User talk:Jeff3000/Archive10

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg

First off, sorry for labeling your edit in the page history as vandalism, clicked the wrong link. Second, though, why did you do this? That was a perfectly good addition. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the category doesn't exist. I would remove it once again, but I'll let you do that. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Any comment here on the Bahá'í approach? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Bahá'í history

Category:Bahá'í history, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Bahá'í beliefs

Hi, as discussed here, do the Bahá'í have "official teachings" on Michael? If so, something needs to be said, else we will just skip that issue. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much about Michael, other that what used to be in the article. Given that there isn't a real importance applied to Michael in Baha'i literature, I would just not include anything about Baha'i beliefs in the article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In `Abdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The work never ends

Hi, FYI: Talk:Jesus#Announcing_some_intentions_prior_to_editing_to_avoid_edit_warring. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added my suggested revision. I haven't heard from you there or on my talk page, so I thought maybe you weren't watching the page. Hope you can comment and help improve it, but at the moment it's pretty much my first foray into editing mainspace, so, time permitting, I'm happy to do the bulk of the work. IBE (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this. As the discussion there has already been archived (Talk:Jesus/Archive_116#Announcing_some_intentions_prior_to_editing_to_avoid_edit_warring), I'll post comments here for now, and on that talk page if needed. Sorry for not getting back sooner, but I was tied down by other things. It looks like your suggested revision is a compromise between the existing one and my suggestion. I'm thankful you've made this effort, but I prefer your existing version. If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and make incremental changes to the existing version, like including more references and so on. Do you use your watchlist much? Then I can just post notes on that talk page for any small things I do, and you can check there. The main thing I really feel strongly about is removing the parenthetical comment in the first line: "The Baha'i Faith, founded in 19th century Persia..." I think it should just be without the "founded in..", because people can click on the link, and it seems out of place. Regards, IBE (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Culture of Samoa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nazarene (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

disambiguation page?

Right now bihe goes to Viye which is a super small article. Think we can get a redirect to Bahá'í Institute for Higher Education or a disambiguation page? A bit out of my area how to ask.... Smkolins (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I would create a disambiguation page at bihe and link to the two articles. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My first! Smkolins (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for fixing the Baha'i articles, I really had no idea! Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Baha'i Views section on Jesus Article

Another editor suggested on the talk page that I write and request your input and contribution to the section. I consider that wise counsel on their part :) Peter Deer (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be great - an anonymous editor has just asked if the article can be made to GA status. This would require references being added to this section as it currently has an OR tag. It would be great if you could. JZCL 19:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have some time on Sunday and Monday, and I'll take a look. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff; the section looks much better now! JZCL 06:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the Islamic schools and branches page. I had the same concerns but was afraid to revert back the page since there had been many edits after Arabic script had been heavily added to the page. I do however believe there should be a few select arabic terms in the page added with wisdom. Sakimonk (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

White Revolution

In January 2010, you indicated that a number of citations were needed in the White Revolution article, as well as some cleanup. Unfortunately, at the time you viewed the article, some fifteen citations had been inadvertently removed. The article has received some work since then, probably not enough, and I have restored the deleted citations, many of which went to points that you'd noted. If you'd give the article a second look and suggest needed tasks on the talk page, and needed citations as you did before, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hussein Bicar article

Hello Jeff...I'm sorry it looked like I was vandalizing Hussein Bicar's page...I've made some changes to it in my sandbox and would like to take your opinion before posting it. please take a look at it and let me know what you think because after that I need your help with some issues regarding the article. Here is the link. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karimalaa/sandbox
--Karimalaa (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I looked through the page you've written quickly, and I think it's a good start. The major problem with it is that virtually all of the article is unreferenced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability which requires statements in articles be sourced from reliable sources, otherwise it becomes original research, and can be removed. Another problem with the article as it currently stands is that it is not written in an encyclopedic manner. For example the statements "Bicar seemed destined to be an artist. he could play the lute beautifully at the age of eight and by nine." is not really appropriate for an encyclopedia because of the words destined and beautifully. You'll need to write in a neutral way, as not an admirer of Bikar, otherwise you'll be breaking Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Finally some of the pictures you've added will be deleted soon, because they are not free images. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to go through it Jeff.
I see there are three issue that need to be fixed, first is The referencing, I'll use the links you sent me to deal with it. secondly, is re-writting in a neutral way and I can have that done.Third, the pictures you mentioned, I have six images that I need to use for this article that have been marked as violating copyrights, I didn't know much about using proper copyright license when I first posted them but then I learned about it and I've made the necessary changes and I believe they should be ok now, and I have provided explanation to the reason why I chose each license in the discussion page of each file...however they are still marked. I'd really appreciate if you take a look at them and provide me with your feedback.

File:The Eighth wonder 1.jpg

File:Bicar with his Lute and Buzuki.jpg

File:One of Bicar's paintings of Nubia.jpg

File:The Eighth wonder 2.jpg

File:Moroccan Boy Portrait by Hussein Bicar.jpg

File:Bicar playing the lute by Ahmad Sabry.jpg

One last thing is the name of the article needs to be changed from "Hussein Bikar" to "Hussein Bicar" with a "C" because that is how he wrote it himself and he also signed his paintings as "Bicar" so I was hoping you can tell me how that can be done. thank you for your support
--Karimalaa (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Hussein_Bikar for some help. Smkolins (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Karimalaa, I have moved the page as you requested to a page with the 'c'. As for the images, if the images are truly free of copyright, you can upload them to commons.wikimedia.org if and only if you can prove that they are free of copyright, and you provide where you obtained/found the image. Commons has a very high bar for inclusion, so if you cannot provide the proof of freedom of copyright, and source, I wouldn't put it there. Wikipedia has it's own images for those that are definitely not free of copyright, but are so important that they should be included in Wikipedia. These are called fair use images, and you can find more details at Wikipedia:Non-free content. For these fair use images, you'll still need to provide the source of the image (where you got it from), as well as a notice of who owns the copyright, and thirdly you'll need to provide a fair-use rationale. Hope that helps, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jeff, I have made further updates for Bicar's article and finally I was able to license all the used images properly. Kindly note that I'm part of a small team working on preparing for Bicar's centenary, among our preparations is a request sent to the administration in Google to commemorate Bicar's centenary on their logo on January 3rd, I'm afraid that having mention of Bicar's religion in the lead line might imply that we are trying to pass this as an occasion to bring recognition to the Baha'i faith in Egypt … not to mention the fanatic atmosphere and religious tension prevailing in Egypt now, specially that we are sending Bicar's Wikipedia article to Egyptian government officials seeking their support to sponsor Bicar's centenary by the Egyptian ministry of culture as he is the most recognized painter in Egypt's modern history and is very well known to the general public and despite everyone one knows he was Baha'i he never defined himself from a religious perspective.
So I hope you understand that for the above reasons I need to disregard Bicar's religion from the lead line.--Karimalaa (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jeff, I want you to know that I am truly grateful for all your help and advice with the article. I owe you a great deal in that respect.
I know it may be somewhat difficult for someone who does not live in Egypt to understand the implications of every single word mentioned around the Faith.
Bicar was taken to prison in 1985 on the false accusation of spying for Israel! This is as you surely know is tantamount to high treason. This was within the highly illogical round up of 48 of the friends who were incarcerated in prison with criminals for more than six weeks on absolutely no grounds except that strange accusation. Some of them were single mothers and had to leave their children to neighbors and under extreme social pressure as to why their parents were arrested. I wish you would re-read the Ahram Weekly's argument to see how skewed and uneven handed it is in discussing an issue that is volatile and adds to the existing and currently mounting mindless hatred to any 'other'. In fact the article could be sited as an excellent example of instigation of hate. The reasons, though obvious to us out here, may not be so to you living as you do in a very different atmosphere. The Faith is not a 'cult' and we have been fighting since the 1920's to define it as a separate religion to be judged on its own grounds. As far as I know there is no Israeli house of worship thus far. There is only The Universal House of Justice. The article insinuates that since this is a cult that there must be a center and since The House of Justice happens to be in Haifa then Baha'is must by necessity owe allegiance to the State of Israel! This is the logic behind the article in Al Ahram. If you find this fair then there is nothing more I can say, except that citing Al Ahram as a responsible reference would be highly misleading to the reader and underscoring already existent bias and unknowingly propagating hate to our Faith. I am sure you have no wish to see that happen. Lastly, I think it irrelevant to mention Bicar's religion not on any of the grounds I spoke about above, but because the matter of religion never seems to be an issue with other artists that appear in Wikipedia and hence was wondering why it should be necessary in this case. There would be no harm indeed to mention Bicar's faith if we see a similar reference to a Jewish painter of world fame as an example to highlight the point I am trying to make. In the final analysis this last point is neither here nor there, the only issue of real importance is the citing of Ahram Weekly which draws on an uninformed popular image of the faith and is propagating blatant lies, unfortunately. I repeat the Faith is not a 'cult' and The Universal House of Justice is not an Israeli based cult that employs agents to 'take charge of all Baha'i places of worship'. This is irresponsible journalism to put it in the mildest words possible. I would truly appreciate it if you reflected on this and together we may come to an understanding that would serve rather than harm both Bicar and the Bahai faith.--Karimalaa (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The only reference that brings mention of Bicar being Bahai other than Ahram weekly is this link http://www.bahai-egypt.org/2006/06/tribute-to-egyptian-bahais-national.html It does the needful referencing and can be a substitute for Ahram’s misleading underscore on the Bahai faith.--Karimalaa (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Alas it is a blog and that is not a good standard for wikipedia. Other sources can be used which clarify the actual teachings of the religion and clarify what is right in the article and wrong.... --Smkolins (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: beypoeple, mirza wikiproject related

thanks for suggestion & I understand. --BeyPeople (talk) 10:39, 31-12-12 (UTC)--

Maitreya claimants are Bodhisattva which seems to have caused an edit war

Yes, recently I was helping categorize urn categorized Bodhisattas or rather uncategorized Bodhisattva claimants in the Bodhisattvas category. This has needlessly lead to an edit war. For example, if a person claims to be Akashagarbha, Avalokiteshvara, Kshitigarbha, Mahastamaprapta, Maitreya, Manjushri, Samatabahadra, Sarvanivaraavishkambin, or any other bodhisattva, that's a bodhisattva claim, even if it isn't explicitly specified as such on that particular page. One of the three edit warriors claim there was no such claim on the page, to Bodhisattvahood, but as explained earlier there is a claim to Maitreyahood on the page which is the same thing actually. I'll copy and past this to the talk pages of all three edit warriors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.88.11 (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page, Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aqdas

The article Aqdas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

None of the current supposed disambiguations are actual disambiguations except for perhaps Aqdas which would more reasonably be turned into a redirect if need be.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pass a Method talk 08:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Universalism

It appears you have a different understanding of what qualifies as Universalism in the wide expansive sense, then do the editors over on the Universalism article. I only added articles to the Template:Universalism footer and to the category Universalism if they meet the definition of Universalism on it's article and are mentioned on it as well. And it defines Universalism as "referring to religious, theological, and philosophical concepts with universal application or applicability. Universalism is a term used to identify particular doctrines considering all people in their formation." It then further states "In a broad sense Universalism claims that religion is a universal human quality. This can be contrasted with nonuniversalist religions. Religion in this context is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." If this dos not fit thees articles in question I would suggest heading over to the Universalism article and making the appropriate changes. I will then be happy to change the template based on the changes you make. --Devin Murphy (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Canada (estimated annual readership: 5,221,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Canada to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"removing content about the history of when notices of the religion were published in newspapers. Not appropriate for a summary style article like this"

Where does it belong? --Smkolins (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Imagine reading an article about the history of any religion, be it in an encyclopedia, or a magazine, or a book, does it interrupt the timeline and start talking about the history of newspaper publications. I have never seen one, and there is a good reason; it is disrupting to one trying to gain knowledge of the sequence of events. So it definitely doesn't fit. I don't know where it fits, maybe it's own article at best; it seems more like a research article than an encyclopedia page. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree about the aim - it wasn't meant to be an interruption. But it was meant to broaden the reality of the history - that it was noticed widely. The history is often presented solely internally so to speak but the reality is that it was recognized on a wider scale just as persecution in Iran today is recognized on a wider scale. --Smkolins (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of it's aims it's in the wrong place, and it's a distraction to most readers. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

yet the "natural" segregation of something like a "Western accounts" version of the article creates an artificial separation. I'd wish a more constructive process would engage the content without creating a distraction or oversimplying the account of things. In the country articles there are some with content touching on the historical connection of individuals to events there. Why cannot there be any reference in such an article to connections beyond the political lines? --Smkolins (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only that but these accounts also mark the insertion of Tahirih and Quddus, the first western meeting with Baha'u'llah and so on. Do you think that kind of material only belongs in Báb or Bahá'í timeline ?

You are writing as if you are writing a research paper, where you wouldn't want an "artificial seperation", but an encyclopedia article is not a research paper. The content is at best a separate article, with some links as summary style from other articles. -- 00:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Mirza

As you have commented on this at the editor's talk page I thought you should see this. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

hello

I did not rewind for anything....then.. the Template of babism which i had design is a Neutral. please Do not make religious intolerance Makes you far from neutral of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islam90 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Babism

sorry i'm little in English but Please, left the template as it is, it's Unprejudiced ,, please don't let "Religious intolerance" affect on Wikipedia policy (Islam90 (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

thnx

thanx but There is some injustice (Islam90 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)).

kitab-i-aqsa

this is a real book for subh i azal why u made this for deletation?

the site of The Text of Aqsa Book (in Arabic)

also you can see works of subh-i-azal on this site http://www.bayanic.com/lib/typed/hist/AzalHist/Subh-bio-Eng.htm

and this site http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/index/azal/azal.htm

--Islam90 (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

this is a real book like Baha'i Aqdas and Iqan

--Islam90 (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

DISTORTION OF FACTS & COLLUSION

(removed duplicate comments at 68.101.69.1 and re-introduc here in order to ensure continuity and evidence of dialogue in one location.)

In Reply to your post:

You are absolutely mistaken and accusing me of things which I have NOT DONE! You are attempting to frame things in this way for justification on what is clearly a biased view. So, for the record I will clarify:

1) I included primary sources to the extent a primary source was already cited in the Wikipage; namely two additional translations of the Kitab-el-Aqdas. The wikipage already cited this "primary source" all I did was offer two additional versions of the translations in the references and citations. When my edits were reverted, the page was changed to still include the Willamette version of the Kitab-el-Aqdas as a primary source, which happens to be the most modern of the three translations and has the least historical value.

2) Primary sources can be cited if they have been made available by a reliable publisher, which they have! My citation does not rise to interpretation or original research and you are not a judge to make that determination.

3) I have removed absolutely no secondary resources; and only edited one section (that of calculation) to reflect a FLAW in the source. At best, if it isn't a FLAW, there exists contrary views on the matter. Since I edited the text to reflect something different, obviously the citation was not applicable in that specific incident. None the less the reference to the citation was still within the wikipage.

4) Lastly, between you and Smkolins you are colluding to try and work the rules of Wikipedia to your advantage. Between the two of you was completed 3RR before I ever did; and to my benefit, I was unaware of such a rule, whereas you and Smkolins are, and were working together to appear blameless in such behavior. You are most evidently working in collusion and it is evident and plain to see. I am glad you reported the matter because I will be happy to voice my views on such conduct to Wikipedia. I happen to be in the position to demonstrate a systematic censorship by the Baha'i Institutions; one which very many academics will openly attest to. By all means follow your heart, in private; but here on Wikipedia, learn to operate in Good Faith, and with dissenting points of view and inquiry.

5) I can tell you and Smkolins are veterans of Wikipedia, and me, I'm just a little newbie. However, anyone can easily discern that you sent me this message to seek to distort the facts as they have transpired in order to have a summary judgement made against me by the Wikipedia administrators. I trust Wikipedia to see right through such tactics. Perhaps this is the moment they reign in people who are distorting the landscape of free flow of inquiry and scholarly examination with respect to the Baha'i Faith. The truth is, that it may take time, but eventually it will be evident how in many instances the Baha'i Institutions seek to distort the facts and history; including on public sites like Wikipedia. Its very similar to the Court Case that the Baha'i institutions lost around 2008 here in the U.S.A., claiming to have own copyright to the word "Baha'i". An infallible institution would not take a case to court they were going to lose so publicly.... yet they were adamant in their arrogance, and the fruit of it is that now the word "Baha'i" belongs to all people being in the public domain. So by all means, lets see this through all the way to the end and have an unbiased neutral party review the facts and details. I stand clear in my conscience.

6) Lastly, its a thin line with what is a personal attack. I feel very strongly that Smkolins first response to me, "Blindness is a weird thing", after my first post to his talk asking him to support his assertions that the RAS translation was polemic, was exactly that! And anyone can clearly see the back-handed personal attack in it. So, its a bit hypocritical don't you think to them claim a personal attack. If after making such a remark my reply is considered a personal, I don't see it; I simply see a response commensurate with what was directed at me; even softer really. Do by all means elucidate the matter for me.

68.101.69.1 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I just added this response to your comments on my talk and wanted to ensure you had a chance to read it:

You wrote:

I should also say that whichever translation you like, be it the Baha'i World Centre one, or the one that is discredited by reliable third-party secondary sources, neither are actually acceptable as sources, as they are both primary sources. You'll have to stick to the secondary sources, and those that have been published by a reliable publisher. This has nothing to do with censorship, but with abiding by Wikipedia's policies. Another policy that you should know about is that self-published sources are largely not acceptable as sources. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is my reply:

You demonstrate your biased position here very clearly when you state the "Baha'i World Center one, or the one that is discredited by reliable third-party secondary sources". Firstly, the stark contrast you strike is obvious. Secondly, you make assertions with no critical evidence or support whatsoever. Thirdly, a third translation, that of Anton Haddad was also included, and summarily removed without any explanation. Clearly, what you are framing is a black and white position, while like Smkolins refusing to even address the third translation which utterly demonstrates the duplicity, bias and dogma informing both of your actions. Had even a modest effort been made to be inclusive and work at consensus, - other than the "Baha'i World Center" party line only approach - this matter would not have escalated. For a person who is honored on his Wiki Talk page with a medal of religious patience, I simply do not see how this accords with your actions and words in respect to this particular Wikipage. Your position is all too clear; if any source or content on a Wikipage dealing with the Baha'i Faith is not officially sanctioned by the Willamette/Haifa "Baha'i World Center", then its automatically polemic, or been discredited by some other "reliable third party", which is just a euphemism for another "Baha'i World Center" authorized publication.

In this regard, as an example, the Wikipage in Question is on Huquq, which challenged calculation is on the basis of information that originates in only one place (to my knowledge), the 1986 "Baha'i World Center" translation of "extracts from previously untranslated Tablets" in the Compilation named "Huququ'lláh" (c1986 by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Canada); which content may or may not have been published prior to that in "Compilations of Compilations, Vol 1" and/or perhaps the 1973 "Codification" of the Aqdas. It is one "source" repeated over and over; in compilations, and compilations of compilations, & etc. The same statement repeatedly quoted, by the same authors, and publishers, under the same "authority". This calculation repeated over and over is that the prescribed minimum on what Huquq must be paid on is 19 Mithqals of accrued wealth. Whereas, nowhere in the writings through to Shoghi Effendi, and for years after his death is this mentioned. And the purported basis of this calculation is a statement attributed to Baha'u'llah, which tablet is never officially cited by name or referenced in any place. This tabulation was purportedly revealed after the Aqdas, but there is no name for such a tablet? No official translation of it in its entirety?

There is no third-party secondary sources that support this calculation. It comes from one "source", repeated over and over, and that is the publications of the "Baha'i World Center"; without substantiating from what tablet of Baha'u'llah's it purportedly comes from. Citing Smith's Encyclopedia is a tertiary-source, not a secondary Source (according to Wikipedia guidelines).

On the contrary what is absolutely evident in the writings, is that the Huquq is based upon a calculation of 100 Mithqals of gold of accrued wealth; 19 parts of which are the "Right of God"; and this can be corroborated from the several different translations of the Kitab-al-Aqdas.

If in fact the Huquq aught to be tabulated upon 19 parts of every 19 Mithqals of wealth, then it is only proper to provide/cite the corresponding ***verifiable source*** from which it is derived, not a repetition, of a repetition of a repetition of an unsubstantiated assertion, that one is suppose to accept at face value because the "Baha'i World Center" has a purported infallible authority.

I reiterate, that it is precisely this kind of arrogance that led to the "Baha'i World Center" in utter defeat in ~2008 for bringing a lawsuit for trademark infringement for the word Baha'i. A truly infallible institution would have not taken that road and foreseen such an outcome. That is the reality.

I am open to being corrected, my main objective being to learn; though not to being railroaded by self-righteous, pretensions of infallible authority when all evidence points to the contrary; that something has gone terribly wrong in the Baha'i World institutions and it's in need of some serious healing. Personally, I have no attachment, one way or the other. What I am attached to is truth, and an equitable just road to it.

Warm Regards

68.101.69.1 (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As a final addendum I will add, that rules, if they are to mean anything must be uniformly applied. And, as such, from the perspective of Wikipedia guidelines all of the "sources", with one exception, in the Wikipage on Huquq are "primary sources"; namely, Compilation of Compilations - Volume I, HUQUQU'LLAH A Compilation, and all versions of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. To the extent that first two mentioned are "compilations" in no manner relegates them to "secondary sources", since it is in them that for the first time appear in publication the relevant (and questioned) translated passages on the calculation of Huquq. Moreover, there is in fact no critical or scholarly review or commentary of the translation, nor was the original Arabic/Farsi from which it was translated provided in either of them (or in any other publication for that matter). The remaining cited source, "A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith", is a tertiary source. Therefore, there are in fact no "secondary sources" cited anywhere in this Wikipage on Huquq.

Warm Regards

68.101.69.1 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

-

68.101.69.1 (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all you don't have to copy your comments to both of our talk pages. Discussions usually reside in one place, and I have your talk page on my watchlist, so I will see what comments you put. So I will respond to your comments here. Secondly, as I mentioned before on Wikipedia you have to assume good faith; make your comments about the actions and contents added by editors, not by editors themselves. In my responses to you, I have only talked about the content that you added, and not your motivations, etc. However, many times you have assumed things about my motivations which not only are not true, but are not germane to the discussion, or how Wikipedia works. Coming in with such strong emotions and made up thoughts about what another editors motivations are are not going to allow for collaborative work. Now let me respond to your points:

1. That a page already has citations to primary sources, which shouldn't be used, doesn't make it ok to add more ones, or different ones. It's against policy. What should be done is that those references to those primary sources should be removed. The original research policy disallows the usage of primary sources, except when it is specifically backed by a secondary source, and the reason is a very good one, especially with religious material. What you interpret can be different that what I can interpret. Consider all of the understandings of the Bible, etc. Some people read it literally, others symbolically. We need secondary sources. Shortly I will change the page to remove all references to primary sources.
2. No, not true. That is a prerequisite, but it's not enough. There also needs to be secondary sources that back up the primary source.
3. Please see my comments above about assuming good faith. I reverted your edits twice, but then left it. I had no interaction with Smkolins until well after he started interacting with you. I also warned you about the 3rr, and you then decided to still revert further. So, yes you a newbie, but I'm showing you the relevant rules and policies, and you still continued to break them. If you look at my edits, and my edit on Huquq'ullah shortly you'll notice I'm trying to abide by the Wikipedia policies, and that's it.
4. Given that this comment has nothing to do with Wikipedia, nor the content that you are adding, I will ignore it. If you read all of the behaviour policies of Wikipedia, you will note that such statements that make these types of comments that are not related to the content being discussed can have you blocked.
5. Smkolins comment to you was not correct, and can be considered a personal attach, but you didn't take the high road either. Do you believe that the world is a better place by responding to an attack with another attack. Actually Wikipedia forbides it, and both of you can be blocked. Let's be civil in our discussions, and comment about content, not editors.

Hope that clear some things up. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not see a point in going back and forth. You have your interpretation which is subjective, and with which I am at personal variance. Just because you are a verteran of wikipedia does not give any more credence to your subjective biased interpretations on facts. You are not in a privileged class. The only point of substance to reply to is your bullet #4 above.

Your comments are not factual. After your 3rr warning to me I did not revert any edits. If in any way it appears that way it is simply because your post and mine crossed each other. Moreover you have the audacity to send me a 3rr warning and a personal attacks warning when Smkolins, both performed a 3rr, and initiated personal attacks, in both instances prior to me; and to my defense I was not previously aware of such policies, whereas a veteran certainly would be. Smkolins is a veteran of Wikipedia, and yet, knowing better, you did not send him a warning. It is this kind of duplicity that would understandably cause a person to conclude that you are, not operating in assuming good faith, are biased, and operating in collusion. If you do not want to give that impression, then I would think that your ***comments and actions*** on Wikipedia would have to reflect differently. This is a common sense conclusion.

Now that all of that is out of the way lets please address the substantive points at hand which continue to be avoided. Lets get on to "Not Secondary Sources" and the rest of it. How about it?!

Warm regards to you! 68.101.69.1 (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not Secondary Sources

As I made it clear in my last comments to your talk, and which you conveniently chose to ignore, the edits you are now making to the Huquq page are not based upon Secondary Sources. I will in fact re-edit the page to remove the unsupported tertiary and primary sources, to be in conformity with exactly what it is that you have said. If you cannot provide authentic verifiable secondary source on the calculation of the Huquq, then it will not be articulated in such manner.

Moreover, the corporate body known as the "Universal House of Justice" is in fact not universally recognized by Baha'is throughout the world and not all Huquq by Baha'is is payed to them.

So, if you do not remove the bias or include the differing perspectives, I will edit it forthwith.

Lastly, I will move the entirety of our ongoing conversation on this matter to your talk page, where in fact I posted my last comments to you *not in duplicate*. If the thread must live in only one place then it will live on your talk page, where my last comments were made.

I will give you the opportunity to fix the calculation before editing it myself - it will be identified by as;

All purported secondary sources on "calculation" based upon ONLY one repeated source that fails critical examination.

68.101.69.1 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

68.101.69.1 (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

---

I would like to add to this conversation, that even though that even though wikipedia is primarily based on secondary sources, primary sources do have a place on wikipedia, per wikipedia policy.

[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

This especially makes sense in the case of the texts from the Bahá'í Holy Writings, which do not allow for interpretation by anyone but the Guardian of the Faith. Thus in the case of the Bahá'í Faith, which is unique, all secondary sources can do is repeat exactly what is already said in the primary source. Furthermore, since the Holy Writings are widely and easily available for anybody to read (educated or not), so that context can also be read if interested, it makes even more sense to city the primary source, so that anybody who needs to verify its correctness or read the text in context can do so very easily. Of course this can then be supplemented by secondary sources (much more difficult to verify), such as encyclopedias, per wikipedia policy. Verifiability is wikipedia's "core content policies": verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies.

Lastly, to put it all in context, this discussion has focused not on any "large passages" of primary source material, nor on exclusive citing of primary source material. All that is concerned is the part of its calculation, of which multiple views exist, and for which primary sources, that do not allow for interpretation anyways, are added to the discussion. Therefore please, I hope you will not do anything as rash as removing "all primary sources" from the pages, as you threatened to do, but perhaps seek to add further secondary sources to them while preserving the presentation of several viewpoints. Primary sources have a place in any academic work, from journal papers, to encyclopedia's to wikipedia:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia

109.109.112.83 (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your comments don't really make sense. For example when you state "This especially makes sense in the case of the texts from the Bahá'í Holy Writings, which do not allow for interpretation by anyone but the Guardian of the Faith." it is exactly for that reason why we need secondary sources. How Shoghi Effendi interprets something has to be reported by a secondary source, because there are differences in how people understand his intepretation, or even agree with that assertion. It is fact for you, but not fact for someone else. Also there are many Wikipedia policies that disallow the inclusion of many quotes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source of Baha'i quotes. People should the primary source material or Baha'i material if they want to see that content. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I should let you know that if a fact is important enough that you want it to be included in Wikipedia, there must be a secondary source that states it, and it requires you just find it, which requires more of your time. If there is no secondary source, then you may being dealing with something that is best left outside of an encyclopedia.

I also noticed that you edited the Universal House of Justice article and heavily based it on primary sources. I have since removed those statements. Your edits were very much coming from a Baha'i view and that is not appropriate. Remember we are writing an acadmeic neutral encyclopedia.

Warm Regards, --Jeff3000 (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

---------------------

1) This poster made it very clear that primary sources are within the scope of what may be cited within a Wikipage, and ONLY if interpretation is taking place are secondary sources required. Your response to her makes no sense whatsoever, and based upon the ACTUAL LANGUAGE of the Wikipedia guidelines, I will in fact insert the select citations to the primary sources on calculation. You are now the one that must provide evidence for your suppositions that primary sources in every instance require a secondary source of support. Honestly, what makes you think that you have the correct view on this matter when common sense dictates that the poster's understanding of the rules of Wikipedia is in congruity. You are presenting a clearly distorted view of the Wiki guidelines with a specific biased agenda in mind. I will be editing the article again to reflect a broader discourse.

Do tell, what is not obvious about this guideline which is published here on Wikipedia as a "primary source":

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." - from Wikipedia guidelines on sources.

In fact, do cite secondary sources, that support your particular interpration of this statement which diverges from that which can be "verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." In case you are wondering this is a cybernetic methodology I just employed with regards meta-cognition. It proves the point perfectly.

2) The institution in Haifa Israel referred to as the "Universal House of Justice" is not in fact a universally accepted body by all followers of the Baha'i Faith (this statement can be verified by even the most cursory examination of facts), and to suggest in encyclopedic articles that out of the several millions of persons in the world that identify with the Baha'i Faith, there is but one sole institution that Huquq'u'llah is paid, or where authority is vested, is simply biased and lacking critical examination, not to mention what would be deemed common sense.

3) Since you have taken it upon yourself to police this Wikioage on Huquq'u'llah. I say, fix this article to reflect the incongruities with the calculation and with the reality that there are more than one Baha'i sect; otherwise when I do, you have no recourse to fall back on. You have been duly noticed.

4) Most relevantly, the courts of the United States of America have ruled that, no group has a monopoly on the name of a religion, and that specifically in regards the "Baha'i" religon, "the chain of successorship lacks a link." - NSA-HUG v. NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF BAHA'IS, 547 F.Supp.2d 879 (2008), United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division., April 23, 2008.

Wikipedia is a 501-c3 not-for-profit corporation based in the United States of America, and must conform to United States Law. The various names and terms associated with the Baha'i Faith have been ruled by the courts to be in the public domain and do not belong to any institution, group, or denomination; particularly a Corporation domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction.

5) The more adamant you are about limiting the scope of critical examination and inquiry on Wikipages dedicated to Baha'i topics, the broader the dialogue will become. Rest assured that the Article on Huquq'u'llah is just the beginning of the critical examination that will take place with regards ALL articles on Wikipedia regarding the terms, names and institutions associated with the Baha'i Religion.

6) Lastly providing citations, even if copious that are all under the editorial review of this same one foreign corporate body ie. "The Baha'i World Center", and no less a religious one with a specific personal agenda, ***does not constitute critical examination***, as as such does not meat the criteria of "secondary sources" that have passed critical review. In this regard at every opportunity you have failed to address this substantive point; That what is cited is merely a repetition, or a repetition of a repetition, & etc without any critical examination or review from outside the "Baha'i World Center" institutions based in Israel. It is in fact a substantiatable fact - that even a modest examination will support - that very many scholars have written publicly about the persistent censorship of publications on critical examination of the "Baha'i World Center", and the history of the Baha'i religion. This oft repeated pathology of censorship, together with insistence on interpreting Wikipage guidelines according to what is contrary to common sense ("verified by any educated person"), perpetuate a biased, distorted, limited, nonacademic, and unproductive view of the content on the Wikipage on Huquq'u'llah, and other Baha'i Wikipages.

I am being very specific in all of these regards, because eventually, this will go to a superior authority at Wikipedia, and it will become so evident what is at work here. I am going to be very pleased to see this arrogant behavior find a Just resolution.

Warm Regards to you! 68.101.69.1 (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

---

I will make some very short comments here, but the rest of the discussion has to be done on Talk:Huquq'llah.

1. The poster did no such thing; that editor didn't understand the policies just as you don't. What you claim as a reasonable understanding is not the same understanding of many others. If you claim it is a reasonable understanding, you should have no problems finding secondary sources.
2. As per the undue weight policy of WIkipedia states that views can only put on Wikipedia "on proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and "enerally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." While there exists those that self-identify as Baha'is who don't follow the Universal House of Justice, their views are a small minority, and their vies are not included in virtually all scondary sources. When most secondary sources mention the Baha'i Faith, they mention the Baha'i Faith centered in Haifa.
3. See above, minority views don't get to be included unless their views are published in reliable secondary sources, and only in proportion to the secondary sources. Virtually all published secondary sources are about the Baha'i Faith centered in Haifa.
4. That has nothing to do with views published in reliable secondary sources on Huqu'qu'llah
5. Wikipedia content has to follow the policies of Wikipedia which include veriafiability, no original research and undue weight.
6. I am very confident that your current editing style does not follow Wikipedia policy.
7. That is original research.

Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)