Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive Orthodox

Orthodox Baha'i Faith editwar

Belief Net rules require a neutral point of view when discussing topics. This is often times hard for us when we hold passionate viewpoints, however, I have had to change the wording somewhat on the link which was at first dropped and then changed to refer to another belief as "small, marginal and dissedent" this is not neutral, I persaonlly can live with small, but when addign the other color words to it, it intends to denigrate the group Orthodox Baha'i and is against belief net policy.

Well, a link to the Orthodox Baha'i Faith _belongs_ on this page. Now, based on best available estimates, their total membership WORLDWIDE is under 200, but still, as the most prominent dissident group on the web, they deserve mention, if only because people WILL encounter them in searches and stuff.

So, I agree with having the page there. I _do_think "small" might be appropriate ,but I'll live with the wording as it is.

Rick Boatright

Recently deleted by Anon without a summary. --Menchi 00:57, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Recently re-added to preserve a neutral point of view, I also have left the word small in. This tends to happen quite often getting beyond coinsidence isnt it? multiman

Well well the fellow just does nto udnerstand how wikipedia works, so restoring again as wekpedia does call for a neutral point of view and not deleting referencs to other articles where they are applicable. It can ultimately get you kicked off.

added it back in _again_ It's getting really old editing the OBF back in and in, and I _hate_ those people. Oh well, one of the burdons I suppose. Rick Boatright 11/27/2003

Well it is edited out again, I am editing it back in so have you more than once, how can we report this retard who just doesnt seem to get the rules about editing out refernces? Oh by the way sorry to hear about your hatred, but we all bear burdens.  :-) multiman

Yes, it is. You know, from where I sit, it's a fairly simple case of heresy.  :-) But that doesn't mean it isn't _real_. We have to deal with that every day on usenet. Why would people want to try to erase the existance of something. If it _is_ a heresy, the simplest thing to do is to EXPOSE that. this constant effort to hide them just calls attention to their cause. Arrrrrggghhhh anyway, thanks MM Rick Boatright 01DEC2003

Thanks for the re-edit, I also contacted Jimmy Wales about it to see what could be done if it continues. Read your edit comments, please make such a proposal, I really dont think CGd gets it and who ever the IP address fellow is, both seem to be doing it unless they are one and the same. They also saw fit on 2 other pages to make these revisions in the name of NPOV. I cut some slack for a while since I had some trouble myself int he early days on wikipedia understandign what was meant by NPOV, but my patiece is wearing thin. Again, while we may not agree I appreciagte you intellectual honesty. Multiman

Just took a look at latest revision which again removes the link to OBF,I therefore reverted back to the earlier article which has link, in order to preserve NPOV and eliminate possible link terrorism multiman 13Jan04

---

Small question. If you look in the Christianity article, you'll notice that whenever Christ is referred to in the third person, there's never a capital. However, for Babi, there is. Shouldn't this be standardised? I am (very, very) mildly put out that while people will give this mark of respect to one founder of a religion, they won't to another--and of course, it's not really very NPOV. Either small-letters Babi, i.e. he, him, his; or capitalise Jesus (He, Him, His). After all, Christians hold Jesus in at least as high regard as Baha'ists hold Babi and Bahaullah! Wooster 15:53, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well Baha'is at least certainly wouldn't have a problem with pronouns referring to Jesus being capitalized--as we do it ourselves for Him! The articles here depend on the whim of those editing the pages, I would say (unless you want to suggest to the powers-that-be here that some strict policy be made about it). On the one hand, religionists (or protagonists of a specific Faith tradition) feel that their view of a Divine Being is perfectly "neutral" view to hold (or more accuratley, an objective view), and they do not want to be disrespectful or apologetic of their beliefs by writing as if they did not believe it. However, I think most reasonably-minded people (at least of Faith) would realize that at a website such as this, that even though they may capitalize pronouns themselves in their writing, they are not going to get upset if other people of a different mindset--especially if it is a majority opinion--wish to change them. So, unless there is a specific policy about it, go ahead and make a change, if you wish, at either site and see what kind of reaction you get!  :) Brettz9 03:17, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Schism section

Oh, hi Rick Boatright. Obviously, those minority orthodox bahai' sect being "covenant breakers" who "attack" the bahai faith is POV of the majority sect. Obviously if you follow majority sect, such POV is a fact/truth but this site is not the place to make such claim. I tried to make more proper attribution of such POV in this regard. As long as POV is correctly attributed, I have no problem. Also, if someone within the faith breaks away and forms another group, that would fall into the linguistic definition of schism. To say "some would claim a schism of the Bahá'í Faith has occurred" is going bit too far away from NPOV policy of this site. IMO, the correct attribution would be to state that for theological reason, some Bahai faithfuls deny such schism ever occured. Well, as for my POV, the quote made in the section seems to imply that prevention of schism is conditional to "the ordination and appointment of the Centre of the Covenant". But that seems to be the whole point of the Ramey thingy and this site is not the place to "judge" such matter. However, if anyone can explain the controversy, that would be a definite contribution to this site. FWBOarticle