Talk:Huqúqu'lláh

Definite article

Looking through the Writings and texts from various sources, it seems that Huqúqu'lláh is rarely referred to as "the Huqúqu'lláh" - just "Huqúqu'lláh" (unless it's being used as an adjective, i.e. "the Huqúqu'lláh fund", "the Huqúqu'lláh payment", etc.). The original Arabic doesn't use the definite article either. Would anyone object to me revising the usage here? I just want to make sure I don't change something that was done purposefully. Keldan 02:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write this article, but I think you are right. -- Jeff3000 02:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I did write this article, and I have no idea what is the correct usage. I think you're right. Cuñado - Talk 08:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Baha'i Box?

Would it be appropriate to add the box marker {{Bahá'í}} to the this article since it certainly relates to the Bahá'í Faith? Leif (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

I have tried to include the Timeline of the institution of Huqúqu'lláh as a section inside this article, but I couldn't avoid the sections below it from wrapping around it. Could someone help? Please feel free to improve the timeline as well. Could a separate category 'Bahá'í timelines' be created? Wiki-uk (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I have to say I agree with Smkolins in his reverts. The policy on WP:RS clearly favours recent secondary sources, and you've been removing citations from reputable secondary sources, and including citations from primary sources, one of which has been noted in secondary sources to be not reliable. Regards, -- 03:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

another characterization of Miller's work - see bottom right of [1] And the substance of the contested source was never followed up on in academic sources that I can find whereas the version published from Baha'i sources has - see [2], [3], [4]--Smkolins (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually here is a specific criticism of Elder's translation -

The English translation by the Christian missionaries E. E. Elder and W. M. Miller (Al-Kitāb al-Aqdas or The Most Holy Book, London, Royal Asiatic Society Oriental Translation Fund, N.S., 38, 1961) is complete but not always correct, especially in the notes.[5]

--Smkolins (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the issue that the anonymous editor is having an issue with is that the page already uses a lot of primary source material. I have removed all of those and added a number of secondary sources. I have also left the links to all of the translations. Hopefully this is the middle ground that we can all work with. Warm regards, -- 12:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better. --Smkolins (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Those references are not used as sources, and are included in the further reading just as is the translations of the Aqdas. In regards to the "A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith", it is a tertiary source, but I have added some secondary sources for the statement you find unacceptable. In fact tertiary sources can be used when most of the content of the page is not sourced by it. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits once again, as the secondary source states exactly what is in the current sentence. If you believe the wording is wrong, you'll need to find a secondary source which backs up your assertions. Also consider the undue weight policy of Wikipedia which states that content in Wikipedia can only be included "on proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and "enerally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." While there exists those that self-identify as Baha'is who don't follow the Universal House of Justice, their views are a small minority, and their views are not included in virtually all scondary sources about the Baha'i Faith and Huququ'llah in particular. When most secondary sources mention the Baha'i Faith, they mention the Baha'i Faith centered in Haifa. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I was asked to comment here, and after examining the reverts, the discussion here, and the discussion on Jeff3000's talk page, I thought I'd leave a few thoughts here.

1. I'll be honest, I don't really understand the substantive changes to the article (like the gold to US$ calculation) or why they're important, so I won't comment on those.
2. On secondary vs. primary sources, that can be a bit tricky, especially in the case of religious articles. The IP(s) are correct that primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia, but they need to be used with care and editorial judgement, and they can't be used to make controversial claims. Using religious scripture as a primary source is particularly problematic, because scripture is almost by definition hard to interpret. On the other hand, religious institutions are allowed to be sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE as long as they meet the conditions listed there. Using an official religious website or publication to say that the religion believes such and such is just fine as far as I know.
3. The removal of the blockquotes was a positive thing in my opinion.
4. I'm less keen on removing all primary sources from an article, but not knowing the context or anything about the sources that were removed, I don't feel qualified to pass judgement on that.
5. I agree with Jeff3000 that secondary sources are better than primary, and if there is disagreement it's generally better to go with the secondary. Tertiary sources are great too, and useful in determining weight, but as others have said, you don't want to use them exclusively.

Anyway, that's my interpretation of Wikipedia policy regarding this matter. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Original Research

under 'Role in succession of authority' I propose to remove the last paragraph as the reference used is of Adib Taherzadeh who is a Mainstream Baha'i Scholar and his POV represents the view of only one sect of Baha'i faith.Asad29591 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For the last two years I have several times asked you to read WP:WEIGHT and apply it. It appears you have not. You represent a tiny minority of (generously) 100 people compared to at least 5 million Baha'is. You could argue that Taherzadeh is not independent enough from the topic, but he is attributed in-text. If you think the sourcing is not good enough, you're welcome to research and find the subject addressed in Garlington or Warburg or some stronger source. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Asad29591 is basically correct here. I removed that paragraph and one more along with the sources they cited. We aren't allowed to waive WP:RS just because we have done in-text attribution, which is for clarifying disagreement among reliable sources. Yes, the material can be added again if we find reliable sources for it. I also don't think WP:WEIGHT has anything to do with weighing the number of adherents of different religious sects, it has to do with weighing the balance of opinion in reliable sources... this is clarified somewhere in WP guidelines and I can find it if needed. Let me know if I'm missing something here. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)