Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh and division

Excommunicated vs. expelled

Hi, I'm Jonathan Menon and I am a Canadian living in Italy. I have just found Wikipedia and made a couple of changes today, including changing the word "excommunicated" to "expelled". In my opinion the term "excommunicated" is a very "loaded" word, carrying a great deal of residual assumptions with it from its history in the Catholic church, one of which is the power of the Pope and the way that power has been exercised over the centuries. Of course, the very definition of power in the Faith and the use of authority by the Institutions of the Faith, is very different from this particular reading. "Expelled" has less baggage with it, and I thought it would be more appropriate.

I also have some other things to add, which I will do over the next while.

I would like to see this article become a featured article, and am willing to help in achieving that.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

Jmenon 08:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More on schism

Brett9 removed the following:

Prior to the 1970s no such attempt survived beyond its founder's death.

This is simply historically true. The various Remeyite organizations were the first schismatic group of Baha'is to persist past the death of their founder. No followers of Mirza Yahya continued past his death, etc. Unless Brent can come up with an example, I'm going to keep reverting this one. Rick Boatright 21:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized my mistake. I had interpreted the statement for some reason as referring to no attempt surviving beyond the successive passing of authority in the Faith (e.g., the Muhammad 'Alí groups claiming authority from 'Abdu'l-Bahá's time outliving 'Abdu'l-Bahá and continuing their claims, which they did). My apologies. If you feel there is some reason to put it in, it is your prerogative. I don't think it is particularly remarkable given that any such movements would naturally try to find at least some remote, albeit unconvincing, connection to the times in which authority was passing. [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 16:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reverted to the earlier edition, as links were removed and to restore a more NPOV as user Saed removed links against Wiki rules, and removed any reference to any other point of view.

maybe the really question is, is really a matter of NPOV and wiki rules, or is wikipedia being victim of (just) one or two persons actively envolved in defamation?? - --Cyprus2k1 21:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This entire article reeks of a Baha'i pamphlet or a press release. There is almost none of the controversial issues about the Baha'i faith, and when these have been added Baha'i apologists remove them. Scientology, anyone?

nonsense, your just pissed off because you really cant find any arguments to necessarly include obf reference in the other articles so now you turned to a personal attack with a very false analogy. - --Cyprus2k1 09:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cypress is violating the norms of wikipedia by removing content. I am a former member of the Baha'i faith and am posting anonymously to avoid reprisals against my family who are still members of the Baha'i faith and could face consequences. I was driven out of the Baha'i faith by members of the local spiritual assembly who threatened to remove my administrative rights. I have a right to add factual information of relevance to the readers of this article, even if such information is not appreciated by the Baha'i religious authorities.

Cypress, please quit removing factual content. You are welcome to edit factual content, not revert or remove it in toto. Continued reversions or mass deletions will result in me escalating this dispute to Wikipedia mediation and arbitration processes if necessary. Thanks!

65.184.35.245 22:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ok. first of all, please please please stop hipocritly using "wikipedia norms" as i way to state untrue(or twisted/misleading) facts on the articles .

if you were driven out, you probably did CONTINUOUSLY something VERY wrong(i.e endangering the community or trying to take control)

about the reprisals thing.., no one will come after you (on the contrary). this is obviously a Appeal to emotion and Appeal to fear(what is the use of posting anonymously if you then post your own website??)

__

ok. i absolutely hate edit wars, so lets discuss this:

__

things i deleted and why:

__

"Homosexual marriage and sexual activity is strictly forbidden." this is not tottaly factual and is misleading(read: twisted fact), sexual activity is forbidden BEFORE marriage, which is what "Chastity outside marriage is required. " means.

__

" -- the ultimate sanction to compel obedience and submission to Baha'i authority." is POV...

(see history for other POV to NPOV edits/added(added.. NOT deleted...))

__

"Some critics of the Baha'i Faith argue that the Baha'i religious authorities use the threat of declaration as a "covenant breaker" in order to stifle free speech"

what do you mean by "Baha'i religious authorities"? its a very weird thing to say since there is no clergy in the bahai faith and institutions are bahais themselves.

no one uses the "threat of declaration as a "covenant breaker" in order to stifle free speech" but since you say "some critics argue", hey, what can one do?

- --Cyprus2k1 11:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

65.184.35.245, I came here because of your note on Talk:Main Page.

• If you pick a random username, you will be more anonymous than with your IP visible, which shows you are in the US
• I find nothing scandalous in C2k1's reversion.

dab (ᛏ) 16:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dbachmann, maybe I'll go out and revert some of your edits I disagree with then, since you don't disapprove of blanket reverts from critics.

Cyprus, if you think there are no religious authorities in the Baha'i faith, you are mistaken. Who do you think the UHJ, 4 North American Continental Councillors, 50+ Auxiliary Board members and 4000+ assistants do? Not sure how many where you live, but I suspect it is comparable. Mostly those "assistants" spy on the believers and report back anything "questionable" they hear.

Thanks for making much more reasonable edits this time. 63.106.106.2 20:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

everyone mentioned are also bahais, they are not "priests".i know many of those members myself, there is no "persecution" or any weird conspiracy theory. i will not bother to discuss this further since wikipedia is not a forum... - --Cyprus2k1 20:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Changes made by 204.50.168.164

204.50.168.164 says he eliminated some unnecessary and very marginal information. Most of the information he removed regards the very small (tiny) division in the Faith and other negative attitudes towards the Baha'i Faith. Even though I'm a Baha'i and don't believe those negative viewpoints, I see them as necessary in the article to keep a NPOV. Thus in the spirit of being impartial I am reverting them. --Navidazizi 15:18, 06 Jan 2005 (UTC)