Talk:Kitáb-i-Íqán
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
The Interlingua page doesn't yet exist but is linked to by ia:theologia. If I spoke Interlingua I'd write a stub for it. Andrewa 23:54, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] revelation
is there a policy that a NPOV requires denying the revelation of Bahá'í scripture?--Smkolins 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Only Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah's writing is revelation. It cannot be stated as fact, since it's a Baha'i POV. -- Jeff3000 19:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- That approach - what Baha'is state of themselves - is not covered by any statement of policy I have found except in the simple formulation. I have found a comment but it is about a religionist objecting to what others say of the religion - not what the religion says of itself. I return to the question - "it cannot be stated as a fact" is not all there is to the policies I can find - for example "There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page..." from the same FAQ page - "true or useful" appear to be alternates to facts. At best I can see a case for changing revealed to accepted by Baha'is as revealed - making it written is insufficient and misleading fact in relation to a Holy scripture.--Smkolins 20:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- This has already been talked about a lot in both the Christian, Baha'i and Islamic pages. One cannot state that something is revelation as fact, or state that someone is Prophet, or state something is Holy. For example, read the discussion that deals with the capitalization of pronouns in both the Baha'i and Islamic pages. Also, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) states that one cannot use Prophet Muhammad, because the "P" is stating prophethood as fact, when most Christians do not accept it. The only neutral way to do it is use Muhammad. Similar statements apply for all other claims such as a book being Holy, or someone being a Martyr. These are all views from one point of view. Another article is that the article on Jesus is not named "Jesus Christ" because it is a Christian view that he was the Messiah. Remember this is an encyclopedia article about the Iqan, not a Baha'i perspective on the Iqan. Write from the view of someone who does not believe in Baha'u'llah. For a non-Baha'i, the Kitab-i-Iqan was written. It is the only neutral term. -- Jeff3000 20:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok.--Smkolins 20:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- This has already been talked about a lot in both the Christian, Baha'i and Islamic pages. One cannot state that something is revelation as fact, or state that someone is Prophet, or state something is Holy. For example, read the discussion that deals with the capitalization of pronouns in both the Baha'i and Islamic pages. Also, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) states that one cannot use Prophet Muhammad, because the "P" is stating prophethood as fact, when most Christians do not accept it. The only neutral way to do it is use Muhammad. Similar statements apply for all other claims such as a book being Holy, or someone being a Martyr. These are all views from one point of view. Another article is that the article on Jesus is not named "Jesus Christ" because it is a Christian view that he was the Messiah. Remember this is an encyclopedia article about the Iqan, not a Baha'i perspective on the Iqan. Write from the view of someone who does not believe in Baha'u'llah. For a non-Baha'i, the Kitab-i-Iqan was written. It is the only neutral term. -- Jeff3000 20:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- That approach - what Baha'is state of themselves - is not covered by any statement of policy I have found except in the simple formulation. I have found a comment but it is about a religionist objecting to what others say of the religion - not what the religion says of itself. I return to the question - "it cannot be stated as a fact" is not all there is to the policies I can find - for example "There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page..." from the same FAQ page - "true or useful" appear to be alternates to facts. At best I can see a case for changing revealed to accepted by Baha'is as revealed - making it written is insufficient and misleading fact in relation to a Holy scripture.--Smkolins 20:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I just added a lot of material to the article regarding content and date of composition. The large block quotation from Shoghi Effendi may be on the long side, but it is a useful summary of the Iqan's content from the point of view of the translator. RHStockman 05:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV
- Shoghi Effendi, who retranslated the work into superb English in 1931, referred to the work as follows:
The qualifier 'superb' is POV and should be removed. MKV 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Subservience to Azal
Please provide justification that the Iqan specifically includes subservience to Azal. While some anti-Baha'i commentators have stated that Baha'u'llah's reference to "the Mystic Source" in paragraph 278 is Azal, this is a real stretch and is, from a Baha'i perspective quite blasphemous, not merely because of Azal particularly, but because the Mystic Source is clearly God and not another human being.
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Iqan.jpg
Image:Iqan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
