Talk:Second International Bahá'í Council
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Basic structure and purpose of this article
This whole article feels out of place. The parts about the four stage process should really be part of the International Bahá'í Council article, since they apply to Shoghi Effendi's original vision for that body. I think that this whole article can be made much clearer, but I have to think about how. I think that a small piece of context at the very beginning identifying what it is, then having sections such as "definition", "history", blah blah may be clearer. I don't want to get the main Baha'i faith group in this article, except to mention that they don't recognize it, but to do that I think would require rewriting it a bit. -- Christian Edward Gruber 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. This should be re-worked. The four stage plan part is a little deceptive, and the whole article is pretty unclear. Cuñado
- Talk 04:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] quote
Referencing quotes is fine, but substantial references are necessary for the rest of the information. Especially when it is contradicted by an actually reference by the Montana Supreme Court.
Once again I deleted that "Without the institution of the Guardian..." quote, which Jeffmichaud has taken every opportunity possible to add it onto every page. I have no objection from quoting it where it's relevant, but it is a far cry to say it's relevant to this article, especially when repeated many other places. Cuñado - Talk 17:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Summary
There is a bad habit going on of repeating information on several pages. I'm not trying to delete or suppress anything. I deleted stuff because it was not directly related to the sIBC. I also changed the re-wording of the court case. The current summary is taken from the referenced court case, and no other references have been provided. The case is sIBC vs Neal Chase, and says in 2003, after the court case, Chase declared them ALL Covenant-breakers. Continuous changes to the information without referencing will be considered vandalism according to guidelines. Cuñado - Talk 04:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well of all editors, you are the expert on vandalism. How is the quote about the Guardianship from the W&T not related to the SIBC. It's viewed as a tenet, and as you keep removing it from this article, you're in fact participating in vadalism by spirit and definition. The W&T is the charter for the BUPCs administration. Isn't it for all Baha'is, or just the parts of it that fit into the dogma created after 1963? As far as your misunderstanding about when those 3 violators who claimed to be the sIBC were declared C.B.'s is concerned, it's irrelevent, for the way it's worded is close enough. FTR, they were officially excommunicated on 1/30/2002. User:Jeffmichaud 01:51 3 February 2006
-
- I'm not picking on you by de-capitalizing things like President when it's not a title. I do that on all the Pages, And You Seem To Capitalize Everything. See CAPITAL LETTERS.
- You keep referencing page numbers in text. That is really annoying. Try just using untagged links, or Harvard referencing, or if the quote is long enough indent it and add the reference in parenthesis on the next line. Cuñado - Talk 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Verifiable sources are missing for some sections
See this talk page discussion for the problems also found here. MARussellPESE 19:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
For someone not familiar with the subject, the intro gives a very poor idea of what this article is about. There is not enough context. Qaz 09:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed, and I took a stab at a re-org. I hope it helps. --Christian Edward Gruber 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Great contribution. Very fair (as always), and straight to the point. Thanks for taking the time. Jeff 05:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I took a stab at a re-org. I hope it helps. --Christian Edward Gruber 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
