Talk:ʻAbdu'l-Bahá

Fire in Shrine of Abdul Baha

It is strange that Smkolins (talk · contribs) is removing a correct news. There was fire at the Shrine of Abdul Baha which has also come in news and also videos and photos of the same are available.--Asad29591 (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It isn't strange. It's covered elsewhere and it linked. Smkolins (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed link

Replaced removed link, Baha'is all the time come in and like to do that, but is is a very frowned upon and also if the removal takes away an alternative view then it messes witht eh neautral pint of view that is required in wiki articles both of which can definately cause problems.

such "alternative" groups are very very small and are already mentioned in the main article, mentioning OBF everywhere is like mentioning "Potters of God" on every Chrstian related article - --Cyprus2k1 07:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

no, the comparison is not the same. Potters of God don't exist anymore. Orthodox Bahais still number in the thousands, which is approximately 0.1% of the Bahai community worldwide.-Mavaddat 01:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the OBF has anything remotely resembling these numbers of adherents. And if it did manage thousands, then WP:Undue weight would still apply. MARussellPESE 06:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Again both groups share the belief in and history of Abdul-Baha and divide on the Will and Testament of the Master and both groups shold be listed. The fact thaqt one is smaller than the other is not relevant tot he neutral point of view or wiki rules of not erasing links, but if you want a erasier war then be prepared for the consequences.

Order of succession

As I understand it, Baha'u'llah's will stipulated that Abdu'l Baha succeed him, and gave him the title "Centre of the Covenant" (and lots of other high praise), and said that Muhammad Ali should succeed Abdu'l Baha as leader of the faith. After a lifetime of having to deal with Ali's attempts to undermine him, Abdu'l Baha appointed Shoghi Effendi instead, and instituted the whole idea of the Guardianship. About half of Abdu'l Baha's Will and Testament is devoted to justifying to the Baha'is why he had felt it necessary to change the succession.

Someone removed my comment "Relations between them had deteriorated to the point that...". Personally, I don't see why. If Ali was attempting to get Abdu'l Baha executed by telling tales on him to the Ottoman authorities, then it is clear that by then there had been a pretty comprehensive breakdown in relations between the half-brothers. Putting it this way offers no opinion on who was responsible for that breakdown - so I figure that's perfectly NPOV, but if people don't like having this linking phrase there then it doesn't bother me much. Putting in a sentence of special pleading for `Abdu'l Baha's side of the dispute doesn't seem NPOV to me, however, which is why I removed that sentence about AB repeatedly denying Ali's arguments. -- PaulHammond 13:02, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

does "'Abdu'l-Bahá denied this, making assertions to His followers that He was not to be regarded as such." looks more NPOV? :) - --Cyprus2k1 17:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cyprus, you know, and I know that Muhammad's accusations against `Abdu'l-Baha were a load of rubbish. I know that, because the early American believers used to think that `Abdu'l-Baha, being the son of "The Father" (Baha'u'llah), was really the return of Christ - and Abdu'l Baha did repeatedly deny this, and refused to take any kind of worship from the more enthusiatic American Baha'is. I don't know whether Abdu'l Baha actually dignified Muhammad Ali's challenges with any kind of response - but I don't think it is the business of any encyclopedia article to come down on one side or the other of the controversy. I think we should report the fact that there was trouble between them, report the fact that Muhammad Ali tried to get his half-brother executed by telling tales about him to the Ottoman authorities, but that that effort failed, and that eventually AB was freed as a result of the Young Turks revolution causing a change in government in Palestine. Then, we can report the fact that Ali's efforts against him persuaded Abdu'l Baha that it was necessary to spend about half of his W&T talking about how Muhammad Ali had forfeited the right to be a Baha'i Leader due to his Covenant-Breaking, and that therefore Shoghi was going to be the Guardian instead.

I don't think that we should write anything here that could be accused of being, in Amir's words a "Baha'i promotional pamphlet" - and that is what I feel Brettz is attempting to do here.

btw - if Brettz reverts me again without even correcting his damn spelling mistake, or coming here to discuss things, I think I shall scream. PaulHammond 21:39, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

This falls far short of the spirit of consultation. I made comments as to why I had reverted, if you would read them in the page history. The onus is on you to respond to the points and not to just delete things.

It is not taking a side to state the facts. If the article refers to Muhammad Alí's accusations and then leaves it hanging, this is biased, in its implicit insinuation that He must have made such claims. It is at least incumbent to state that He did make such responses, as He is in fact on record as doing (it may even be in published newspapers of the time as He is recorded in Mahmúd's Diary of having told them this), or otherwise it gives the one-sided impression that Muhammad Ali must have been right. I can provide the exct citations if it will make a difference to you.

I think it is also far from necessary to be concerned with the manifest bias of other editors. Just because some of the articles may have been derived from promotional sources and admittedly should be changed in this environment does not mean that people trying to overcompensate and paint things in what they think and want to be as negative a light as possible (without offering a description of the official Bahá'í response to those insinuations), should be given a free hand to do so. User:Brettz9 09:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You didn't come to the talk page, Brettz. I put two paragraphs of explanation here, and tried to justify why I didn't think that my attempt at a linking from the fact of Ali's opposition, to the attempt to get Abdu'l Baha executed, to AB's being freed by the Young Turks was non-NPOV. From my point of view, I came here and tried to edit what was in that paragraph to an NPOV version. I stand by my comments about the succession - "could" rather than "should" understates what the expectations were. If Ali's succession to AB was not widely expected by the contemporary Baha'i community, then why was it that Abdu'l Baha's Will and Testament spent so much time justifying what a terrible Covenant Breaker Ali had been so that he could justify appointing Shoghi as his successor, instead of Ali as Baha'u'llah had said before he knew what a trouble maker Ali would turn out to be.

I don't take much issue with the "could"-"should" issue, actually. I agree that was the implication, I just thought that the Kitáb-i-'Ahd did not justify stating it in such unequivocal terms.

I believe that AB was fully justified in doing that. Discussion of whether the whole "Covenant Breaker" thing that arguably started with AB's W&T has cast a shadow over the whole Baha'i Faith since then is probably too deep and off topic for this article.

Well, Bahá'u'lláh had taken the action of excommunication earlier when Mírzá Yahyá had made the counter-claim to Bahá'u'lláh's public declaration.

Quite possibly, the mention of the problems with Ali doesn't belong in that particular section, and the whole article needs a bit of re-working. I'm willing to discuss all this with you - but not for a couple of weeks. Right now, I'm taking a break from editing Baha'i pages at all because my involvement in attempts to prevent vandalism of the main Baha'i articles by a couple of determined editors has taken its toll on my usual good humour. I've left a note on my user page about that if you're interested.

Such attacks can take a toll on all of us, for sure.

I apologise if you think my comments above are a bit OTT. Put it down to the strain I've been under on the other Baha'i articles. But, it seemed to me that what had happened here was that you had reverted me without bothering to address my comments here to put the article back exactly to your preferred version, even down to the original spelling mistake of "denied", and after what I've been dealing with on the other Baha'i articles, I formed the impression that you considered me some kind of Ali supporter whose comments were not worth considering, which made me react rather crossly. PaulHammond 15:55, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not taking the time to examine the talk page carefully and transfer my comments in the notes here. I apologize also for jumping to any conclusions. If you do take some time off as you state at your page, hopefully you won't find the Dr. Who article beleagured by questions of non-NPOV personal attacks and insinuations about who was the best Dr. Who or the worst!  :) Brettz9 17:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nitram Photo edit - Please leave it

This is one of my two favorite photo's of Abdu'l Baha. Please leave it. It's one of only two I know of where he is smiling. Thanks Martin!!!! Rick Boatright 22:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to find good pictures of Abdul Baha smiling. The truth is that he was really happiest when talking with the believers, but the majority of his ministry was spent suffering from the disunity in the world and the disloyalty of the covenant-breakers. Dr. Youness Afroukteh speaks a lot about this matter in "Memories of Nine Years in Akka" (an incredible book) that when Abdul Baha would come in to speak with believers that came to visit him he was visibly heartbroken and weary, but that when speaking with the believers he would warm up and begin to smile and laugh and even joke, because being around the believers who he loved and loved him never failed to warm his heart and gladden his spirit. Peter Deer (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

naming

Can we change the title to take away the dash? So... change the title from `Abdu'l-Bahá to `Abdu'l Bahá Cuñado - Talk 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the Bahá'í usage is with the dash, see http://reference.bahai.org/en/ -- Jeff3000 00:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

His wife

I thought it was odd that his wife and children are not mentioned anywhere in the article, so I added a bit. But it would be more useful if someone could fill in the details better. Also maybe a new page just for his wife or something. Not sure how much detail exists on her. Wjhonson 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I too am interested in this particular topic, especially regarding Munirih Khanum, who I notice there has not been a wiki article written regarding. Peter Deer (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper

There is a very long article by or about Abdul in the Washington Post about 1911/2. When I get a minute I'll try to transcibe it. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wjhonson (talk • contribs) .

I can't get to the link, it goes to to a login screen. -- Jeff3000 16:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a subscription-based service. I think a few months ago we had a discussion on WP:RS or on WP:V about whether fee-based services could be cited, etc. But at any rate, this service provides actual photo-images of old newspaper pages, so I'd have to read it and transcribe it, which takes a while. The service itself is about $300 to $400 a year iirc. Wjhonson 01:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of copyright is related to those? I think they would be interesting. Would you be able to post the image as a reference? Cuñado - Talk 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Old newspapers are out-of-copyright, I think before 1922? Not sure on the exact year, but this one is. Not sure if I can post the image, but first I'm going to transcribe it.

The Washington Post, Washington, D.C. 12 Sep 1915, p 8 (image 40 of 68 on Ancestry Newspaper subscription service www.ancestry.com)

Abdul Baha To Mr. Carnegie On Theme Of Universal Peace "To his noble personage, his excellency, Mr. Andrew Carnegie:" "May God assist him! O thou illustrious soul! O thou the great pillar of the palace of universal peace. It was some time since I intended to correspond with thee, but there was no intermediary between us. Now that his excellancy Mr. Topakyan (consul general of Persia in New York) has made this possible through his kindly suggestion, I write thee this epistle; for truly I say thou art the lover of the world of humanity, and one of the founders of universal peace.

"Today the most great service to the kingdom of God is the promotion of the principle of the unification of mankind, and the establishment of universal peace. A number of souls who were doctrinaires and unpractical thinkers worked for the realization of this most exalted aim and good cause, but they were doomed to failure, save that lofty personage who has been and is still promoting the matter of international arbitration and general conciliation through deeds, words, self-sacrifice and the generous donation of wealth and property. Rest thou asured that through the confirmation of the Holy Spirit thou wilt become confirmed and assisted in the accomplishment of this most resplendent service and in this mortal world thou shalt lay the foundation of an immortal, everlasting edifice, and in the end thou wilt sit upon the throne of incorruptible glory In the kingdom of God.

Europe United on War "All the leaders and statesmen of Europe are thinking on the plane of war and the annihilation of the mansion of humanity, but thou art thinking on the plane of peace and love and the strengthening and reinforcement of the basis of the superstructure of the human world. They are the heralds of death, thou art the harbinger of life. The foundations of their palaces are unstable and wavering, and the tunnets of their mansions are tottering and crumbling, but the basis of thy structure is firm and unmovable.

"While I was journeying throughout America and Europe (1912) I cried before all the meetings, conventions and churches.

"O ye noble friends, The world of humanity is facing in the future a most portentious danger and supreme calamity. The continent of Europe has become like unto a gunpowder magazine and arsenal, under which are hidden combustible materials of the most inflammatory nature. Its combustion will be dependent upon the sudden and unexpected enkindlement of one tiny spark which shall envelop the whole earth with a world-wide conflagration, causing the total collapse of European civilization through the furious, wild, raging, fiery tongues of war. Therefore, O ye well-wishers of the world of humanity, endeavor by day and by night so that these inflammable materials may not come in touch with the burning fire of racial antipathy and hatred.

Oneness of Humanity "Today the life of mankind and its attainment to everlasting glory depend on its display of effort and exertion in accord with the principles of His Holiness Baha'o'llah: for his first and foremost teaching consists of the oneness of the world of humanity. He says: We are all the sheep of God. His Highness, the Almighty, is the real Shepherd and kind to all the sheep. Why, then, should we be unkind toward each other? Another of his most great institutes deals with the subject of universal peace, the establishment of which would be conducive to the well-being and progress and tranquility of the commonwealth of man.

"Other precepts of Baha'o'llah treat of the identity of the underlying foundations of the religions of God, the original oneness of the nations, the adoptions and general practice of a universal auxillary language and the inculcation of the ideal of cosmopolitanism and world patriotism among the children of men: consequently in future his teachings will act as a deterrent and preventive from the occurrence of the most great danger —i.e., universal war.

Most Important Service "Today the most important object of the kingdom of God is the promulgation of the cause of universal peace and the principle of the oneness of the world of humanity. Whosoever arises in the accomplishment of this presentment service the confirmation of the Holy Spirit will descend upon him. Now all that has been predicted has come to pass, and the lurid flames of this war have emblazoned the horizon of the east and the west, causing a reverberating social earthquake through the column of the earth. After this war the workers for the cause of universal peace will increase day by day, and the pacific party will array its force, displaying great activity with better advantage, and in the end gaining a permanent triumph and eternal victory over all the other parties. The realization of this matter is incontestable and irrefragible.

"Therefore, ere long a vast and unlimited field will be opened before your view for the display of your powers and energies. You must promote this glorious intention with the heavenly power and the confirmation of the Holy Spirit. I am praying in thy behalf that thou mayest pitch a pavilion and unfurl a flag in the world of peace, love and eternal life.

"I beg you to accept the consideration of my highest and deepest respect.

"Abdul Baha Abbas

"Translated by Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, May 1, 1915. Home of Abdul Baha, Mount-Carmel, Haifa, Syria" END-OF-QUOTE

Wjhonson 02:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now posted the .png image here Wjhonson 03:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting it. -- Jeff3000 04:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sir" Abbas

Anyone going to take issue with removing "Sir" at the beginning of the name. He never used the moniker, and the order and rank is unknown. MARussellPESE 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

He was knighted so he is "sir" Zazaban 22:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So? It's a title he never used and, if memory serves, actually disliked. No other published biography refers to him this way. Why should wikipedia? MARussellPESE 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with MARussellPESE. -- Jeff3000 02:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? He was knighted, and therefore his proper title is "Sir". I don't personally know whether or not he liked the title -- do you know where that might have been recorded? Either way, wouldn't it be more encyclopaedic to list him as "Sir", if that is his proper title? --Twilightsojourn 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen any book or encyclopedia use the word Sir in front of his name? -- Jeff3000 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but granted, I haven't checked too extensively, I'm afraid. Either way, though, isn't it proper to include "Sir" (or KBE, I suppose) as a title for anyone who has been knighted? I thought it was simply standard to do so. If not, then we can make the decision accordingly. Why are you supporting the removal of the title, by the way? --Twilightsojourn 04:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I keep thinking of this reference:

"My name is Abdu'l-Bahá. My qualification is Abdu'l-Bahá. My reality is Abdu'l-Bahá. My praise is Abdu'l-Bahá... No name, no title, no mention, no commendation have I, nor will ever have, except Abdu'l-Bahá. This is my longing. This is my greatest yearning. This is my eternal life. This is my everlasting glory." (quoted in The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 139)

Although readers should bear in mind that this was in response to American believers asking if he (Abdu'l-Baha) was the second coming of Christ, and he was emphasizing that Baha'u'llah was, and he was the servant of Baha'u'llah. Cuñado - Talk 05:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a good point. However (and I hate to keep questioning this, especially given the quote above), would it still be more encyclopaedic to list him as "Sir"? If that became his proper name as of the moment of his knighting, then I think it would be.

I am aware, of course that this is a small point -- I am asking this so I can learn, as well, not just to be a nuisance within the context of this article (I'm worried that I may be coming across as splitting hairs over one word, where I am not only trying to seek a better understanding, as well as make Wikipedia the best it can be, even when it comes to potentially small details such as this). Thanks so much for continuing to think about and discuss this question with me! Take care, Twilightsojourn 05:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the word, plus more importantly no published source uses the word sir in front of the name. That is more than enough to not use it. -- Jeff3000 12:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Twighlightsojourn, you're making an interesting statement that I think deserves discussion: "If that [Sir Abbas] became his proper name as of the moment of his knighting …" Who says, exactly, that that's his proper name? The British Empire? If someone bestows a title on you does that mean you're stuck with it? Is it really a proper name?

To me, it's very significant that Baha'u'llah bestowed various titles on Abbas Effendi, but the one he chose for himself, 'Abdul-Baha, is the one he used exclusively, and the one generally used. I think "Sir Abbas" isn't a "name", but a title; and as such the holder has the right to decide to use it. `Abdul-Baha clearly chose to avoid using it. MARussellPESE 13:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a great point, MARussellPESE, and thanks for putting forth the question so well. I went and checked out the article concerning the Order of the British Empire, which is where any hyperlinks for honorary knighthood usually redirect. It doesn't specifically address this question (of "being stuck with" the title, as you put it), but instead describes when individuals are qualified to use it or not (whether or not they are citizens), and in what way ("Sir" or "Dame" versus "KBE" or "GBE" (affixing the letters to the end of one's name)). If one looks at the article for someone like Steven Spielberg, for example, one will notice that he is listed as "Steven Allen Spielberg, KBE", though interestingly, Bill Gates's article does not list him as such, despite him having received the title. Upon further inspection, it appears that there has been some extensive discussion regarding the issue (the first can be read here, and other examples can be seen in the other archives). One person wrote "According to British law, receiving the title "Knight of the British Empire" allows one to use the initials "KBE" after their name. It does not require one to use KBE any more than receiving a Ph.D. or M.D. requires one to use these initials. In certain situations, such as a research lab where everyone has a Ph.D., using Ph.D. with your name is looked upon as rather presumptuous. So to determine whether "KBE" is appropriate to be used with William T. Gates, we must not look to British law but what Bill Gates himself prefers. And in the Microsoft biography of Bill Gates, KBE is not used anywhere. So I don't think we should be using it in his name either.". I'm not sure where this person got this information, but if it is correct, then it would apply here, resulting in no "Sir" or "KBE" for `Abdu'l-Bahá. What do you all think? --Twilightsojourn 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! Thanks, Twilightsojourn. Well done. MARussellPESE 02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the difference between Bill Gates and `Abd al-Baha' is that the latter was a citizen of the British Empire. Those who reside in countries outside the British Empire are not allowed to use the title 'Sir', and can only put KBE after their names. Also, there are several rankings of knighthood and `Abd al-Baha' received the order of Knight Commander. The form of recommendation can be viewed in Moojan Momen's Babi and baha'i religions, 1844 - 1944. Finally, I do believe that, as an encyclopaedia article (and not a religious text) the full name, including title and transliteration, should be included. The fact that `Abd al-Baha' himself rarely used this title is well-known and can be mentioned, as well, but it does not erase the fact that the title exists. What else is the point of an encyclopaedia than to provide complete knowledge? I think the title should be restored and, if desired, a clarification should be appended. dgl 10:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[`Abdu'l-Bahá] is a transliteration, and carries any information of the original Arabic. [‘Abd al-Bahā’] is another possible transliteration. There is no need to use both. Since there is enough information about his titles, I made a new paragraph in the intro and left the first sentence as simple as possible. The title of KBE is mentioned there. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The standard academic system of transliteration from Arabic, used by the International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies (IJMES) and the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) is used by virtually every scholarly encyclopaedia (see Enclyclopaedia of Islam [`Abd al-Baha'] or a slightly-modified form [`Abd-al-Baha'] in Encyclopaedia Iranica, for example). Given the fact that the Baha'i system of transliteration is more common, I agree that `Abdu'l-Baha should be the primary form of the name, however, the standard academic transliteration should be provided for those who do not know Arabic. Furthermore, you deleted the real given name of `Abd al-Baha' -- `Abbas Effendi -- with no mention twice. Until he succeeded Baha'-Allah in 1892 -- and even afterwards -- this was the primary name he used in correspondence with non-Baha'is and the name which was used to refer to him in almost every non-Baha'i publication.

Again, this is an encyclopaedia, which is supposed to include thorough and comprehensive information. It is not intended to be a religious or hagiographical biography. That said, I do not believe that adding `Abd al-Bahas real name (`Abbas Effendi) or his full title (KBE) in any way harm his memory or offend religious sensibilities. I suggest that you consider what is the purpose of this article on Wikipedia -- to educate those interested in a scholarly account of `Abd al-Bahas life or to present a sterile, but incomplete picture? dgl 11:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That the KBE is mentioned is enough. No encyclopedia names him as "Sir Abdu'l-Baha ..." and thus the argument that it is unencyclopedic to not include the "sir" falls apart. As for his given name, it's also in the lead which is also good enough, but it could be moved forward. Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

for what it's worth, the historical dictionary of the baha'i faith, edited by hugh adamson (former sec-gen of the UK NSA), lists both `Abbas Effendi and KBE in the title of the entry on `Abd al-Baha'. I quote:

`Abdu'l-Baha. (`Abbas Effendi; the Centre of the Covenant; Sirru'llah - Mystery of God; Ghusn-i-A`zam - Most Great Branch; KBE - Knight of the British Empire.) Baha'u'llah's eldest surviving son, His appointed Successor and interpreter of His revealed World. He was knighted in 1920 as Sir `Abdu'l-Baha `Abbas for His services in averting famine in `Akka during World War I.

i hope this suffices to demonstrate that it is common encyclopaedic practice to include all relevant titles at the start of an entry. (and i should point out further that the reviews for Adamson's text have been critical in that it is not scholarly enough (he leaves out a great deal and there are several editing problems). and even so, it lists Baha'-Allah, the Bab, and `Abd al-Baha' with their full names and titles.) dgl 13:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And here is the Iranica version (by MacEoin), no mention of Sir or KBE in the lead:

"`ABD-AL-BAHA', epithet assumed by `Abba's Effendi, the eldest son of Baha'alla'h (q.v.), founder of the Baha'i movement. The epithet means “servant of the glory of God” or “servant of Baha'alla'h."

Only just before the sentence before his death does he mention the order of the British empire:

"In 1920 he was made a knight of the Order of the British Empire."

So it is not common encyclopedic practice to include all titles. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative picture on Wiki Commons

On [2] there is another good picture of 'Abdu'l-Bahá. Could the current picture be replaced with that one? Wiki-uk 16:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that one is more common by far. Zazaban 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Replacement done. Wiki-uk

Abbas Effendi

"Abdu'l-Bahá's given name was `Abbás Effendí, but he preferred the title of `Abdu'l-Bahá (servant of the glory of God)."

This is not historically correct. Effendi is just an honorific, like Khanum. Abdu'l-Baha took that name upon the death of his father, when members of his family objects to some provisions of His Will. Does anyone else want to work on making this paragraph more accurate? Balyuzi would be a good place to start.--I'm Nonpartisan 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding is that Effendi is his "family" name. Last names came late to the region, so people got to choose. MARussellPESE 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. When the Baha'is in Haifa needed to choose a name, Abdu'l-Baha chose Rabbani for the family. That's Shoghi Effendi's legal last name, same as Ruhiyyah Rabbani. Effendi is used all over the Middle East as an honorific, the same as Mister or Honored Sir. But, certainly when he was born, Abdu'l-Baha was not given the name of Abbas Effendi. And, really, the "Servant of God" isn't a "title" either, like Dr., President, or Holy Father. Here is how I would rewrite this:

"Abdu'l-Baha's name at birth was Abbas. From about eight years old his father, Baha'u'llah, began to refer to him as "the master" in reference to his intelligence and spirituality. He as called "The Master" by friends and family alike until the death of Baha'u'llah. After the readin of his father's will, he told his family that he would be known only as Abdu'l-Baha, "the Servant of the Glory" or something like that. Time to go do some research.--I'm Nonpartisan 03:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a wonderful and interesting topic. Actually, is there a wikipedia article regarding honorifics and titles in Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and further into worldwide Islamic society? I have yet to find it but I think that it would be exceedingly informative, especially to western individuals such as myself who are seeking to understand more about eastern society, either for the purpose of better understanding one's own religion or for simply promoting unity between the peoples of the world. Peter Deer (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Persian Roots"

In the second paragraph, it states that the Tablets of the Divine Plan spread the faith beyond their persian roots. This seems rather inaccurate to me, as at the time the tablets were published the Baha'i s had already spread from Iran, to Iraq, to Turkey, to Israel, and all throughout the middle east. I'm going to make a minor change to this (Middle Eastern roots) but I'd like to see it rewritten by someone else. Peter Deer (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur. The Faith had already spread to India prior to `Abdu'l-Baha's tenure. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Munirih Khanum

The page says Munirih Khanum is the daughter of Mirza Muhammad Ali; that name is incomplete, and gives the impression that he is the same person as Abdu'l-Baha's half-brother. The correct name of her father was Mirza Muhammad-'Ali Nahri. There is more information about her easily obtained in the Ocean program, just type the word "Munirih" into the search box and it brings up her memoirs. Brent Poirier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.117.7 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Marriage

The article says that He married Munirih Khanum in 1872, this is incorrect as Abdulbaha married in March 1873. He was 28, she was 25. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjames 9999 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Effendi

I'd like to once again address the term Effendi. This was, as far as I am aware, not part of `Abdu'l-Baha's given name. As mentioned by I'm Nonpartisan, Effendi is an honorific. It was particularly used in Turkish areas such as Turkish Palestine. I believe he was born Abbas, not "Abbas Effendi." He was known as Abbas Effendi in Palestine. Is there any historical source saying he was born with the name or title Effendi? I know of none. - Parsa (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It is true that in most cases it is an honorific. However, it is entirely likely in this instance that the name was given to Him at birth, in the same manner Abdu'l-Baha Himself is historically noted as insisting that this be done with His grandson, Shoghi Effendi. In terms of historical documents, in all documents I've seen He is referred to in one of the following ways: Abdu'l-Baha (which He chose for Himself), Abbas Effendi, Ghusn-i-Azam (in reference to His birth) or simply Aqa (in itself an honorific). But I am not an expert on the rules and customs of Persian and Arabic naming, so it's entirely possible that Effendi is not part of his actual name, but if it is an honorific it is one He had from very early on. Peter Deer (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that he was refered to as Effendi from an early age since he came from a noble family. It would be similar to someone calling a young aristocrat "young Master." However, it would be unlikely that it was actually part of his given name. Aga ( آقا ) was always the term Baha'u'llah asked his followers and family to use for `Abdu'l-Baha. Perhaps Effendi was in use in 19th century Iran, but I have generally heard of it used in Ottoman Turkish contexts as a junior title of respect, as the Effendi article outlines. Shoghi Effendi grew up in Palestine, not Iran. - Parsa (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I studied Middle East history and Arabic pretty extensively in college. Yes, Effendi is an honorific implying high class in Turkish society. Yes, his given name is `Abbas. Just as Baha'u'llah's name is simply Husayn-`Ali. I think the piece you're missing is that throughout the 19th century people around the Middle East started taking last names because there was a dramatic increase in the movement of people, and the tradition of last names was strong in Europe. Most people already used their craft or town with their name, so you were `Ali Baghdadi, or `Ustad `Ali. The change was that these names became official in documents as people traveled. Much like people coming into Ellis Island had to choose a last name, sometimes out of thin air. It's clear that at some point, I'm not sure exactly when or where, `Abbas chose Effendi as a surname, and all his family used it from then on. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see some documentation on that. What is the name used on the passport that the pictures were taken for in Adrianople. A passport name would be the formal family name.I'm Nonpartisan 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)

Well, I just stepped over the the Baha'i Encyclopedia Project page, and Abbas Effendi is what is used there, that's a final answer for me. http://www.bahai-encyclopedia-project.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81:abdul-baha-abbas-1844-1921&catid=36:administrationinstitutions&Itemid=76 —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Expanding

I would think it be prudent to expand the "exiles with his father" section a bit more. It's very short and these were some of the pivotal years of `Abdu'l-Bahá's life. Someonething similair to the Bahíyyih Khánum or Ásíyih Khánum article? --Lizzie1988 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That period covers Baghdad, Constantinople, and Akka far too quickly. This is the period when he gains some of his titles, in the change of fortunes of the community in Akka, as well as significant aspects of his station following Baha'u'llah's death and early difficulties in succesorship - but finding sources covering the periods in detail and with authority and facts must be adhered to. It's much more than three short paragraphs. Smkolins (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes thats true, 3 paragraphs are not sufficient for this article. Concerning the sources, Bahá'í sources such as `Abdu'l-Bahá: Centre of the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh, The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh series, The Chosen Highway & Esslemont's Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era can help. For non-Bahá'í onces The Life and Teachings of `Abbas Effendi, Encyclopedia Iranica, Holy People of the World: A Cross-cultural Encyclopedia, and others should be useful. --Lizzie1988 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Journeys to the West

• Another thought I had about expanding is to take the Journeys_to_the_West section into it's own article with a survey of the trips/talks and events during the trips - sources include Juliet's Diary, Paris Talks, Promulgation of Universal Peace, Portals to Freedom, and others. Has anyone seen a chronology of any depth of his trips - where he stayed, who he met with, etc.? I recall there being painting of Abdu'l-Baha for a time in a hotel at Niagara I think.... Smkolins (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

and of course newspaper coverage like Abdul Baha Prays in Ascension Church and many more.... Smkolins (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One more: Zarqáni, Mírzá Mahmúd-i- (1998) [1913]. Mahmúd's Diary: Chronicling `Abdu'l-Bahá's Journey to America. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. ISBN 0853984182. Wiki-uk (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeap - I also recall Abdu'l-Baha in London. Smkolins (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's some reviews of available resources - [3], [4] I wonder how soon the World Order content will be available online. Smkolins (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also champing at the bit for World Order, I know one person who has a box of back issues next to a scanner, part of the Heritage Project ongoing at Media Services, but I don't know if that's the plan for getting them online. The first book that tried to be very specific about the travels of Abdu'l-Baha was 239 Days, but it's been out of print for many years and many other books have been published since. Promulgation of Universal Peace is great as a historic document of the time, but there's some missing days in there. The same Heritage Project is digitizing all sorts of audio, thousands of tapes, and I bet there will be some interviews and personal rememberances in there, just jewels ready to find.I'm Nonpartisan 05:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)

With so many accounts would it be useful to do a parallel columns accounting - little summaries with citations for each source discusses it? Or per day in order, little summary and a list or code of which publications cover that day/event?? Smkolins (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I even found a parody - [5] from Stephen Leacock.Smkolins (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Partial List of Refs for First Journey

• `Abdu'l-Bahá (1987) [1912]. ʻAbdu'l-Bahá in London; Addresses & Notes of Conversations. London, UK: Baha'i Publishing Trust of the UK. p. 127. ISBN 0900125896.
• Afshin, Mahnaz (1986). The Beloved Master. Malaysia: Baha'i Publishing Trust of Malaysia. p. 94.
• Khursheed, Anjam (1991). The Seven Candles of Unity; The Story of `Abdu'l-Bahá in Edinburgh. London, UK: Baha'i Publishing Trust of the UK. p. 246. ISBN 1870989120.
• Blomfield, Lady (1975) [1956]. The Chosen Highway. London, UK: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. ISBN 0877430152.
• "Abdu'l-Bahá's Visit to Edinburgh 1913" (PDF). 2007-06-22. Retrieved 03-02-2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• `Abdu'l-Bahá (1995) [1912]. Paris Talks (Hardcover ed.). Bahá'í Distribution Service. ISBN 1-870989-57-0.

Smkolins (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The progress on expanding the Journey's section into a main article has significantly progressed.It's all at User:Smkolins/Sandbox and I'm wonder a couple things. I've tried various schemes on basic structure. So far I like the present one the best. What do you think? Also should I post as is, as is with flags for expanding sections mostly towards the bottom, or keep plugging away until the content is reasonably even and then post? The main structural problem is various levels of citation - some are ?? that need to be found but mostly there are unstructured Hardvard-like entries barely formatted.Frankly Harvard style is something I've done only alittle of. If I keep going through the development along it could easily be a couple months before it's "ready" to post. On the other hand one ref I'm waiting for and have been in communication with the Library of Congress about is a reference that might come online in June so a couple months is in order for at least one detail (I have a secondary ref but I think the direct newspaper story should prove most worthwhile.) Smkolins (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's live! - See `Abdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West - Still lots to do but it's been suggested to go ahead and post it so more hands can easily access to improve. Smkolins (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrative Order

Regarding the phrase in the first section: "and his Will and Testament laid the foundation for the current Bahá'í administrative order." (I have not made any changes to the article. I just want to see if there is agreement about this.)

Perhaps it might be more complete and true to what it says in the Bahá'í writings to say that it was Bahá'u'lláh who laid the foundation for the Bahá'í administrative order (established the Houses of Justice). Then some wording could be used to indicate that 'Abdu'l-Bahá, in his Will and Testament laid the foundation for its current (or present) form. Servant of Baha (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

possibly - however while certain features were certainly set by Baha'u'llah it is Abdu'l-Baha which delineated crucial features of Bahá'í administration as we have them. Perhaps it would be more useful to borrow from the language of that page - that "the Will and Testament constitutes one of the four so called Charter documents delineating the features of Baha'i administration".Smkolins (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am focusing on the word "foundation." Since Bahá'u'llàh is fulfilling the prophesy of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth (in which man shall learn war no more) through the establishment of an Administrative Order that will govern in His stead, perhaps it is important to make the distinction that He alone has the authority to lay down this foundation. The infallibility of the Universal House of Justice and the authority of all of the Houses of Justice were established by the Manifestation of God. 'Abdu'l-Bahá's scriptural authority was limited to Interpretration of the Holy Writ. He could elucidate and implement but could not create. For instance, he revealed scripture but not the Creative Word. So, the way I see it, 'Abdu'l-Bahá built upon the foundation laid down by Bahá'u'lláh. The Master did this by describing a framework which constituted the beams and girders of the future administrative edifice. Shoghi Effendi then erected the walls, floors, roofs, and interior rooms (guidelines, procedures, constitutions, by-laws, charters, etc.) that has allowed them to function in their present form. Don't you think that "Certain features" is perhaps too light a phrase to describe the extent of Bahá'u'lláh's authorship of the Administrative Order?

I like your idea of describing 'Abdu'l-Bahá's contribution in the context of the four charter documents instead of saying His Will and Testament laid the foundation. (1) The Tablet of Carmel designates the holy spot of it most high edifice, (2) the Kiláb-i-Aqdas laid the foundation of its authority, (3) the Tablets of the Divine Plan designated and guides its chief builders, and (4) the Will and Testament of 'Abdul-Bahá establishes the Administration's framework, including the Institutions of the Guardianship and the National Spiritual Assemblies.

Your further comments, please. Servant of Baha (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Please move this discussion somewhere else. The talk pages are meant for discussions on the contents of the page as specified by reliable secondary sources. Reliable sources are those published with editorial oversight such as academic publishers and peer-reviewed journals, and the above is all original research based on interpreatation of primary source religious material and that type of material is not permissible in Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

tributes on death of….

this might be useful for noting his death - [6], [7], [8] --Smkolins (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

The article currently states:

He arrived in New York City on 11 April 1912, after declining an offer of passage on the RMS Titanic, telling the Bahá'í believers, instead, to "Donate this to charity." He instead travelled on a slower craft, the S.S. Cedric, and cited preference of a longer sea journey as the reason. Upon arriving in New York, he arranged a private meeting with the survivors of the ill-fated Titanic, who asked him if he knew the Titanic's ultimate destruction would occur, to which, 'Abdu'l-Baha replied, "God gives man feelings of intuition".

However, on 11 April 2012, the RMS Titanic was still at sea and cruising uneventfully, and did not strike the iceberg until late night on 14 April. Thus, if `Abdu'l-Bahá arrived in New York on 11 April, he could not have arranged a meeting with the survivors of the ship until some days later. Furthermore, it is somewhat confusing to say that he traveled on a slower ship, given that the ship he traveled on left Europe a week earlier than the Titanic did. Even if the Titanic had arrived in New York successfully, traveling on the Titanic would have meant waiting several days in England for the ship to depart and then arriving in New York a week later than he actually did. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the timeline is as follows:

• Abdu'l-Bahá boarded the RMS Cedric in Alexandria, Egypt bound for Naples on 25 March 1912
• The ship arrived in Naples harbour on 28 March 1912 and after several days left for New York.
• The American Bahá'í community had sent thousands of dollars urging `Abdu'l-Bahá to leave the Cedric in Italy and travel to England to sail on the maiden voyage of the RMS Titanic. Instead he returned the money for charity and continued the voyage on the Cedric.
• Arrived in New York on April 11
• When news of the Titanic's singing was announced on April 16th, he was quoted as saying "I was asked to sail upon the Titanic, but my heart did not prompt Me to do so."

I've corrected the article. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Picture

Why is the picture the one where he is old, and not the on at age 24. Abbas Effendi is often referred to for his good looks, and the image is also more common in Bahai usage. 89.242.129.234 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

? Source? Considering almost every picture of him is from his later years I severely doubt it. --Smkolins (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Already sourced as [23] https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/%60Abdu%27l-Bah%C3%A1#cite_note-lotoae-23 .78.148.67.220 (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

1923 - that's a very old source, and wasn't that high a quality one even then. If you search google images for Abdu'l-Baha you see very few of him young, and very many of him older.--Smkolins (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - it was published 1912 (not 1923) when hardly any other pictures of him had been published. --Smkolins (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Early years of his ministry

The following statement was deleted with the spurious claim that it is not reliable.

The official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy is disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants who, initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí and then Shua Ullah Behai, were also subsequently declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi.

So, what part of the statement do you perceive to be not reliable?

1) Is the official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy not disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants?

2) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí?

3) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not subsequently led by Shua Ullah Behai?

4) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi?

The works of Smith, Bausani, Momen, and other Bahá'í historians do not dispute these basic facts, although they would certainly disagree with underlying causes of the dispute. A35821361 (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You are not basing this on any of their works. You are adding this exclusively based on a extreme minority pov source with no substantial presence in modern scholarship. Your conjecture of other points is specious what you are actually doing. It is an unrelaible source, pure in and simple. Copy and pasting the case from article to article doesn't make it any better. Smkolins (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of things where your edit breaks Wikipedia's policies. First it's a self-published source which "are largely not acceptable as sources". Secondly views that are held by small minorities, don't get the same weight in articles, as those that appear in most reliable sources. See undue weight. In most reliable sources, the successorship from Baha'u'llah to Abdu'l-Baha, to Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice is the only one they mention, and if they mention anything else it is in passing. -- Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you complain about the source from Covenant-breakers, which is not self-published as you mischaracterized it, I will provide some references from official Bahá'í ones.

The official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy is disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants who, initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí and then Shua Ullah Behai, were also subsequently declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi.

Reason for his knighthood

Only Bahai sources refer to his being designated KBE due to "humanitarian work" related to sharing of grain from his storage. On the other hand, contemporary British sources give a different reason. According to Harry Charles Luke, an official in the British Colonial Office who served as assistant Governor of Jerusalem, `Abdu'l-Bahá "on the 4th December, 1919, was created by King George V a K.B.E. for valuable services rendered to the British Government in the early days of the Occupation." He was ceremonially knighted on April 27, 1920, an event which was prominently reported in the Star of the West. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

First, your excuse is " By "later scholars" you mean Bahais, who had a vested interest in depicting the leader in a positive light, and not merely as a lackey of the British." which is NOT the reason I reverted and then you say "the reason given by a British colonial official is more believable than a Bahai apologist." MacEoin is not a Baha'i nor an apologist. And more specifically judging whether a statement/source is more credible than some other statement/source is a scholarly question. That's why Wikipedia raises scholarly sources as the higher reliable source. Smkolins (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Alessandro Bausani is the source for your reversion, not Denis MacEoin. As you may be aware, Bausani was a prominent Bahá'í who served on the Italo-Swiss National Assembly and later on the National Spiritual Assembly of Italy for twenty years. Bausani served as a delegate for the first election of the Universal House of Justice in 1963. MacEoin, on the other hand, is a former Bahá'í and an academic who was declared an "apostate" by Momen. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually on digging, the only version of the iranica article I can find doesn't make any case of why the knighting happened. I found another. But further, your accusing me what I mean by later scholars fails "good faith" principles of wikipedia. I wasn't thinking of Bausani - please stop placing your presumptions on me. I don't go checking the religiosity of the sources to judge their soundness. Nor should you. Second, as I said, academic sources trump political ones - it is a judgement call to say whether a government action is sincere or serving some other ends for example. Academic sources can look at many factors or proofs of a thing and make a broader case one way or another. Such is the case with the new source - I don't really know why the previous source was originally used (perhaps the original version of that article made the case but the only version I could find doesn't to my reading) and in any case a PhD has a higher reputation than an encyclopedia and a later work has a higher reputation than an old one. So from my pov you are promoting a fringe idea on an article with content that has no place for it. Show me comparable sources that credit your view or pull your presentation back where it belongs which is not here.Smkolins (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You weren't thinking of Bausani, you actually cited him as a reference, although you seemed to think you had cited MacEoin when in fact you hadn't. The British colonial officials explicitly stated why the knighted `Abdu'l-Bahá, no reason for you to go "digging" to find a narrative that fits your agenda. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Look at your words. My thinking wasn't my thinking? And the cite was bad - the version I found stated no reason whatsoever for the knighting. It was just stated as a fact. And that doesn't fit my finding a scholarly effort and you failing to find a scholarly effort either. Use better thinking.Smkolins (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on `Abdu'l-Bahá. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101163638/http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/Encyclo_Baha.pdf to http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/Encyclo_Baha.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"This translation of the Kitáb-i-'Ahd is based on a [[solecism]"

The whole tone of understanding needs reflection based on the majority understanding, not some obscure theoretical unreferenced definition attempting to reason someone through a pov that is not the majority pov. This approach violates policy of neutrality and dependence on sources so I reverted it. Smkolins (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The text being objected to as "some obscure theoretical unreferenced definition" is as follows...

In the Kitáb-i-`Ahd Bahá'u'lláh refers to his eldest son `Abdu'l-Bahá as Ghusn-i-A'zam (meaning "Mightiest Branch" or "Mightier Branch") and his second eldest son Mírzá Muhammad `Alí as Ghusn-i-Akbar (meaning "Greatest Branch" or "Greater Branch"). Bahá'u'lláh designates his successor with the following verses:

The Will of the divine Testator is this: It is incumbent upon the Aghsán, the Afnán and My Kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch. Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: ‘When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root.’ The object of this sacred verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch [‘Abdu’l-Bahá]. Thus have We graciously revealed unto you Our potent Will, and I am verily the Gracious, the All-Powerful. Verily God hath ordained the station of the Greater Branch [Muḥammad ‘Alí] to be beneath that of the Most Great Branch [‘Abdu’l-Bahá]. He is in truth the Ordainer, the All-Wise. We have chosen ‘the Greater’ after ‘the Most Great’, as decreed by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Informed.

This translation of the Kitáb-i-'Ahd is based on a solecism, however, as the terms Akbar and A'zam do not mean, respectively, 'Greater' and 'Most Great'. Not only do the two words derive from entirely separate triconsonantal roots (Akbar from k-b-r and A'zam from ʿ-z-m), but the Arabic language possesses the elative, a stage of gradation, with no clear distinction between the comparative and superlative.

1) The statement that "the terms Akbar and A'zam do not mean, respectively, 'Greater' and 'Most Great'" because "the two words derive from entirely separate triconsonantal roots (Akbar from k-b-r and A'zam from ʿ-z-m)" is neither "obscure" nor "theoretical."

2) The statement that "the Arabic language possesses the elative, a stage of gradation, with no clear distinction between the comparative and superlative" is neither "obscure" nor "theoretical."

3) The first two points above are clear and basic. Even so, the text was not "unreferenced" as Denis MacEoin addressed these points in his book review. He is the one who aptly characterized the this translation of the Kitáb-i-'Ahd as being based on a solecism.

4) There is no POV here. If there is, please clarify what part of the content is objectionable.

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Zionism

I removed this paragraph:

"Subsequent to the British occupation of Palestine, during the arrival of Jews under the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, `Abdu'l-Bahá advised Zionists to fulfill the promises the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zachariah. "There is too much talk today of what the Zionists are going to do here. There is no need of it. Let them come and do more and say less" and that "a Jewish government might come later." `Abdu'l-Bahá encouraged the Zionists to "mingle with the other races and live in unity with them" and "make it clear that their principle is to elevate all the people here and to develop the country for all its inhabitants". He further emphasized to "make it clear that their principle is to elevate all the people here and to develop the country for all its inhabitants" and "[The Zionists] must not work to separate the Jews from the other Palestinians. Schools should be open to all nationalities here, business companies, etc."."

It was written as a way to introduce a criticism that Abdu'l-Baha was pro-zionist, but it does not accurately reflect his views. A more thorough treatment of the issue is at Political objections to the Baha'i Faith#Bahá'í ties to Zionism. Generally speaking, Abdu'l-Baha mentioned the return of the Jewish people to Palestine as an inevitable fulfillment of prophecy, and that nothing could stop it. It was not him picking sides in a fight, as the text seemed to describe by taking quotes out of context.

Overall, his comments on zionism are one of hundreds of minor topics that could be thrown in and I don't understand why that adds to the article, so I didn't bother rewriting. Show me a professional summary article on Abdu'l-Baha that includes zionism and I might change my mind. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph which you are deleting is cogent, well-sourced, and completely relevant to the topic matter at hand. Regards, A35821361 (talk)

See WP:UNDUE. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have, thank you. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Then you're aware that: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space... Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader... Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

Then you're okay with removing what is clearly a fringe attack on `Abdu'l-Baha that is both misrepresenting the facts and not mentioned in reliable sources. It is mentioned on your Reddit page where you daily attack the Baha'i Faith with false and misleading statements, but that doesn't count. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Presenting `Abdu'l-Baha's statements on Zionism is not a fringe attack nor a misrepresentation. Not a single one of my edits on Wikipedia nor my contributions to Reddit are false nor misleading. The vast majority presented there is directly from publications of the Administrative Order. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Again you failed to address the guidelines. You are trying to bring a paragraph that suggests that one of the most important things he did in his final years was to support the immigration of jews to Palestine. That is not supported. The preponderance of reliable sources don't mention that tidbit of information and there are numerous other issues that are more important. You are pushing for its inclusion because you think that it is somehow embarrassing, as demonstrated by your comments outside of Wikipedia. Related to this, the way it's presented is inaccurate, suggesting that `Abdu'l-Baha was a Zionist. The subject is treated at more length (and more accurately) at Political objections to the Baha'i Faith#Bahá'í ties to Zionism. If you cannot provide evidence that the subject is even mentioned by reliable sources when presenting a summary of `Abdu'l-Baha's life, then it will be removed per WP:UNDUE. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The idea of the para seems reasonable; the text could be improved; I've tried to do that. As to Political objections to the Baha'i Faith#Bahá'í ties to Zionism, there appears to be no link to that from this page, so the "more thorough treatment" is not easily available. Perhaps it should be linked? I don't think I buy the UNDUE; Zionism is hardly one of a hundred minor topics. I do think that the word "Zionists" that he uses might not have the modern day connotations William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue of WP:UNDUE is easy. Just show me a summary article from a reliable source (or sources) that even mentions the issue. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of inclusion of quote from Harry Charles Luke

It is important to include the quote from Harry Charles Luke in the article. As assistant Governor of Jerusalem in the colonial administration, he explicitly gives the reason for 'Abdu'l-Bahá's knighting, which was "for valuable services rendered to the British Government in the early days of the Occupation." While the one modern Bahá'í reference in the current version of the Wikipedia article attributes this knighting for aversion of famine through sharing of grain with the civilian population, the contemporary accounts at the time by others, such as the Bahá'í Lady Blomfield (who 'Abdu'l-Bahá named "Sitárih Khanum") tells a more detailed account:

We learned that when the British marched into Haifa there was some difficulty about the commissariat. The officer in command went to consult the Master.

"I have corn," was the reply.

"But for the army?" said the astonished soldier.

"I have corn for the British Army," said 'Abdu'l-Bahá.

He truly walked the Mystic way with practical feet. [footnote: Lady Blomfield often recounted how the corn pits proved a safe hiding-place for the corn, during the occupation of the Turkish army. -Ed.]

I include this latter quote here because it emphasizes the importance of direct quotes in dispelling some of the gross misunderstanding by certain editors of the historical facts. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

this edit that is behind this comment simply adds in two paragraphs copied from the version before I completely re-wrote the section on final years. In my edit, I included the references to the knighting and zionism, and I did so in a way that gave them proper weight. The copying back in the same paragraphs causes repetition and makes the article less coherent. Try actually reading the section and editing over if you want to contribute.

Regarding the comment about the reason for knighting, I suggest you read over WP:NOR. You don't have to go past the "nutshell" to see: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." It sure sounds like you are trying to make a synthesis of original source material that is not a reflection of the original intent. There is also the page Political objections to the Bahá'í Faith that has a section for both the Bahá'í ties to Zionism and British ties, which are the appropriate places to expand on the subject without giving undue weight to the minority view. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me weigh in here. I've had a cursory glance through the edit suggested by A35821361. I have to agree with Cuñado, in that it may not be the most coherent of edits. This is perhaps due to the fact that the edit makes an incoherent shift from a (relatively) neutral biography to what some may see as implicit criticism of the person in question. Perhaps A35821361 should revise the structure of the edit to make the shift into this topic more coherent. Indeed the arguement to move it to the political objections page is a tempting one and to be honest I kind of think both pages need this as it relates to both the biography of 'Abdu'l-Bahá and the political objections to the religion.

That however is not the reason I decided to join this discussion. I noticed Cuñado claims that the edit uses Original Research. It certainly is hard to avoid whilst writing a topic, but OR is of course inexcusable - content should be challenged and removed or have a "citation needed" tag applied. It should come as no surprise then that one should expect people claiming that an edit is OR to give proof. I have read through the edit. It is certainly an implicit criticism but all of it is based off well cited quotes or sourced assertions. The implications themselves seem to be in the sources (as is required of implications), which of course means the edit does not fit the description of OR. I do not see any OR. I'd like to request Cuñado or someone else to outline for me which parts constitute original research. It is very possible I am wrong - I have been before.

So please clearly show what part of A35821361's edit constitutes OR. If it's something to do with the source, quote me the source.

Thanks, Hesnotblack (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a bit dated now, but here is an example. The references to Zionism added by A35821361 quotes an interview of `Abdu'l-Baha that was published in 1919 when the British Mandate just started and 30 years before the state of Israel formed. He several times tried to add the quote, "There is too much talk today of what the Zionists are going to do here. There is no need of it. Let them come and do more and say less", which leads the reader to think that `Abdu'l-Baha is supporting the state of Israel in the modern context of conflict. By simply reading the entire interview comments it becomes clear that `Abdu'l-Baha's emphasis was on Jews developing the land and living in unity with other races. If not, he says, "they will meet certain resistance". I could easily take quotes out of that interview to lead the reader to think `Abdu'l-Baha would be opposed to the modern state of Israel and its policies, but A35821361, as someone overtly attacking the religion across Wikipedia and Reddit, is trying to lead the reader to think `Abdu'l-Baha is pro-Zionism. All of this is sourced from the original source material with no secondary source commentary from reliable sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank you for the quick reply. As I understand it, your assertion is that A35821361 engaged in OR by picking certain parts of the source to convey a certain viewpoint. If your assertion is correct, I will no doubt agree with you - that is very much implict OR.

Perhaps you might be confused as to which edit I was referring to. I was referring to the text added on A35821361's last edit too this page. This is the version I am referring to. As you can see A35821361 has included the "unity with them" quote as well. He also included the quote about how they "must not work to seperate the jews from the other Palestinians" etc.

As far as neutrality then, I see no violation - he includes both sets of quotes. Nor do I see any violation in the form of OR. If he had then written an analysis of the quotes or something, that would constitute OR. As he has just included the quotes, and both sets of quotes, there is no original research. Any viewpoint (pro-zionist/anti-zionist) can be derived from the quotations.

I was a little shocked when I read, "but A35821361, as someone overtly attacking the religion across Wikipedia and Reddit..." I'm not how I should respond to this... The only thing I'll say is please could both of you remember to be neutral when it comes to Wikipedia. You're both very experienced editors - far more experienced then me. I am sure you're both better than to fight in this way. Regardless, if you meant he is being offensive (in talk pages etc.) then he shouldn't do that. If he is making edits without sources or if he is engaging in OR, then he should be kindly corrected. But if he is making good, well sourced and neutral edits, which happen to offend you due to your religious views, then that is just something you're going to have to put up with. Wikipedia is a place for facts, sometimes those facts may upset some of us. But we shouldn't let that get in the way of maintaining factual accuracy and neutrality - I am sure both of you wouldn't remove well sourced content that you (personally) disagree with.

In summary then, I do not see how his edit (i.e the revert) constitutes OR. (I have a feeling you and I were talking about different edits though - sorry if I wasn't clear enough with what I was referring to). The fact that the newspaper is a primary source and that there aren't any reliable secondary sources is a bit worrying. Are there not any secondary sources? Even the unreliable ones, which you wouldn't use to cite the article, could help bring the discussion to a consensus. Unless they are really unreliable.

Thanks, Hesnotblack (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there are two issues with his edit, one being that he is trying to insert primary sourced content with the intent of presenting an incorrect picture of `Abdu'l-Baha's political views, and the other that he is giving undue weight to an issue that is not even mentioned in any secondary sources commenting. Per WP:NOR: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Adding more of the original quote does not address these issues. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see you are developing this discussion to include the issue of him giving undue weight. I have no problem discussing this. The two issues with his edit, as you opine, are:

1. WP:NOR: He is trying to insert primary sourced content with the intent of presenting an incorrect picture of `Abdu'l-Baha's political views.
2. WP:UNDUE: He is giving undue weight to an issue that is not even mentioned in any secondary sources commenting.

First we must ask ourselves is "trying to insert primary sourced content" a violoation of WP:NOR? No, it isn't, as per the page on Original Research, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.". Furthermore, the page also says, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. 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 primary 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. ". So we can conclude that using primary sources themselves is not OR. But...

As you stated in your first claim, he is supposedly doing this "with the intent of presenting an incorrect picture of `Abdu'l-Baha's political views". This is where WP:NOR comes into play. But merely the intention to do something cannot be used as evidence for him actually doing it. If he is using the primary source to write original research then there are two ways he may be doing this:

1. He is making statements whilst referring to the primary source as evidence for these statements. Thus he would be writing his own interpretation of the source.
2. He is selectively picking quotes, to implicitly write original research (in this case misleading the reader).

You must show me any instance of these two. Before I decided to chime in on this discussion, the way you were talking about A35821361 writing OR seemed to denote he was doing the first one, i.e. synthesis. However, as previously mentioned, he is only using quotes - thus he makes no statements - so no interpretations .

Now you said that "Adding more of the original quote does not address these issues." Actually it does. If he does add more of the original quote he is not selectively picking quotes. So he is not writing original research in that way either.

Perhaps a slight misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy led you to think that he was writing original research - the first issue. As I have shown, this is not the case.

Now let's move on to the second issue, the "giving [of] undue weight to an issue that is not even mentioned in any secondary sources commenting". Actually, I will partially agree with you on this one. The issue is not mentioned in any secondary sources commenting, only because there are no secondary sources commenting.

But your main point with regards to this potential issue is that it constitutes WP:UNDUE. Quoting the wikipedia page on this, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." His edit would constitute WP:UNDUE if it met 3 conditions (and argueably these should all be fulfilled for it to constitute WP:UNDUE):

1. He states a viewpoint, and...
2. Gives it more weight than necessary, considering...
3. That viewpoint is not prominent in the vast proportion of published, reliable sources.

Sadly, we fail on the first one, as he does not state a viewpoint. Not only does he not explicitly state a viewpoint, but we are unable to argue he implicitly stated a viewpoint as he includes both sets of quotes (consequently meaning he is not cherrypicking). Logically the second fails as it relies on the first. Finally, the third is also reliant on both the second and first. Even if it wasn't however - you stated yourself that reliable secondary sources couldn't be found - so there is argueably no prominent viewpoint.

So there you have it, he does not break WP:NOR and he does not break WP:UNDUE. Of course I invite further discussion if you feel it is necessary but I feel this is quite conclusive. You have been unsuccessful in demonstrating how he has written original research and how he gives undue weight. If you do decide to have a final go at proving your assertions then you should refer to the numbered points I have outlined above.

Hope I was helpful, Hesnotblack (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Show me a biography of Abdu'l-Baha from a reliable, published source that mentions his views on Jewish migration to Israel. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Lack of a view is not the same as having opposition to/a different view. There is no impartial source that explicitly argues the opposite i.e. for what we would claim to be the majority view - that he is not a Zionist. For it to constitute WP:UNDUE, you would need many impartial, reliable sources which state the "majority" view on his views on Jewish migration. So, logically, my counter-arguement to you would literally be the same thing you asked me: Show me a biography of Abdu'l-Baha from a reliable, published source that mentions his views on Jewish migration to Israel.

But you know what, for sake of arguement I'll agree with you. I personally believe there is no such published source. That doesn't matter. As I have already demonstrated, (and at this point I'm slightly worried you're not reading what I'm writing), he doesn't state a viewpoint in his edit. I'm not going to rehash what I wrote above, read it again to get the details on how he doesn't take any sides in the arguement i.e he doesn't state implicitly or explicitly anything to support or deny `Abdu'l-Bahá being involved with Zionism. Thus he doesn't partake in either WP:OR or WP:UNDUE.

I understand how you feel on this topic - you almost certainly feel your religious leader is being misrepresented. But he is not - read the edit again. If you read it with a level mind you'll note that it indeed doesn't imply Abdu'l-Baha was a Zionist - in fact it implies the opposite - he wanted everyone to get along with eachother. This is when you read the latter quotes along with it.

Again, hope I was helpful, Hesnotblack (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not how Wikipedia works. There is no "majority" view on the Zionist question, it is simply a non-issue, and if you want to push for inclusion you have the onus of finding reliable sources and giving it proper weight based on the prevalence in those sources. The Zionist question is an extremely obscure issue, and yet I already included it in the section: "the British Mandate supported the ongoing immigration of Jews to Palestine. `Abdu'l-Bahá mentioned the immigration as a fulfillment of prophecy, and encouraged the Zionists to develop the land and 'elevate the country for all its inhabitants... They must not work to separate the Jews from the other Palestinians.'" What you are pushing for is to expand on this into its own paragraph with lots of quoting from the primary sources. The policies are unambiguously opposed to that type of editing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear... It seems you've fallen into a logical trap. To quote you, "There is no "majority" view on the Zionist question". But just a while ago you said, "... are the appropriate places to expand on the subject without giving undue weight to the minority view.". So there isn't a majority view but there is a minority view? Suffice to say, I think you should really just give up on the claim that his edit gives undue weight, you've even managed to go in circles contradicting yourself in this regards.

I don't think we should give "inclusion" to this "Zionist" question - I was simply sympathising with your point of view. It seems you mistook my sympathy for me advocating "[expanding] on this into its own paragraph with lots of quoting from the primary sources". I am simply discussing an edit which I think you unfairly removed in the light of Wikipedia policy, the same policy you seem to think I want to break by "editing" this page to include Zionist/Anti-Zionist sentiments. That is not what I am trying to do.

So can we both agree that you made a mistake when you said A35821361's edit constituted Original Research/Undue weight? I hope we can. I am not even asking you to reinstate the edit - at this point I simply want you to admit you made a mistake, likely in the heat of the moment, in saying his edit broke those policies. We all make mistakes and we can all learn from them.

I think once you do that we can both move on from this, and I hope A35821361 can too. Perhaps he might reinstate the edit, perhaps he might not - though that should be up to him. Regards, Hesnotblack (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Cuñado, I just had a thought. Were you addressing me with that comment or Smkolins? If you were addressing me, I'm not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion... Hesnotblack (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'll jump in. The inclusion especially of "Subsequent to the British occupation …Schools should be open to all nationalities here, business companies, etc." is relying on a single source, is never commented on that I've ever seen in any biography whatsoever. So it's trivia at best. What's the point of trivia in an article being repeatedly introduced and is insisted it is "relevant to his life, adds to article relevant information …" The balance of sources establish if it is "relevant to his life" or "adds … relevant information…" relevance depends on the views of relevant sources. Lacking such sources and pushing the content again and again is pushing a pov, one of many instances in his case. The other part of the contributed content is commented on from time to time but is minimized. He never used the title. So the breadth of the quoting is too extensive in my pov.Smkolins (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see you are joining the discussion, I'll try to write a proper reply as soon as I get time. I've been spending a lot of time getting sources for the Criticisms page (please go check the talk page over there to see if you can help). Would like to remind you to read my previous points, as a cursory glance over what you have written suggests to me that you may have skimmed over what I wrote a little too quickly. Hesnotblack (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly I just ran across this: "During the Greek-Turkish war the condition of the Turkish soldiers was frightful.…(eventually) all they were getting came from the hand of Abbas Effendi and that all other donations had ceased.…" Smkolins (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That's great - I'm sure you can work it into the political objections article or something. I'm not quite sure though how it is relevant to the discussion here - this discussion is about whether or not A35821361's edit is reasonable (and whether it breaks the rules of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE). Have a nice day, Hesnotblack (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Heck, actually you could include it in this page. Hesnotblack (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Post-nominal letters

See MOS:POSTNOM: "When an individual... seldom uses their post-nominal letters..., post-nominal letters should be omitted from the lead, and their titles described in the main body of the article."

As `Abdu'l-Baha never used the title, and is not known for the title, it doesn't need to be in the first sentence. The lead mentions: "The war removed the openly hostile Ottoman authorities with the British Mandate, who knighted him for his help in averting famine following the war." and in the body of the article: "For this service in averting a famine in Northern Palestine he received a knighthood at a ceremony held in his honor at the home of the British Governor on 27 April 1920."

Further details are in Political objections to the Bahá'í Faith (I think the difference in dates has to do with when the paperwork was filed vs the party): "Accusations of ties to the British also arise from the knighting in 1920 of `Abdu'l-Bahá, then head of the religion, by the British Mandate of Palestine.[46] According to Harry Charles Luke, an official in the British Colonial Office who served as assistant Governor of Jerusalem, `Abdu'l-Bahá "on the 4th December, 1919, was created by King George V a K.B.E. for valuable services rendered to the British Government in the early days of the Occupation."[47] According to a recent PhD, however, `Abdu'l-Bahá, received this award in recognition of his "humanitarian work in Palestine" during the war, especially his distribution of grain from his personal supply, which averted a famine in Northern Palestine."

Comments? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeap. If the subject needs specific attention it needs scholarly attention if the information is not itself balanced and only presents a point of view. Smkolins (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

Is it really usual to transliterate the ayin as U+0060 ` GRAVE ACCENT? It's not designed as a letter or even a punctuation mark, so its kerning is all wrong and as a result it looks horrendous. Can we get a consensus to replace it everywhere with U+02BF ʿ MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING or U+2018 ‘ LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK? Either would be a vast improvement. Even better would be to omit it entirely, as routinely done for Islamic figures such as Ali, but I guess the custom in the Bahá'í context is to leave them in. Hairy Dude (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I helped create the system used on Wikipedia, including the page Bahá'í orthography. I think the GRAVE ACCENT for ayin is not used anywhere else, but it made it simple to type it on a standard keyboard without knowing the unicode characters. Looking back now, I'd be in favor of adjusting everything on Wikipedia, but probably only to something more simple, like only using correct transliteration in the lead sentence and excluding it from the rest of the article and title. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Hairy Dude. The French “accent grave” is totally wrong here. I was just about to change it everywhere on this page, but it's dozens of occurrences, so I first want to discuss it here. The correct way to write the name would be ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, plain and simple. See, for example, the official Baha'i Library where this spelling is used consistently: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAB/sab-45.html Please let me know if I can go ahead and change it correspondingly everywhere on this page, too. Faterson (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, <`Abdu'l> is a 1990s-style hack that became obsolete with the creation of Unicode. Also, our concern should be with the reader, not with cutting corners just because it's easier on the editor. The editors themselves can cut corners, of course, and leave it to someone else to clean up after them, but it shouldn't be enshrined in policy.

However, technically Faterson's <‘> is also wrong -- that's a punctuation mark and, per Unicode conventions, punctuation marks should only be used for punctuation (like the apostrophe <'l> in <`Abdu'l>, which is appropriate because it's a contraction). Using Unicode letters (as opposed to punctuation marks), we've got a couple choices: <ʻAbdu'l>, using the ʻokina (which in Polynesian languages is a glottal stop = hamza, and so in common use contrary to what we intend here), and <ʽAbdu'l>, using the other common letter for ayin (and also for Wade-Guiles-style aspiration). I'm not sure how exactly we'll want to follow Baha'i Library conventions, here on WP where we have other languages to contend with.

BTW, I've added cased glottal stop, <Ɂɂ>, cased saltillo <Ꞌꞌ>, okina <ʻ>, hamza/ejective <ʼ>, ayin <ʽ>, and length <꞉> letters at the bottom of the 'Latin' range of the the special-characters window you see below the edit screen, so it's reasonably easy to access them.

Also, if we use the proper Unicode letters for hamza, okina and ayin, then the curly apostrophes and quotation marks will be left as punctuation, and (per WP policy of using straight apostrophes and quotation marks) we'll make it much easier for the people who fix such things to do so. — kwami (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

To add some clarity, here are the three options as I see them:

character	​ Unicode	Name
ʻ	ʻ	LETTER TURNED COMMA
ʼ	ʼ	LETTER APOSTROPHE
‘	‘	LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK
’	’	RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK
ʿ	ʿ	LEFT HALF RING
ʾ	ʾ	RIGHT HALF RING

Bahai.org uses the middle set of left and right single quotation marks for ayin and hamza. It seems that is the most standardized. Any comments? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way to impliment this directly in the editing interface of contributors or is this only going to be post-contribution editing set of concerns? Smkolins (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This would apply across all Baha'i names, so a lot of changes. A script would be nice but I have no idea how to manage that. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It could also apply to the citation structures - and when to use them in citations and when not to. Smkolins (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I could use AWB to do a lot of this.

The middle two in the table above aren't appropriate because they're punctuation marks, and are defined to act as punctuation, not as letters. They can cause compatibility issues. (E.g., when I click on <‘Abdu'l> above, to copy it, I loose the ayin, but with the proper Unicode letter, <ʻAbdu'l>, I copy the ayin as well.) Also, it would be difficult for editors cleaning up WP to distinguish the punctuation mark in <‘Abdu'l> from the innumerable random curly quotes that have been inappropriately pasted into WP, and it might get changed into a straight apostrophe. So I think our options are,

character	​ Unicode	Name	Uses
ʻ	ʻ	MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA	ʻokina, Tongan glottal stop, Armenian and original Wade–Giles aspiration, ayin (UNGEGN)
ʼ	ʼ	MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE	hamza (UNGEGN, SES), IPA ejectives, later Wade–Giles aspiration, in common use for glottal stop and glottalized consonants
ʽ	ʽ	MODIFIER LETTER REVERSED COMMA	ayin (SES)
ʾ	ʾ	MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING	Semiticist hamza
ʿ	ʿ	MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING	Semiticist ayin

I prefer #701 <ʽ> for ayin because it's clear what it's supposed to be, whereas IMO #699 <ʻ> has too many other uses. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• If punctuation marks are needed then name "Abdullah" should also have a punctuation mark because it has a Ayin at the beginning. I suggest we remove all punctuation marks because native English speakers usually can't pronounce it anyway.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Depends on whether we're going for the Arabic spelling or something else. If he lives in an anglophone country, then we would likely go with an anglicized spelling, same as for any name. — kwami (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Baha'is have a standardized system of transliterating (see Bahá'í orthography) that is used throughout their texts. The system allows recreating the original Arabic perfectly while attempting to make it more user friendly. By far the best match would be the #699 LETTER TURNED COMMA for ayin and the #700 LETTER APOSTROPHE for hamza. There are 30-40 pages on Wikipedia using that system currently using the GRAVE ACCENT for simplicity. If someone could automate the replacement, I'm all for it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cuñado: Both the 1894 and 1925 standards use the 6-ish character (#699) for ayin and the 9-ish character (#700) for hamza. Since you wrote the guideline, do you want to change it accordingly? (maybe with footnotes or an in-text note to clarify the Unicode values). If you do that, I can AWB the articles per the guideline, but I don't want to appear to impose my POV by doing both myself. [I went ahead and changed it, but tagged it as 'under construction', in case that's not what we want, and haven't changed any of the other articles. And when I clicked on the red link Baháʼu'lláh in the text, and hit 'search', it didn't show me the result but actually took me there, as if it were a blue link.]

BTW, the html underlining is not copy-safe. It should also be a Unicode diacritic. Since that won't affect this move discussion, I'll go ahead and change it in the guideline, using the code points from MOS/Arabic - Urdu. — kwami (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cuñado: It looks like the 2nd marks in Baháʼu'lláh and ʻAbdu'l-Baháʼ are apostrophes, and so should remain as ASCII ticks. The first is a contraction of Allah, and the second of the article. I don't want to start changing things until we're in accord with that, but at that point I think we can start switching over the articles. — kwami (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The contraction apostrophe should be the same as hamza, using the #700 character. I know it's not a hamza, but that is how it is done in all Baha'i texts. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

They look the same, so we can't go by what they look like in print. Using letters for punctuation is just as wrong as using punctuation for letters. Used to be that typewriters didn't bother with separate keys for one and lower-case el, but we wouldn't want to imitate that either. Better to use ASCII hacks so readers know the transcription is unreliable, or to drop them altogether for "Bahai" etc., as we do for "Hawaii". — kwami (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• What exactly is the implimentation for users that contribute going forward? All this talk of unicode is fairly meaningless if Apple and PC keybaords and font systems and the editing interface don't have a clear relationship with unicoded specifics. I think it is all pretty hasty. Smkolins (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Expecting competence is not "hasty". We don't dumb down our articles or make them unprofessional just because some editors are naive. This is no harder than typing <Å> for angstrom, or <μm> for micron, or adding the IPA. Above I gave three different ways to enter the letters correctly; there may be more (e.g. copy-paste from the orthographic key). If some editors can't figure it out, then fine -- those who are competent to do so can clean up after them, just as we do with all other aspects of orthography and formatting. — kwami (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's my typing this figure's name: `Abdu'l-Bahá, 'Abdu'l-Bahá - but how do these specifically render per the unicode arguments above? Smkolins (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. They render the way your browser renders them. Since they're incorrect (e.g., there is no back-tick in the name), then if you wrote that, someone else would clean it up, just as they would if you misspelled it. — kwami (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

move to ʻAbdu'l-Bahá?

Shall we move to ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, with an initial 'okina but continuing to omit the final hamza, and continuing to treat the apostrophe as an apostrophe? — kwami (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest a WP:RM to decide on that. I've been following the discussion above on and off (and the one at the orthography article), but at this point couldn't say whether or not that would be a good idea. Maybe too much of a change for change's sake at this time (which I'd oppose); as the change would possibly affect multiple Bahá'í-related articles I'd also suggest to treat them all at once (i.e. in a multi-RM), for consistency's sake. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

We have consensus that the article needs to be moved. It's just a question of where. Since we seem to agree that consistency with the orthography guide is the way to go, it's just a matter of agreeing on fixing it up. Once that's done, I don't think there's any need for the drama of a mass RM, we can just follow the guide. — kwami (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus whatsoever (not even a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) that the article would need to be moved: WP:RM is in this case the designated process with which a consensus (or lack thereof) can be established. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Unanimity (except maybe for you? it's hard to tell) is pretty much the definition of 'consensus'. So yes, with the possible exception of you, we have consensus to move the article. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• See another related thought at WT:AT#Other consequence of changing punctuation marks into letters: category sorting. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

But there is no consequence. It seems nothing would change, because we already have articles beginning with 'okina, and so far it looks like it makes no difference to sorting. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

For clarity: I see too little effort to achieve consistency. Consistency between AT and MOS is the only consistency that gets support:

• internal consistency of AT: so far zero support
• consistency between AT and category sorting guidelines: deemed of "no consequence" (see above)
• consistency between article titles of Bahá'í-related pages: deemed to be "drama" (see above)

So, again, I *oppose* this ill-advised page move of a single article which would break the current consistency between article titles of articles on Bahá'í-related topics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this intentional bullshit, or do you just not read what other people write? E.g. your "no consequence" comment. The point of that is that moving this article from a back-tick to an okina will apparently have no consequence on category sorting, since neither are considered for sorting. Your other two points also seem to be figments of your imagination. Since you don't seem to be taking this seriously, I can't take you seriously. — kwami (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A few articles that should at least be considered at the same time:

1. `Abdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West → ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West. Evident, no? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Nabíl-i-A`zam: according to a variant spelling in its lead sentence it seems this should be moved to Nabíl-i-A’zam; according to the current proposal for ʻAbdu'l-Bahá it should however rather be moved to Nabíl-i-Aʻzam? Please make clear what is proposed? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
3. ...
4. (... please add more ...)

The second entry makes clear we're very far from achieving more (instead of less) consistency here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Per the above, we'd move all articles once we agree on the proper coding for Bahai names. I'm not sure what the point of listing them all is, since the same orthography would apply to across the board. As for the 2nd article, yes, to Nabíl-i-Aʻzam. There's just a typo in the lead. Claiming a simple typo "makes clear we're very far from achieving ... consistency here" would appear to be more intentional misrepresentation. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm pretty far from agreeing to anything. I want to know how any such changes are going to live with the fact that people type on keyboards, through interfaces (I happen to use the raw mode myself,) and how that lands with these unicode specifics. I've seen waves of editors change things I literally could not percieve and thought it was an Apple vs PC implimentation of coding structures but maybe it was this unicode stuff. I get that unicode opens up people to use more relavent styles for specific languages than hacks that dont look good - at the same time wikipedia is a people's place for these things and must live within the system of editor contributions and whatever the interfaces and originalting computers allow for. Smkolins (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Smkolins: The convenience of our editors is of secondary importance to accuracy for our readers. But in this case editors can use the templates {{okina}}, {{ayin}} and {{hamza}} for the apostrophe-like letters being discussed here. Those letters are also available at the bottom of the 'Latin' section of the character-insert tool under your edit window. If you're worried about the letters being evident to later editors, perhaps we should recommend using the templates. That way it will be obvious that they were done on purpose. Or we could specify them via &#699; and &#700;, which will make them obvious to the editor without the extra processing of calling a template. We can also use a bot to convert the letters to either, so the articles are all in sync. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the change, whatever we decide should be used across all the Wikipedia pages that reference Baha'i figures, and I'm guessing that's at least 30 pages directly. Perhaps Talk:Bahá'í orthography is a better place to get consensus.

Regarding the characters used, I think any system of transliteration has to balance between accuracy and usability. The current system used on Baha'i pages is a balance because we use characters on a standard keyboard but manage to keep reproducability. As long as the underdots and underscores are used in the first instance of the name, they don't need to be in the title and throughout text. I think SmKolins is suggesting to lean toward usability, and Kwami wants more accuracy. I think overall I'd like to change the grave accents and apostrophes to the more accurate unicode characters, but I want to keep the same #700 LETTER APOSTROPHE for the hamza and the conjunction before the definite article. I have never seen those differentiated, so when someone takes the trouble to use the LETTER APOSTROPHE, it's used for both. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

SmKolins does have a good point about accessibility to us editors. Any of the three options above would work for editors, and the latter two make it quite easy to see what was done. A bot could quickly normalize the coding of all articles in the Bahai category.

But, sorry, an apostrophe is not a hamza. Consider ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West - would we use #700 for the apostrophe-ess just because it's a Bahai name? They may look the same if a doc is typeset with curly apostrophes, but again, we wouldn't want to use the letter el for the digit one just because we were copying a doc that used the same manual typewriter key for both.

If you really want to under-differentiate, I'd rather use an ASCII apostrophe, so it's obvious we're not typesetting the names properly, than to misuse the proper characters and potentially confuse our readers. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm okay with doing it your way Kwami, but... I think we still need to make it as easy as we can on editors, so don't use templates or unicode code, just the resulting characters. Also I don't know how to create a script, I've only copied one over from another user, but if someone could build a script to touch up a page and convert the 4-5 most common words, that would be very helpful. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought the templates might make it easier for editors. Perhaps instead of saying any one way is preferred, we could just give the editing options and let people choose whichever they find easiest. It makes no difference to the display.

I can create the script easily enough. Using AWB, it wouldn't take much time to normalize the articles to whatever we decide on. — kwami (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Would this work amoung to a kind of languae structuring? Special case entries like (copy/paste the head of the article:) /əbˈdʊl bəˈhɑː/; Persian: عبد البهاء‎, 23 May 1844 – 28 November 1921), born `Abbás (Persian: عباس‎), - could we simply put a high quality rendering of the name with these issues just in there? Would this be: {{okina}}Abdu{{hamza}}l-Bahá What exactly would it be? Smkolins (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Consequense to think about are also links to wikipedia articles - we already get messy things like https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith. How would this change things? Smkolins (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand your questions. For the first, yeah, {{okina}}Abdu{{hamza}}l-Bahá would be just fine (apart from that not being a hamza). For the second, that article's at Bahá'í Faith, which doesn't cause any problems, and if we moved it to Baháʼí Faith, it still wouldn't cause any problems that I can see. Not anything that we don't already have w thousands of articles, anyway. — kwami (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, it's now https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/BaháʼíFaith, which looks cleaner. But whether or not the URL looks like gibberish will depend on people's software. Some software won't even display ASCII without turning it into code. — kwami (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Well for example the url for this talk section is https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:%60Abdu%27l-Bahá#move_to_ʻAbdu'l-Bahá which seems pretty clean if the entry has what you are talking about. If that kind of thing can work and it can be well documented for people to access how to do it then I'm agreed as well. If. Smkolins (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm on board with the changes. Once the article titles are changed it will be easy to copy/paste for the article text. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "I'm on board with the changes. Once the article titles are changed ..." – as said, we'd need a multi-RM with an outcome in that sense before starting to change titles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No we don't. Is this about AT? If so, changing one apostrophe-like letter to another will have no impact.

Per your comment above, that you're fine with this if we can document it, well of course we can document it. We already have. That's what the MOS is for. I really don't understand the "if" -- this is trivial, no more difficult than changing curly quotes to straight quotes, or specifying capitalization.

I've gone ahead and made some moves, since there is agreement here and the hesitations seems to have to do with how clear the URL is, and at least on my browser the URLs look cleaner with the MOS orthography. @Cuñado: how does that look? Unfortunately, I can't move AWB back to English WP for some reason, maybe the registry. Will update the orthographies of the articles I've edited to conform w the MOS once it is. — kwami (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "Is this about AT?" – no. Maybe in part about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic, which I'd rather like to see come out of its dormant state, but that's not gonna happen the way things are proceeding now. Pity.

Re. "Per your comment above, that you're fine with this if we can document it..." – nonsense, I said no such thing. Please read my objections above, they are still valid.

Re. "since there is agreement here and the hesitations seems to have to do with how clear the URL is" – nonsense, there is no agreement, you clearly did not read my objections, or don't want to give any attention to them: there is no consensus, there is only uncoordinated mess.

Also, there is no "MOS" on this: the only directly relevant MoS page seems to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic, which is dormant, and thus no active part of Wikipedia's MoS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Kwami that this is not a big enough change to warrant a longer process. The vast majority of people won't notice any difference in the style of the apostrophe. I do recognize that you were proposing eliminating the unicode and accents altogether. If you want to pursue that then I recommend actually making the MOS for Baha'i articles and we can discuss there. This case doesn't fit well into other categories because Baha'i texts use a very specific system of transliteration and it's uniformly used in the genre of writing. I can't think of another example quite like it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "I do recognize that you were proposing eliminating the unicode and accents altogether" – no. Please don't use straw man argumentation. Re. "If you want to pursue that..." I don't, you're really spinning out the straw man argumentation, please stop it. Whether it's unique or not, WP:RM is the way to go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Style guide

Taking up Cuñado's challenge ("...actually making the MOS for Baha'i articles..."), here is my proposal:

---

Expressions or names are spelled different from their normal English spelling if all three of following conditions are met:

1. The expression or name is found with that spelling in the glossary at the bahai.org website, currently https://news.bahai.org/media-information/style-guide/ – or whatever updated digital version of that guide if it uses unicode characters, and is accepted as such by consensus
2. The spelling is not explicitly forbidden by the WP:AT policy
3. The expression or name is only, or nearly only, used in connection with that faith (i.e. it has no common or widespread usage outside that faith)

For usage of the expression or name as (or: in) an article title there is a fourth condition:

4. redirects from common and less specialised alternative spellings of the expression or name should be existing

Examples:

• Bahá’í World Centre, not Baháʼí World Centre, nor Bahá'í World Centre (the last two should be redirects per the 4th condition)
• "children's classes", not "children’s classes" (found in glossary, but fails 3rd condition)

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

just to say… I literally cannot see the typographical difference in the first two which goes back to my problem with the whole enterprise along with do I type a ', the only easily available character, to make valid entries in the wiki context? Smkolins (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "I literally cannot see the typographical difference in the first two" – Well, neither can I. But computers know the difference, e.g. take the second of them, what is between the double quote marks here: "Baháʼí", copy these six characters, and paste them in the search field (upper right hand side) of this page: http://whc.unesco.org/ – now hit the little magnifying glass, to initiate the search. Results: zero. Now repeat the same operation with the first of these two, "Bahá’í" – 3 results. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying there isn't a difference but what is the point of a change no one but computers can see? Moreover every time someone hits save there is the potential it changes the characters even inadvertently. Below I also detail a specific case where the pageviews counts are broken by at least some of these changes that I'm not even sure are correct with respect to the effort being taken where ʼ and ' are in Baha'u'llah as linked. It seems to break something specific. Then we have the case that pageviews of articles are broken from their histories under other names. It's getting to be a mess. Smkolins (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "...what is the point of a change no one but computers can see?" – it's people who use search engines on websites like the UNESCO website. If people see diacritics which they don't know very well how to type easily & correctly, they'd copy-paste the expression from where they found it into the search field, which is much easier, and avoids errors due to typing yourself, of course. Also, it is respect for people engaged in Bahá’í Faith, if their glossary says that's the way to spell it we shouldn't be doing something much more complicated than copy-pasting, with the complicated procedure only achieving something which, according to the bahia.org's pages, is incorrect (and indeed sends search engines searching where they can't find anything): it is very disrespectful to use such an "invisible" cloak as using a typographically different (but to a human eye invisibly so) letter, which obfuscates which content important websites like UNESCO's might have on the Faith. To give a comparison (while I have no connection whatsoever with Bahá’í Faith), I'm quite a fan of the music of Leoš Janáček, I'd be appalled if someone wrote that name as Leοš Janáček, with a typographical difference which is not visible to the naked eye, but makes the Wikipedia article unreachable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• I support the idea that we don't want internet traffic misdirected and that things should reflect the real structure of the self-identified system of things as much as we can, (like I've learned to refer to the Haudenosaunee vs the Iroquois at least in some circumstances.) But your point of the three results for one spelling vs another is lost with [9] where totally dropping the apostrophe-like punctuation gives you exactly the same result. I do think there is room for improvement in how things are done in wikipedia (in this situation I feel that changing ` to ' is a probably good choice?) - I just feel more constrained by the physically available choices for the general audience than may be available in a specialists field of practice.Smkolins (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to get into this today, but @Smkolins:, this is why we have the templates {{okina}} (for ayin) and {{hamza}} (for the hamza in "Baháʼí". Or you could use the &#x convention with the Unicode points.

The recommendations have gotten mixed up between quotation marks and letters. Quotation marks are punctuation, and should be used for punctuation. I don't know any reason we should have curly quotation marks on WP at all, though there may be some. Letters should be written with letters. That is, the hamza should be written as a hamza, not as a punctuation mark. The same with the ayi. This is what we do with native Hawaiian names (that's why we have the template {{okina}} in the first place), as well as many other place and personal names in the American Pacific Northwest, where glottal stops and glottalized consonants are common. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

checking this mass migration of pages

from World Order of Baháʼu'lláh and Gleanings from the Writings of Baháʼu'lláh

I'm seeing two different marks being used. Is that *correct*? Or is this a script problem? Smkolins (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Something about that isn't working right for pageviews. Go to the article Baháʼu'lláh, go to history, go to pageviews. Smkolins (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The first is the hamza, which is pronounced (like the 'okina in "Hawaiʻi"). The second is an apostrophe and isn't pronounced. It just shows where a vowel has dropped out of the pronunciation. "Baháʼu'lláh" is also written "Baháʼulláh", retaining only the pronounced hamza. (Personally I would prefer that spelling, but are articles have long used the apostrophe, so I left it in.) — kwami (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Well if the typography is correct, and thanks for the less and hope it makes its way into the MOS entry, care to raise the issue with whomever maintains the pageviews system? Smkolins (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

MOS Bahai orthography

also it would be nice if MOS Bahai orthography existed for people to refer to since it and variations are being used to justify things. And is it ironic it itself is not using the new MOS? Smkolins (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need an MOS specifically. It would mostly be a repeat of the Baha'i orthography page. My experience with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic is that the MOS requires upkeep and maintenance. Since there is a published standard for transliterating Baha'i words, it's pretty straightforward. Now that we have the Unicode figured out, there's not much left to talk about. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• The MOS page has been initiated (per my proposal above), and can be reached via the MOS:BAHAI shortcut. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks. I feel a very substantial improvement would be to write out the names of the special characters and whatever syntax can do it as part of an example word and then name a respective specific character used as its approximate according to a style case along with the specific example. But that's just me. I personally feel there are levels of engagement. In causual usage the most common is dropping the accents but keeping the apostrophy-like character and then the more correct is to add the accents (though I don't "accents" is the right name in the original.) I think dropping all the special characters is long out of favor and mostly used these days as a kind of insult when done. Smkolins (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Re. "...write out the names of the special characters..." – yes that would be cool if someone could do that, including the unicode codes. Re. "accents" – they're called "accent marks" at https://news.bahai.org/media-information/style-guide/ --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I've done my best to standardize the spellings of the names. Some I didn't do if I wasn't sure what was correct. Personally, I don't care if we use "Bahai" or "Bahaʼi" or "Baháʼí", but IMO we should be consistent. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree consistency is good. I also note that the variations probably come from a mix of people doing what is in front of their eyes to do and the keyboard setting defaults on their computers and versions of Windows, Macs, and Linux might easily strongly vary. Smkolins (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I updated the MOS:BAHAI essay-level guidance to avoid the apostrophe(-like) character confusion, conforming to MOS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Kwamikagami: for clarity, I started Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Bahá'í spelling following up on a suggestion by Cuñado ("...actually making the MOS for Baha'i articles..."), posted in the #move to ʻAbdu'l-Bahá? section above. After some preparatory work & dialogue (see #Style guide above), the essay was started. Further talks regarding it should now probably best be continued at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Bahá'í spelling. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: as long as it's a personal essay that you claim OWNERSHIP of, it is not an MOS and does not belong in WP space, but in your own user space, per WP guidelines at Wikipedia essays. If you're willing to allow others to modify it, that's a different matter, but so far you haven't been. You have been purposefully misrepresenting it as an MOS and thus as consensus, when it is not. You've been here long enough to know better than that. Either move it to your user space as is proper for an essay, leave it in draft space as a draft MOS, copy it onto a talk page, or delete it. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't claim ownership (neither should you BTW). It does not fall in the category "essays the author does not want others to edit, or that contradict widespread consensus", so it doesn't belong in user space. Trying to thrash it without talk page discussion is a different matter & you should now better than that. As said it was prepared here, and people should be able to find it with the links posted on this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Moved back: the page is entirely appropriate in project namespace. Again, if there's anything you don't agree with, then a first place to explain that is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Bahá'í spelling. But disruption like page moves lacking any kind of consensus, emptying the page, redirecting it, and whatever other aggressive methods a single person has tried against it over an extended period of time should stop now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That's rich. You tag it as an essay, and rv attempts to bring it into line with consensus. You say any changes to it much be per consensus, but nothing in it is consensus to begin with. At best it's a draft MOS. Make up your mind -- if it's an MOS as you title it, then it needs to reflect the longstanding consensus of Bahai orthography here on WP, something that you're attempting to subvert. If it's a personal essay, then it belongs in your namespace. Your repeated attempts to disrupt WP are not productive. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• See [10]. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This conversation makes more sense at Talk:Baháʼí orthography. I'll leave a comment there. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

links

I'd also love if someone could check if we didn't just create a bunch of dead links across the internet. Smkolins (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• If you compare [11] to [12] (which is to say traffic to the main article over the last 14 days from its original link to the new link) isn't entirely clear. We seem to be in a tail off of traffic following the boost from the period of the Bicentenary but there is a bit of a sharp cliff but maybe that is a random fluctuation amidst this tail off of traffic. Smkolins (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. All moves left rd's, as whenever we move articles on WP. If there are red links in the articles, that's another matter. I've tried to prevent those, but I'm sure I've missed some. — kwami (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And redirectly should hit the final page but url syntax is not trivially tolerant of syntax like this. It often breaks and through changes like this could be dropping urls as going nowhere all across the internet. Smkolins (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

more convoluted urls

It looks like we *are* are *not* creating more convoluted urls -

(old) …Talk:Arc_(Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD) vs

(new)…Talk:Arc_(Bahá%27%C3%AD)

Smkolins (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• So looks good? Smkolins (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

industry

I can appreciate there was a lot of what seems like manual work doing all these migrations and changes. I've done a lot of work creating content for years so I know both the monotony and discipline it takes to do a lot of work like this. So yes Kwamikagami I see a lot of effort on your part to make this happen. Clearly it means a lot to you. I hope it means something to the breadth of humanity. I could ask that it was piloted and examined for results alittle more. Smkolins (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

affecting citations

[13] but if you look at the website it plainly does not use the curled apostrophe type character. Smkolins (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That's just an MOS difference. We apply the MOS to citations all the time (e.g. dashes for hyphens, straight apostrophes for curly, italics for underlined), just as we do to quotations. And many of the citations already differ in formatting. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That's odd to me. I followed the original when I could do it. I thought MOS content applied to the wikipedia article content and not to quotes and sources.Smkolins (talk)

Direct coding vs templates

As I mentioned above, we can insert characters directly, <ʻ>, <ʼ>, but that's difficult for us editors to see. Or we can enter them indirectly via their Unicode numbers, or use the templates {{okina}} and {{hamza}}. Both of these would be easier for editors to see and possibly to type. There was an objection to doing this before, but I thought we might revisit it. I'm happen to go through all the articles I edited and switch one to another.

The templates even work in page links. Cf.

Baháʼí Faith

— kwami (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

--Confusing Text--

"At the age of eight his father was imprisoned...": `Abdu'l-Bahá's father was imprisoned at the age of 8? Or `Abdu'l-Bahá's father was imprisoned when `Abdu'l-Bahá was aged 8? Weka511 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)