a matter which - if substantiated is of major inmportance and should not be removed - particularly not without a suitable comment on the talk pages.

I am slowly despairing with this page - it appears that where one hole is not yet stitched up someone comes and tears the next one right next to it. And while my impression has been that while Amir has been largely responsible for a lot of the recent POV edits, unsubstantiated edits and pointless deletes marring this page, a number of other users do not seem to hesitate to take similar measures. Not good! Refdoc 12:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The whole question of Covenant, division, expulsion et al is both highly sensitive and highly complex. While the vastest majority accept the Baha'i Faith as it is, there have been a relatively few who have not accepted a change in authority to the new head of the faith. There were followers of Baha'u'llah who did not accept Abdu'l-Baha; those who did not accept Shoghi Effendi, and last, those who did not accept the Universal House of Justice. And there are many Muslims who interpret Muhammad's title of "Seal of the Prophets" to mean--in effect--that nobody could claim to be a fresh Manifestation of God, and that Baha'u'llah was an impostor. They can raise various issues that at first sight look negative: three wives, expulsions from the family and so on. It takes only a few words in the article to raise a dissenting claim or an attack, which usually requires a voluminous answer by way of background, context and scholarly comment.

This puts those wanting to maintain a NPOV in a dilemma: try to squeeze a long explanation into a relatively short article, or to delete or move the accusing passage elsewhere or into the Discussion page for further consideration. I too am disappointed that those wanting to present alternative POVs choose to rush them into the article without pror discussion, which can be frustrating.

Part of the solution will be a create an article that expands the Covenant of Baha'u'llah section, listing the specific texts that gave authority to the next head of the Baha'i Faith. --Occamy 14:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Refdoc, the point is that Abdu'l Baha certainly made Muhammad Ali a Covenant Breaker - but as to "all the other wives and all the rest of Baha'u'llah's children, and this fact is well known by all Baha'is" - that is just wrong. First, I thought we had got to the point that we were putting the detail into the biographies. Second, this needs substantiation. Third, I was sure this had been removed before. Fourth "and all the Baha'is know that their faith is a lie" is something only Amir believes. It needs to be encyclopedic language. PaulHammond 14:10, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, after spending an hour archiving this discussion page, I thought my edit summary "removing unsubstantiated NPOV assertion" covered it. PaulHammond 14:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Temple Photograph

The current photo of the Indian temple shows little more than an outline of an award-winning design. Can someone please replace it with an image that shows users what it really looks like? --Occamy 17:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I took this picture from a page on Bahai architecture here on Misplaced Pages. I simply attempted to replace like with like, but the page had plenty of other pictures, plenty nice ones. Have a look and replace. Why does it have to be Delhi? Refdoc 17:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dehli's is the most famous and spectacular Baha'i temple. Thinking about alternatives, maybe aside from the Shrine of the Bab, I can't think of anything else that would be so closely associated with the Baha'i Faith in the public mind as the Dehli temple. Occamy 22:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the one in Wilmette Illinois? Its a bit churchy, but people may find it interesting that theres a temple in the US (rather than the Baha'is being a "third world cult") -- Tomhab 23:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A photo of the Shrine of the Bab would be more meaningful. Meanwhile, this photo of the Indian temple is more interesting than the current strange one of red clouds. The copyright section on the source page is blank, so I don't know what would happen about a licence. Occamy 17:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In response to my inquiry if the images of Baha'i sites are licenced or copyrighted, the owner of the ] website writes "Ok for the use of the photos for your site. Thank you for your work for the open knowledge of human being. Eric Louvet". Is this sufficient to use some of the huge numbers of photos on in Misplaced Pages? Occamy 20:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geographic Extent

"The majority of Baha'is live in the "Thirld World" " actually, the majority of the world population lives in the Third World.... should this be here? - --Cyprus2k1 08:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

probably not, unless the proportion is much higher than expected. I woudl also struggle to call India a Third World country,nowadays. Refdoc 08:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am curious to know what is the source of this statistics? If it is the Baha'i headquarters, naturally, like all other religions and ideological organizations, they would have a tendency to overstate their membership. My own feeling is that the actual number of Baha'is in the world is probably about 50% of what the official Baha'i claim is. Martin2000 08:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As most countries do not register the religious affiliations of their citizens, and as some countries of those who register such data, deny the legality of conversion , e.g. Iran, it would be difficult to find alternative sources of numbers. Under these circumstances numbers provided by a religious body are as reliable as anything else floating about and simply need to be acknowldeged ("acc Bahai sources..."). Refdoc 09:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"...they simply need to be acknowldeged" -- is this a Misplaced Pages rule or are you stating your own opinion? Martin2000 09:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes and yes. Both my opinion and Misplaced Pages - assertions of facts need to be referenced. assertions of facts can be disputed and alternative assertions can be made with other references - common procedure. "Acc to Bahai sources there are x million worldwide including x thousand in Iran. The Iranian ministry for religious affairs denies this explaining there is anot a single Bahai living in Iran and the religion does not exist in the first palce but is a zionist conspiracy funded by the CIA") Two competing asertions of fact...

I just notice there has been a wholesale cull of this article recently. It seems you did it Doctor. Are you aware that this is breaking a Misplaced Pages rule? Did you discuss it first and then cull massively or you just decided to do it on your own? Martin2000 09:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no, yes and yes. I proposed it, Various bits of the "cull" were close to achieving consensus/had achieved consensus and I eventually implemented the lot in order to get an impression of how it would look like and how it would go down generally. I wrote a comment on the talk page advising people of my suggestion. And subsequently this did not break any Misplaced Pages rule but was simply "bold editing". None of the asserted facts were removed as they all form part of other related and linked in pages. Feel free to object to my proposals Refdoc 09:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

really, what is a "wholesale cull"? :) - --Cyprus2k1 09:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

btw, wikipedia "rule" (etiquette actually) : Dont flame..

A cull is a mass slaughter of e.g. a cattle herd in the face of a danger - e.g. an illness or risk of starvation. You kill many to ensure the survival of the herd. And Wholesale cull is the same a bit bigger.... :-)

The need for a "mass cull" in this text obviously was twofold - firstly continously dublication of discussion and secondly frequent messages form the software that the page is too big. So sometrhing had to go tto satsify the software and I do think dublicated stuff is the first to go. Refdoc 09:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000 suggests that the Baha'i administration's six million estimate of the number Baha'is is too high. It is likely to be broadly correct, and maybe a little conservative. Bear in mind that the number would include Baha'is who are no longer active in their local Baha'i community, which would be the same for statistics on all religious adherents. The following numbers come from ] and provide an idea of the geographic spread of the worldwide Baha'i community. I don't know where Britannica sources its data, but it is a start.... According to the 1992 Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year, the Bahá'í Faith had established "significant communities" in more countries and territories than any other religion except for Christianity. They were organized in 205 areas worldwide vs. 254 for Christianity. According to The Baha'i World, this has since increased to 235 countries and territories, including over 2,100 racial, ethnic and tribal groups. Encyclopædia Britannica Online estimates that they had about 7.4 million members worldwide in mid-2002:

• 1.8 million in Africa
• '3.6 million in Asia
• 0.13 million in Europe
• 0.91 in Latin America
• 0.81 in Northern America
• 0.12 in Oceania.

The Bahá'í Faith states that it currently has about 6 million members worldwide, including about 2.5 million adherents in India and 140,000 in the US. Occamy 22:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yesterdays edit war

yesterdays edit war betwen anonymous, were probably the same user using proxies (my guess)... how ridiculous.. :\ - --Cyprus2k1 08:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

heh left hand versus right hand? -- Tomhab 14:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Remeyite details

This is about Ariadoss's recent edit including details about the international bahai council etc.

Is this really necessary given that we go into it this much detail. Isn't it covered in the Orthodox Bahai Faith page enough? Certainly not trying to discourage Ariadoss - it looks all correct and the more we can add to Misplaced Pages the better, but if its covered by other passages I'd say the best plan would be to have a small summary of events. -- Tomhab 23:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the article is too big, i think the "The Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh and division" section should be more short and then with a link to a article talking about it in more detail (as is being done with the biographic articles. what are everyones else opinion? - --Cyprus2k1 09:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you Cyprus -- Tomhab 10:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A basic outline/stub about the International Baha'i Council is now available. Occamy 10:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert revert revert

What exactly are people protesting against??? This just seems to be pedantic and for the sake of it.

If there is a specific part you don't like revert that one bit. At present we are adding and removing a whole day's worth of small edits (almost all of them negligible to any POV, just including grammar and URL corrections). It's unlogged-in IPs too...

Also the pictures come back now........ -- Tomhab 10:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just got to add that non-discriminate reverting IS vandalism. -- 144.32.177.119 11:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh and for the last few edits 144.32.177.119 is me. -- Tomhab 12:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Due to continuing edit wars I have protected this page. This does not represent any opinion on the situation. violet/riga (t) 19:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh fun. Is there anything that can be done to at least reprimand the IP that keeps reverting (more than the 3RR rule)? Also can it be classed as vandalism (since its long been agreed by Baha'is and others alike that the photo doesn't belong). -- Tomhab 21:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

nope I'm pretty sure that the IP is a set of open proxies and due to a flaw in the wiki software we can block them all all you can do is push them over the 3RR rule then get them banned (yes this is the kind of edit warring that is officaly dissaproved of).Geni 21:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am entering the fray here, having gotten involved a little earlier on the Bahá'u'lláh page. I believe an image towards the bottom of that page, or a link to it should be there, and have placed links to the 2 available candidate images on the talk page myself, but agree that there is no need for any image of Bahá'u'lláh be on this Bahá'í Faith page at all. It was posted here by someone who seems intent on offending Bahá'ís, and most of the users involved here seem to be far more respectful of their practices. ~ Achilles 22:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Damn the Wiki and its open ethos malarkey -- Tomhab 00:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Should the Baha'u'llah picture be included on this page.

The page has been protected because admins believe that the Baha'u'llah picture is still under debate. Lets just finish this. Suggest no-one touches the picture (ie leave it up) until the vote completes. Giving this a vote will give any decision a bit more legitimacy. -- Tomhab 00:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arguments

Please feel free to edit these sections and add other reasons.

Summary of arguments for including picture

• Baha'u'llah started the religion and remains a very important part of it
• The photograph is very informative
• Baha'is attempt to censor the image as it is offensive for a picture of Baha'u'llah to be in public domain

Summary of arguments against including picture

• Not a case of censorship, but of relevance
• This page is primarily about the religion
• The image is already included (and will remain included in some form) on Baha'u'llah
• Christianity does not have any representation of Christ
• Islam does not have any representation of Muhammad
• Judaism does not have any representation of any of its Prophets
• Scientology does not despite having one such photograph
• Mormonism does not despite having one such photograph

Vote: Include image of Baha'u'llah on page

Vote: Do not include --image of Baha'u'llah on page

1. Image simply does not belong here -- Tomhab 00:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. No need for the image on this page. ~ Achilles 01:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Image is irrelevant to article. Take it down please. -- Ariadoss 18:57, 14 Feb 2005 (MST)
4. irrelevant to the article. - --Cyprus2k1 09:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Not really needed here, but should definately appear on Baha'u'llah. violet/riga (t) 10:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Not appropriate here. First because there is an article on Baha'u'llah, second because openly displayed images of Baha'u'llah offends Baha'is. Occamy 12:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. No picture. See also /Request for Comment and /Picture. We've been here before. PaulHammond 12:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
8. Irrelevant Brettz9 17:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. No Picture here, no picture anywhere. I'm a 4th generation Baha'i and to me and everyone I know seeing His picture is offensive and irreverent. --JS 004 18:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. No Picture I am a member of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith and we to find it disrepectful of our belief system to put up such a picture, and it appears it will stay up on the Baha'u'llah biography but I don't think it needs to be up on this article.-multiman
11. I am the first to say that a picture of Mírzá Husayn-'Alí belongs on wikipedia. However, the precident states that said picture does not belong here. --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 23:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

The image simply belongs to the article. It is an authentic photograph of Bahaullah and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the image. It is not porno, it is not violent, it is not offensive in any shape or form other than the fact that the way Bahaullah looks, you can print the photo and use it as a scarecrow at the gate of your farm -- and that is no reason to exclude it from a Misplaced Pages article about the cult which this man started. The Bahais here are working in concert to influence Misplaced Pages articles for their religious promotional purposes. In fact, why should a Misplaced Pages article be based on votes instead of solid facts? This is stupid. This image is not offensive in any shape or form and there is no excuse for taking a vote on this. For this reason, I refuse to participate in voting, but I will bring it up with senior Admins if you want to practice censorship based on some sneaky voting process that some Bahais with religious promotional agenda have started. --Amir 11:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice try, Amir. The fact is that casual display of Baha'u'llah's image simply is offensive to Baha'is - and it's got nothing to do with him "looking like Rasputin". People have explained this to you over and over. There's no excuse for your pretence of remaining ignorant of this fact. PaulHammond 12:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Senior admins have no more authority than I do (well arbcom does but I don't think you will get very far with them)Geni 12:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little lost how its sneaky especially as you've noticed the comments section but refusing to vote. All we're trying to be is reasonable. -- Tomhab

I don't like seeing Bahá'u'lláh's picture, even though I love Him. It is offensive because I have to be in a state of complete selflessness, like during a Bahá'í pilgrimage, before I can look at His Face. --JS 004 18:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is taken into account. The Baha'i situation seems somewhat unique (offends some, but not all), but many in wikipedia feel that any image, whether it causes offence or not is fair game. I feel the debate on Baha'u'llah will not be resolved until Misplaced Pages develops an offensive image policy (whatever that may resolve to be), but there is no reason for the picture being here except for Amir to get kicks out of pissing Baha'is off. -- Tomhab 19:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really think it should not be there at all. Even if you don't seem to agree with it, Baha'is have a law that they must obey. It really has nothing to do with how he looks. Nor does it have to do with a state of reverance we must be in to see it. Shoghi Effendi was worried that the picture could turn into an object of worship, and would not allow it. -- 209.179.168.52

Just added 209.179.168.52's signature. May its because I'm a Baha'i bigot but I always get confused when people don't sign what they write :) -- Tomhab 17:08, 16 Feb 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 ], 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)

Changes based from comments from Neutral Observer

(The context of these comments can be found in the /Request for Comment archive. There is also some discussion of the material about Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l Baha's wives in the /Biographies archive.)

(this section has been cut-pasted down to be more easily located)

The neutral observer who entered the discussion made some comments, including moving the section about the wives out, since the information is in the Baha'u'llah page, Martin2000, can you please provide some more reasons why it should be here. If we are in disagreement, maybe we should go to mediation. -- Jeff3000 04:06, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Bahaullah is right at the very center and core of the Bahai Faith, and therefore, his life, including the fact that he had three wives at the same time, is very important and relevant to an article about the Bahai Faith. --Martin2000 05:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

since the article in about the religion it self, just a brief mention of the founder should be made and with a link to the founders article. the wives of the founder have to relevance to the religion article and are already metioned in the founders article. 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 . for example, the the Muhammad's marriages have their own page.

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.

this has been twice in "dispute resolutions" and "Request for comments", this were the comments from the neutral observers:

"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. - Raul654"

""Wives: Islam does not discuss Muhammad's wives, Nation of Islam does not discuss Elijah Muhammad's; ditto for Mormonism and Joseph Smith. Should not be in there." - Jeff3000"

instead of removing the paragraph on the wives immediately , i await further comment.. - --Cyprus2k1 09:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Based on this, i suggest the paragraphs should be removed (they already exist in their relevant articles). what is everybodys else opinion? - --Cyprus2k1 12:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removing the paragraphs would be appropriate, moving the relevant bits--if any--to Baha'u'llah's Family. Occamy 21:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would be TOTALLY inappropriate to remove the section about his three CONCURRENT wives. The whole idea is to let the reader know about this discrepancy in the Bahai religion, that the prophet of this religion himself had three CONCURRENT wives. This is quite important for the non-Bahai (and I would say even for the Bahai) readers to know. Removing it would be tantamount to censorship and POV. You have to remember that this article is not a replacement for a religious promotional leaflet, it is to inform the reader. --Amir 17:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved with this debate, but I just thought it prudent to remind you that a Neutral Observer (I've forgotten who it was now...) made the suggestion. Doesn't mean its right, but you're persuing this a little unneccessarily aggressively. Lets talk this through. In the mean time, think "chill pill" :) -- Tomhab 17:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Islam does not mention that some of mohamed's acts were highly questionable under islamic law. The christianity page does not cover the stuff covered in Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible. Clearly however at least some mention of this should be made in the Bahá'u'lláh with the full detials covered in a wive article if there is enough materail (as is the case with mohamed).Geni 18:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So if article X is lame, is that an excuse for article Y to also be lame?! what kind of logic is that? Instead of whining here, go fix those articles. --Amir 18:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You assume that those articticles have I problem I don't think they do I'm using them to issulstrate there is a wider consensus on this issue. If you have a problem with those articles you can of course edit them although I would suggest it would be better to disscuss such changes on thier talk page first. Untimetly if I'm reading an article on say Zoroastrianism I want to know what the relgion is about a bit about it's history an bit about it's reltionship with the modern world and any practices of note.Geni 18:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Bahaullah had three concurrent wives is quite relevant to an article about Bahai Faith. If it needs to be explained, then so be it, but it is very relevant because this religion at first declares "only two wives" and later, a clear "two" is "interpreted" as "one"!! Therefore, it is quite important and relevant if the article does contain the fact that the founder of this religion himself had three concurrent wives, even for some time after he declated his new religion to the world (and according to his claim, he already knew about this religion some 11 years prior to its "international debut" but had kept it all to himself in "concealment") --Amir 19:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I want to know about the founder of a relgion then I will look for an article on them. Btw how is your attempt to insert info about the disspute about mohameds wives into Islam going?Geni 19:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above again, you seem to be one of those people who need to read even simple sentences several times before it sinks in. Regarding your question about Islam page, I am not contributing to that page (not yet anyway) and your question is dumb and inrrelevant. --Amir 19:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The discussion attached to the Baha'u'llah article demonstrates that the Three Wives argument is a dead-end, a red herring; it is defeated. Occamy 03:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The return of Martin

About this edit: I largely suspect ths point of adding in "Another example is that Bahais are forbidden from any association with excommunicated members, or else they run the risk of getting excommunicated from the faith themselves" which is slightly incorrect since its collusion with the excommunicated which is banned, and communication is discouraged but after changing that is a bit of a tautology........ Anyway I largely suspect the reason why it was added was so Martin2000 can imply the Baha'i faith has restrictions on personal freedom not only publishing restrictions. Maybe I've just become cynical from being on the Baha'i pages too long... -- Tomhab 12:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the imputation that the change was sneaky, when there was an active discussion about the para above, Occamy suggested changing the title of the section on 7 Feb, waited a couple of weeks to do it, on 21st Feb, then no-one had any problem with it until today, when one imperious editor happens along, ignores the talk page, vandalises a paragraph and calls the people who discussed this section "sneaky". PaulHammond 13:59, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I beg your pardon. The actual word Martin used in his edit comment was "deceitful". PaulHammond

Does anyone have any opinions on this (other than myself, occamy, Paul and Martin)? -- Tomhab 11:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Bahá'í pages

Check out Bahá'í timeline. Just added it. Feel free to add in new things or expand stuff. Please don't provide lots of detail though - the page is getting pretty long already. Besides thats what other articles are for. -- Tomhab 15:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also just made up Letters of the Living. It seems mostly right. Figured it was about time I built a page for it. -- Tomhab 00:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Articles size

We're at 39kb which is double the maximum target size of 20kb Misplaced Pages:Article_size. This section is for people to discuss what needs to be converted into a new article.

I suggest much of the history, and backing up of the history. Example of the history of the covenant, and chunks from the Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdul-baha pages. Basically most up until (but not including) restrictions on publishing would go under my knife. I'm happy to do much of the work (although I'm sure others will put back in sections they believe were inappropriately removed). Opinions? -- Tomhab 15:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any opinions? I don't want to do this just for someone to tell me I'm wrong and revert it all. -- Tomhab 02:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not disagreeing... but I think that controversies like "restrictions on publication" need to be moved down to BELOW beliefs and teachings.

Also, I would cut the "brief timeline" down to 4 to 6 elements... refering to the "non brief" one on a different page. Or, put it in paragrpah form and dump the brief timeline all together. Rick Boatright 02:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Syncretic

Squideshi inserted that the Baha'i Faith is "syncretic". Its own article states that Syncretism is the attempt to reconcile disparate, even opposing, beliefs and to meld practices of various schools of thought. While the Baha'i Faith does build on the spiritual values of other faiths, it brings so much new material that it would be misleading to describe it as syncretic. But I am not an expert in these matters and would value the opinions of others. Occamy 19:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If its unsourced I reckon get rid of it. If it is sourced then change it to "some feel it is syncretic". The Baha'is faith is recognised as independent by all but the most fanatical. It is certainly Baha'i belief that we weren't introduced "to fill in the missing gaps". -- Tomhab 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Syncretic is about right and would in my eyes well apply. Refdoc 01:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't that impose a POV though? Saying something is syncretic also implies its motives were exactly that (to resolve any difficulties within a religion by adopting other "better" practices) - whereas Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah was the fulfilment of a prophecy and brought his own dispensation. In its present form it implies that is widely acknowledged - I've never heard anyone describe it that way before. Baha'is certainly wouldn't agree with it. I reckon that we shouldn't include it unless a paper comes up in which case it should be changed to "which some view as syncretic". Obviously just one person's opinion. -- Tomhab 02:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV- aye. But mine, so I wrote "in my eyes".:-) No particular preferences whether in or out. Refdoc 02:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Never realised people saw it that way. How about:

The Bahá'í Faith is a monotheistic religion which has been viewed by some as syncretic. Its members follow the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh, founder and prophet of the religion.

I think its important to make it clear that Baha'is don't view it that way. -- Tomhab 02:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the sentence and added a source. The source is incidentally Bahai in origin, and disputes the assumption, but it also says that the majority of religious studies text books describe Bahai faith as syncretic - so i think this really covers both angles. I do agree though with Tom etc taht the word should not be in the first line as it is under dispute. Refdoc 12:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh I eat my own words. -- Tomhab 13:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Refdoc inserted in the article that the "Baha'i Faith is commonly perceived as syncretic." I believe that this statement goes too far as it is not a common perception, even according t Refdoc's source. I scanned the first forty Google results for "Baha'i Syncretic". Among them, only the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute ] seems to argue that the Baha'i Faith is syncretic.

My personal experience is that some people consider the Baha'i Faith to be syncretic when first hearing how it includes the spiritual principles of the major faiths. But this opinion changes when they learn how innovative its social laws and objectives are, and this includes the Baha'i administration. After all, the world's major faiths differ in their social teachings and not in their spiritual teachings: love thy neighbour, the golden rule and so on. If one of the most common assumptions about the Baha'i Faith stated in Religious Studies textbooks is that it is a syncretism, that is a source that is disputed by scholarly analysis such as Refdoc's source. That is the reason I amended Refdoc's latest edit. Occamy 14:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think its that important either way. My problem was with the first version (and other people's reverts) that left the reader assuming it was created to be syncretic. -- Tomhab 15:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Writing that the Baha'i Faith is syncretic is misleading. Here is another scholarly reference stating that the Baha'i Faith is not syncretic, despite the learned observations of 64.110.76.13: "This was the point that some of the early adherents missed: neither Bahá'í beliefs, nor membership in the Bahá'í community were syncretic." in Outpost of a World Religion: The Baha'i Faith in Australia 1920-1947, Graham Hassall, Journal of Religious History, 16:3, June 1991, 315-338. ] Occamy 15:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it can be safely assumed that many think it is syncretic and others (mostly Bahais) will not agree. To write anything (much) different would be giving in to one POV or another.

Leaving this aside I have edited the sentence before as it appeared as if Krishna Mohammad etc are factually messengers of God rather than in teh eys of Bahais etc. Now it should be clearer that this is actually Baha'i teaching ratrher than common ground. I hope you see my point Refdoc 15:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Urrrgh looks like Martin's back on his IP proxy reverting..... Doesn't this just make your day. -- Tomhab 16:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

Please note that 3RR rule applies to everyone, however "good" his/her motives are. Please also note that continous edit warring can lead to page protection, invariably on the "Wrong Version" Refdoc 01:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reverting for "fun", Open Proxies etc

Reverting for "fun" or as a "punishment" is vandalism. It has clearly nothing to do with editing or with conflicts over which edit is the "right" one. Continous use of "Funny" reverts might lead to page protection, invariably on the "wronng version".

Please note that Misplaced Pages policy regarding Open Proxies is completely clear and has nothing to do with the validity of any edits - Open Proxies are simply not on. TO repeat this: The use of open proxies is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. Open Proxies can be banned indefinetely on sight. I have done so with two open proxies and I will do so with all others involved in editing this page. Refdoc 18:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect the page

Damn. Why is the page protected? I want to make some changes. Can someone unprotect the page? I am getting impatient with the Bahai censorshipmeisters and the incompetent low-IQ admin who has made a career for himself in Misplaced Pages by hanging around the Bahai articles where he doesn't even have the slightest qualification on the subject matter. Martin2000 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Photos Revisited

While we wait for the disputes over the Baha'i Faith page to settle themselves, can we please change the top photo of the Dehli Temple? It is a poor photo of the building and it seems to have a numbing effect on the brain (mine at least). This temple is probably the most recognisable Baha'i thing after the shrine of the Bab, and I therefore recommend ] as a replacement image. The site owner has given his permission (see his message under Temple Photograph section above) and I could not find a more interesting image of the temple on the site. Alternatively we can follow the pattern of most of the religion articles by using the nine-pointed star; but I can't find a suitable image. FYI, here is the list of images on the pages of the major religions.

• Juadaism: Star of David, Menorah
• Hinduism: OM symbol, old temple, new temple, symbol on woman's forehead, young boy brahmachari , huge gathering of Hindus, temple, Hindu ascetic, yoga practioners, dancer, Hindu god Shri Ganesh, cow, symbol, ivory statue of Lord Rama
• Zoroastrianism: temple
• Buddhism: statue of Buddha; statue of Buddha, engraving of the Buddha's first sermon, Buddhists praying at temple, Buddhist monk, statue of Buddha; statue of Buddha, painting of a monk, young Buddhist monks, Buddhist flag, hallway in Calfornian temple
• Christianity: Cross, Ichthys symbol, chart of main branches
• Islam: Masjid al-Nabawi mosque in Medina, Kaaba

And while we are at it, can we have something other than the photo of the Book of Laws? Occamy 19:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As it is, the page is protected, Editing is currently impossible. Once this changes... Refdoc 20:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)