Talk:List of Bahá'ís

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It may be inappropriate to include the names of living individuals as adherants of the Baha'i Faith because their relationship with the Faith may intensify or cool, depending where they are up to in their lives. Any suggestions would be welcome. Occamy 18:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • On the subject of listing living Baha'is: That would seem to be one of the main purposes of this list. On a slightly different subject: How can an entire band (The Mooseheart Faith Stellar Groove Band) be listed on a list of Baha'is? I think they need to be listed by name, at least (Todd Homer, Larry Robinson, etc.). Is every member of the band a Baha'i? The web page I found refering to an album by the band only listed Homer and Robinson. Jlavezzo
Got to be honest I know very little about it (never heard of them before seeing this article a couple of months ago), but I was under the impression they considered themselves as a Baha'i band in which case I think it is appropriate to have the band by name. Otherwise sure change it. Actually if you want to change it anyway it won't do any harm - your choice :) -- Tomhab 20:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm also concerned about it, but prominent, public figures who have publically mentioned their faith may be appropriate. I'm more concerned about Count Leo Tolstoy, who as I understand it was an admirer of the Faith, but not an adherent, per-se. no where is Baha'i listed on his biography for example. I'm going to remove that one. If someone has documentation, then by all means re-add it, but they should probably also add this information to the Tolstoy page.
  • Concerning Violetriga's edit. Should it be agreed that the list should be slimmed down to the barebones of historical figures (and I cannot say I am entirely convinced), a more appropriate title of the article would seem to be "List of Bahá'í Historical Figures / Key Figures in Bahá'í History." Figures such as Mírzá Abu'l-Fadl, Martha Root, and William Sears certainly fall into this category. Perhaps there should at least be a section for Hands of the Cause of God. How is "key" defined? Additionally, Violetriga's edit summary gives entries being unsourced as a reason for the cut. There were many individuals on the list who have made clear in published interviews or books their membership in the Bahá'í Faith. Referncing news articles would not be difficult. --Leif 06:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merz

I have heard that Merz is a Baha'i. Can anyone confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.186.238 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ogden Nash

Can someone provide documentation that Ogden Nash was a Bahai?--HistoricalPisces 18:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes - I've asked that one just now, on the Ogden Nash talk page. I can't quite believe that someone who famously wrote "Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker" was a practising Baha'i. Apparently, there's been no response to that question here in half a year. If someone can't document Nash's faith in the next week or so, I'll remove him. PaulHammond 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Nash was not a Baha'i, but used the word Baha'i in one of his poems..this is probably how the rumour started.

fwiw, -Anthony

[edit] Should Covenant Breakers be removed from this list?

Since when did expulsion make someone *never* a Baha'i ? Obviously to be a Covenent-breaker you must have been originally a Baha'i. I will revert again tomorrow. Wjhonson 21:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest it doesn't really matter to me. I reacted because this was one of many attempts you've made to amplify the importance of Subh-i-Azal and Muhammad `Ali, two of the most notorious opponents of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, respectively. No Baha'i today would consider Muhammad `Ali to be a Baha'i, so this argument is really silly. I will stop deleting him on the list, but I doubt it will last more than a few weeks until other Baha'is continue to delete it. Cuñado - Talk 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I find myself in agreement with WJohnson on this one. I can't see how merely listing Azal's name of `Ali's name "exaggerates their importance" - the fact is that both men were historically important figures within the Baha'i faith, even if Baha'is mostly remember them today for how they fell short of the ideals that the Bab and Baha'u'llah expected of them. Whatever happened later, the fact is that `Ali was Baha'u'llah's son, and during Baha'u'llah's lifetime was a highly respected Baha'i. Mason Remey should be listed here too - he was a Hand of the Cause of God, before the furore he caused after Shoghi's death led to the rest of the Baha'i world excommunicating him. Surely, for NPOV purposes, it might be just as important for someone to read about Muhammad `Ali, and the effect he had on the development of the Baha'i Faith as to understand the effect the Baha'i Faith had on Seals and Croft? PaulHammond 20:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The question of who should and should not be on the list is a tough one, as pointed out in my 5Feb2005 comment. Baha'u'llah tells us that life-long Baha'is can lose their faith on their death-beds and vice versa, so only God knows who left their "mortal frame" as Baha'is. However, we can list prominent individuals who are Baha'i by virtue of them recognising the authority of the head of the Faith, currently the Universal House of Justice. This would keep the issues involved simple. Muhammad `Ali et al are in a different class because they recognised one Head of the Faith but not the next. We would tie ourselves in knots trying to agree criteria for their inclusion without confusing the general reader. I suggest we have three choices:
  • exclude those considered by the Universal House of Justice to be covenant breakers
  • create a separate page/article of them, maybe with a link to this article
  • put them on a separate list on the same page, with a suitable explanatory note.
For the sake of simplicity, I recommend that we exclude their names from this page. Otherwise I fear that we will have a replay of the whole "mainstream Baha'i - covenant breaker" debate and the purpose/utility of the page will be lost. --Occamy 17:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Very much agree with Occamy. Occamy brings up a really good point about we don't know who really left this mortal-frame as Baha'is. With this said, however, his suggestions for a definition of a Baha'i and thus inclusion in this page is something that can be easily determined, while other metrics of inclusion become more problematic/difficult to determine. So all three of his suggestions seem appropriate to me with my vote going to the first one. -- Jeff3000 18:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think this whole page is a bit silly. I wouldn't mind deleting it. We could add in all of the Hands of the Cause, the Apostles, the Counselors, the rest of the family of Baha'u'llah, and others. All this page does is copy the Category:Bahá'í individuals. Cuñado - Talk 21:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, could be deleted. -- Jeff3000 23:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The order in the section 'Prominent Bahá'ís Known to the General Public' is not clear either.Wiki-uk 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Cunado's suggestion that the page is an unnecessary duplicate that should be deleted. --Occamy 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked into a few ideas and now I don't think deletion is the right step. See List of people by belief, and look through some of the other lists of religions' followers. Personally, I think they should all be deleted, but if every religion has one, then we might as well just keep this page and make improving edits. Cuñado - Talk 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So is this just another page of "approved Baha'i thought" ? And if so, how is it that it's not pov by definition? I mean you are defining it to say, only include people who the UHJ approves. Is that really what you think this encyclopaedia is supposed to be? Suppress all thoughts that aren't stamped approved ? And you don't think that's pov ? Wjhonson 05:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It comes down to first defining "what is a Baha'i"; then one can say who is a (famous) Baha'i. The vast majority of readers would accept that a Baha'i is one who recognises the authority of the House of Justice. This a plain fact rather than pov, though it may be unpalatable to believers in Baha'u'llah who do not recognise the House of Justice as the legitimate head of Baha'u'llah's Faith. --Occamy 17:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually Occamy I could not disagree more. A Christian is not one by virtue of approval of some priest or preacher. They are one, because they state they are one. That is the same really with all religions, including Baha'i in my opinion. A Muslim doesn't get approval, a Jew doesn't get approval. Nobody includes or excludes them from their self-declaration. The pages for people of a religion are self-declarations. Not one of them is for "approved" members. If you can find one that is, post it here. Wjhonson 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juan Cole

I had added him to the others list, but after reading here about "covenant breakers," i reverted. A better enty would be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bahá'í_individuals but that should be at his choice. i think i"ll try to contact him first. Take Care!--Will314159 09:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cathy Freeman

While Cathy Freeman's stepdad was a Baha'i, and her mother and possibly other family members became Bahais, i dont think she considers herself a Baha'i, though she did participate in Baha'i activities in the past. On this note, I will delete her from the list. Bigkev87 09:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody put her back. Here's what I've been able to find and have put on her page:

In 2006, Freeman's biographical documentary Cos I'm Free (AKA Cathy Freeman) (Producer/Director: Lou Glover) covers much of her life with interviews of her family and friends. Both it and her book Born to Run - Cathy: Her Own Story mention dealing with racism and her mother's faith as a Bahá'í influencing her (her Mom she's a "Baha'i at heart"Cos I'm Free (AKA Cathy Freeman) Transcript of Program and Freeman was raised a Baha'i, she says "I'm not a devout Baha'i but I like the prayers and I appreciate their values about the equality of all human kind."The love and pain that inspire Cathy, Top athlete may journey from the winner's podium to the Academy AwardsBorn to Run (extract) Chapter 1 Running Free]

(modified notes to fit in here rather than <references/>

So - "signed nothing formal", "I'm not a devout Baha'i", "raised a Baha'i", "Baha'i at heart"...??--Smkolins (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leo Tolstoy


I'm also concerned about it, but prominent, public figures who have publically mentioned their faith may be appropriate. I'm more concerned about Count Leo Tolstoy, who as I understand it was an admirer of the Faith, but not an adherent, per-se. no where is Baha'i listed on his biography for example. I'm going to remove that one. If someone has documentation, then by all means re-add it, but they should probably also add this information to the Tolstoy page.

Well I suppose it depends on what an adherent is. He did not send a card in, or say Shahada, or talk to Baha'u'llah. Leo Tolstoy did however leave many quotes abotu accepting Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for this Age, and talkign about how His cause woul overcome and illuminate the whole earth. I will start talking over at the Tolstoy page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroplane (talk • contribs) 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass edit because of lack of sourced references?

I've done exactly that for many Bahá'ís who have articles in WIkipedia though I focused on many secondary individuals (not Hands of the Cause for example, etc.) The complaint was based on a case of the Christian list. I don't know the situation over there but great host of the Baha'i entries were sourced on their respective pages - I've revered the edit so saying. Checking around a bit I see that we already follow the suggested Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions, and as a matter of citation the United Nations member states has almost no citations on its page for example. I don't see any rule that says the lists page must have the documentation. There has been a comment that one wikipedia article isn't a source for another (my wording) but I'd like to see more than a whim for such whole-scale evisceration. Even the remaining members of this list were "cited" if at all elsewhere. I could guess perhaps that some entries or other lists abused the responsibility of a good wikipedia page. This page wasn't my idea but I did recognize the need for sourcing individuals who were members of the Bahá'í faith and spent a good deal of work sourcing on each of their pages.--Smkolins (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A broader lists - Category:Lists of countries. Yes meet policy and keep things right but I think this criteria would simply remove lists in general as things like this would always require double entry. Why should categories be exempt - it's just code at bottom of a page. I see a few of lists of countries have been flagged with unsourced notes but is this really what Wikipedia wants? And has no one observed if sourcing is on the referenced page - no one has talked about it at all?--Smkolins (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
All articles have to have sources especially if they detail something about a living person. Saying that so-and-so is of a particular religion is something that must be sourced, and this list must have references. Saying that the individuals are referenced on their own article is not good enough unfortunately. Yes it might be doubling up the references from both the individual's article and this list but that should mean that it is a very easy job to reference these. violet/riga (t) 14:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree since and I others have done a lot of the leg work it should be easy. So flag it needing sources. Please.--Smkolins (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't satisfy our WP:BLP policy though, and while I sympathise that the article is somewhat minimalistic right now it's better to remove and rebuild from history than have policy-violating content remain in an article. violet/riga (t) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
But is it fair to the culture of wikipedia to make a new policy known by simply wiping an article out essentially with no warning? Time and time again an editor just sweeps by, finds something objectionable, rakes the article instead of improving it or often even involving the people who helped make the page. And what about the category section? Doesn't it need citation and yet the mechanics of such article precludes citaiton doesn't it? Why is a list so different? I had intended to spend my spare time of this holiday season working on other kinds of wikipedia articles but yes darn it I can work on this. But it would be mechanically a lot easier if I'm amending the existing list rather than re-adding all of the entries.--Smkolins (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you are unaware of policies and if the edits came as a surprise. Categories should only be added to articles where it clear that it is suitable but yes I agree that our category system is flawed when it comes to referencing. Re-adding people to this list shouldn't be too difficult - just go into the history and copy/paste a section, then reference everyone on it. violet/riga (t) 15:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example where it's done right?

Can anyone give me an example of how to fix this page? There could be a large number of refs at the bottom of the page - I think I can find the syntax for two columns and such but this wont be pretty I think.... I guess both the fact they are Baha'is and what they do/did or whatever has to be refed too?--Smkolins (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What they did isn't particularly needy of a separate ref - it will usually be covered by the one detailing their faith but if it isn't just saying that they are an author (or whatever) isn't a problem. If it's something a little controversial then yes it may need another reference. List of Scientologists is quite a good example of what you need to achieve, but the alphabetical format there isn't so good. What you've done so far is fine. violet/riga (t) 18:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Overall the majority had documentation on their wiki page, though many seemed quite old (in the days citation was less important that "expert" input perhaps. But in almost all cases documentation was easy to find whether here or on the net. I think in all cases the fact of being a Baha'i, and what they are known for, happen on the same ref. I would have added a second if necessary.--Smkolins (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well done - you've done a great job here. violet/riga (t) 18:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mooseheart Faith Stellar Groove Band

I don't see reference any of them are a Baha'i - just that they've used something from the religion for inspiring some of their work. Sound that Transcends Colours and Cultures by: Amir Nadimi. I don't say they aren't but I think we need to find better documentation.--Smkolins (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baha'is who don't have a page but are mentioned in wikipedia....

Do such people get a listing here?--Smkolins (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One common rule is that if they are not notable enough for their own article then they shouldn't exist in lists either. The problem with that is when the article does not exist simply because nobody has gotten around to making it yet. After a quick look into the people I would say that Miles Kasiri warrants an article for his achievement in Wimbledon and the third party coverage about him. The other two, however, I am not so sure about - they don't look like they are notable enough for an individual article and probably not worth including in the list. violet/riga (t) 15:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Another example-

I'd say that he is notable and worthy of inclusion here. violet/riga (t) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)