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)
- "Bahá'í Faith" seems to be the form used by the Bahá'í church itself, and in addition it used more commonly on the web and in journalism. Which are the "elsewhere" where "Baha'i religion" is more common, and why should that have more weight than the group's own usage plus journalism and the web?—Nat Krause 12:24, 12 February 2007 (CST)
- They seem to be using the term to make a sort of point (The Bahá’í Faith and Other Religions).
- All the books and articles I have (except for the Penguin Dictionary of Religions for some reason). Wikipedia tends to go for whatever usage is most common rather than which is more common in academic or respectable circle; I'd thought that Citizendium was going for more emphasis on expertise, bit I'm new and have probably misunderstood.
- In searching, I found that Bahá'ísm was very popular (and fits better with Buddhism, Hinduism, Hudaism, etc.); would that be a compromise? --Peter J. King 12:44, 12 February 2007 (CST)
- I don't know what Citizendium's naming policies will end up being, but it's reasonable to suppose that they will give greater weight to academic sources than Wikipedia does. That being the case, since you say respectable circles tend to use "Baha'i religion" (and I'll certainly take your word for that), then it would be fine to use that name here. However, it seems to me that we should also take into account the naming preferences of the subject itself. With regard to facts, the subject doesn't always make a reliable source, and so we favour experts instead; but for the name, I think we should take subject's views into account. Exactly how these should balance is a bit unclear.
- I don't think it really matters that the name "Bahá'í Faith" tries to make a point; it seems to me that religions typically give themselves names which imply assertions that others might find dubious. Also, I don't using Bahá'ísm is adviseable, since it is neither the more common name in academic circles (if I understand you correctly) nor is it the name used by Bahá'í followers themselves.—Nat Krause 12:01, 13 February 2007 (CST)