Talk:Bahá'í Faith

I've started working on the Baha'i page. Not sure how far to go with it, since Wikipedia has about 100 Baha'i-related pages, and most of them are an ungodly mess.

A big problem on the Wikipedia has been the predominance of Baha'i "editors" on the Baha'i- (and Babi-) related boards. They tend to be ideologically committed to certain rather dubious interpretations of their own sacred history, and of course are concerned that their religion appear in as good a light as possible. Since hardly anybody else is interested in their religion (unlike say, Scientology) they can pretty much run rough-shod over their critics, who so far haven't even been mentioned in the main text over there. (Juan Cole, for instance.)

I suppose it is only a matter of time before the Baha'is muster some people to try to do the same on this site too. Just a heads-up to any "editors" out there who may be paying attention... --Bei Dawei

Article title

The term Bahá'í Faith seems to be more common than Baha'i religion. Unless there is some distinction to be drawn between the two terms, this seems to imply that we should move to Bahá'í Faith.—Nat Krause 14:53, 7 February 2007 (CST)

"Faith" is just a synonym for "religion" that has become common in recent times because of a certain squeamishness about the latter term. I'd stick with "relgion" myself.

With regard to the capitalisation, though: I don't know if we're dispensing with the Wikipedia naming conventions, but according to those it should be Baha'i religion, as "religion" is a common noun. --Peter J. King 10:46, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Well, since "faith" and "religion" mean the same thing, and since "Bahá'í Faith" is more common, I would suggest that we should use "faith".—Nat Krause 11:31, 12 February 2007 (CST)

It's more common in journalism and on Web sites; "religion" is still much more common elsewhere so far as I can tell (and surely we shouldn't let journalists determine how we use language?). --Peter J. King 11:56, 12 February 2007 (CST)