Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Request for Comment

Summary of the Dispute

People should read the discussion first. The contributor "summarizing" the dispute did not sign. I have added alternatives. Readers should refer to the extensive discussion of the topics in the archives. --Occamy 17:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Requesting for comment, part of that process is to include a summary of recent disputes

Bahá´u´lláh's picture

• Include it on this page since he is the founder of the Bahá´í Faith
• Not including it because the best place for the photo is in the Bahá´u´lláh article
• Move it to the very bottom of the Bahá´u´lláh article
• Link the image

The latter two are added because of the offence caused to Bahá´ís by being confronted the by the image without warning.--Occamy 17:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments about Bahá´u´lláh's wives

• Include it because it's part of Bahá´u´lláh's history
• Not include it because the best place for it is in the Bahá´u´lláh article

see #Changes based from comments from Neutral Observer - --Cyprus2k1 19:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excommunications from the Faith of all the family of `Abdu'l-Bahá

• Including because it is the truth
• Including, but only Mirza Muhammad Ali, since there are no references for other excommunications
• Referring to the subject in the "Covenant of Bahá´u´lláh and division" section
• Moving the whole issue to a separate "Covenant of Bahá´u´lláh and division" article because the full answer requires voluminous use of Bahá´í Writings which would improperly take up much of the artcile's 32KB --Occamy 17:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Statement that it "turned out to hurt the entire Bahá´í movement in a much greater dimension"

• Including because some people believe it hurt the Bahá´í movement
• Not including because some other people don't believe it hurt the Bahá´í movement, and the growth of the Bahá´í Faith has increased since then.

Not at all clear what the proposer is proposing

Title of section (First, a sweet little promo)

• Including it because the first paragraph is too long and it sounds promotional for the Bahá´í Faith
• Not including it because the statements in the first paragraph are true, and the title of the section seems to have a point of view

Is this talking about the article or the discussion? If there is POV, the proposer should state where this occurs and Cite Sources, as explained in the Wikipedia guidelines copied above.--Occamy 17:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyone reviewing the history and discussion of this article (and that of Bahá´u´lláh) will see that those who vandalise the sites and/or try to attack the reputation of the Bahá´í Faith run a cyber mile when asked for reputable sources. --Occamy 17:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I came here from the request for comment page. As a neutral party, I offer my comments on the above-summarized disputed points:

1. Founder's picture: Doesn't appear on most religion pages, no compelling reason for it to be here.
2. 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.
3. Excommunications are relevant to the history of the movement, so they should be in there if there is a good reference for them.
4. Statement "turned out to hurt..." is POV.
5. Sweet little promo: It does sound a little hokey. Rename "geographic extent" to "statistics" and include the actual number of believers. Since that's not huge, it'll make the paragraph more balanced. Bacchiad 06:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Bacchiad for your comments. Should I wait for more comments from neutral observers, or go ahead with his suggestions. -- Jeff3000 17:50, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Changes based from comments from Neutral Observer

The neutral observer who entered the discussion made some comments, including moving the section about the wives out, since the information is in the Bahá´u´lláh 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)

Bahá´u´lláh is right at the very center and core of the Bahá´í 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 Bahá´í 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)