Talk:Mullá Husayn

Dead external links

According to me both links are dead. Could you please check? Wiki-uk 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, they work for me. -- Jeff3000 13:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Problem solved... Wiki-uk 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture?

Someone saw a picture of Mulla Husayn. Does anyone know where to find it? If so, could you upload it? Wiki-uk 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Title

Although all Baha'is know of him as Mulla Husayn, I would say this title does not generally fit the encyclopedic format of Wikipedia. For instance Pope Benedict XVI has that title since it is exclusively his name as Pope (rather than as Joseph Alois Ratzinger). However, Ayatollah Khomeini is under his name: Ruhollah Khomeini, the Archbishop of Canterbury is under Rowan Williams, Fray Junípero Serra is under Junípero Serra, etc. I would think the title should be Husayn-i-Bushru'i, with a redirect from Mullá Husayn. Mullá is a clerical title. - Parsa (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy says it's OK. Wikipedia:Honorifics#Honorific_prefixes. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Major expansion

Hey does anyone want to help me find more information on this? As a Baha'i I don't have any problem with Baha'i sources (the reference material I have access to tends to be anyway) but as a Wikipedian I'd like a little more diversity. I'm working (albeit slowly) to expand this page to a full article and any help I can get on this would be deeply appreciated.

Things I'd particularly like information on are Mulla Husayn's time in the Shaykhi movement, his time as a Letter of the Living, and his involvement at Shaykh Tabarsi. If we can knock out some of those core points then we'll have a base upon which to add detail and depth. Peter Deer (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm still not particularly good at referencing, so I apologize in advance if I've messed up the references in any way. Any suggestions/help on that would be quite welcome as well. Peter Deer (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

2017 Rework

Working to make this more than a stub/start. Mulla Husayn is the most significant figure in the early history of Babism and the Baha'i Faith other than the founders and deserves a more thorough treatment. So far I've reworked the intro and part of the biography, as well as providing a way for both the Babism and Baha'i Faith templates to be included. Since there doesn't seem to be a portrait of Mulla Husayn accesible, I've included media of his sword. I'm planning on working on sections about his journey, and his role in the Babi religion after recognizing the Bab. I'd like to creat a section on his significance in both religions, but may pause after getting his biography figured out.

Please let me know if there is anything I'm not doing right or should rework. I haven't really edited in 5 years or so and am sort of re-getting the hang of it. - (penultimate_supper (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC))

I've extended it quite a bit and have what I think are all the important sections. I'd like to flesh out his early life, period after Isfahan, and maybe rework the part about his death a bit. Right now there are 14 independent sources referenced and three images, so I'm satisfied with having expanded the verifiability and demonstrated appropriate notability for a larger article. Would like to increase the diversity of reference sources as well.penultimate_supper (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A few weeks later, I feel I've really done a lot of what I wanted. The article has grown a lot, but I'm trying to aggressively keep things sourced (maybe too much?) as well as ensuring the narrative engaged diverse viewpoints and draws on the breadth of available verifiable sources. Need to figure out some stylistic points: how often to include names of individuals, when to explain shia/babi/bahai concepts that are obscure briefly in the article vs. when to just wikilink to another article, and how to deal with claims in sources that represent one or another POV and aren't seen in other sources. I feel the sources are very diverse, ranging from Baha'is, academics with no connection, sympathetic academics, hostile academics, and occasionally primary sources when appropriate. Any feedback would be appreciated as I continue. I may take a little break to really dive into Amanat and see what he has to offer. penultimate_supper (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You have done a lot! I'll try reading through - meanwhile perhaps you can help read through Thornton Chase which I've worked a great deal on. From my pov, aggreesive sourcing is good. Smkolins (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll give Chase a thorough read-through, I've been observing your superhuman work over there. Thanks so much for the help, as this article has grown I've been worried I might be propagating mistakes more and more, so it's really helpful to get more eyes. I'd love to get this article up to a really high standard. penultimate_supper (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Persia vs Iran

Each term is used 10 times in the article. My understanding is that Persia is the more usual term to refer to things in the Period. I've heard it said that that is actually a non-Iranian term for the country based on other peoples trying to name them something and tending towards recognition of a Perse (sp?) faction or group. But that's an obscure matter I've never seen fleshed out in a real discussion/reliable source. Can we shift the majority of the mentions, especially, in the period, to use Persia and its variations? I think "Qajar Iran" is especially confusing on this point. Or split it and say Persia during the rule of the Qajar dynasty.Smkolins (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll standardize to Persia and specific Qajar if ever relevant. penultimate_supper (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Haji, Hajji, and really it is an honorific and for that matter Mulla

I know in Persian/Arabic culture it is nearly universal to always include the honorific of one who has gone on pilgrimage, but can we decouple that and just say something about that. There are times people almost want to use it as a first name. And Mulla - it being actually his religious title. In English it would be like saying Reverend so and so. Can is more proper personal name and the various titles and honorifics be decoupled. I recognize that "Mulla Husayn" is a functional name for him and should remain the main mention of him by name, but at least somewhere break out that Mulla is a religious title and not his name. Thoughts? Smkolins (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a good point, I almsot forget that his name is Husayn, and Mulla is a title. I'll fiddle with the lead and early life sections to create more clarity. penultimate_supper (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Gender parallelism

Can we get the name of his mother and not just his father? Smkolins (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Trying to find it . . . There's actually more info about her in a number of sources than about the father, but no name so far. I have Mehrabkhani's book coming in through ILL and am hoping it will be included there in one of the sections I haven't had access to yet via Google Books. penultimate_supper (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Citing multiple points

If several points are going to be detailed I cite on the first of them, not at the end. I tagged an entry needing a citation and then saw it might be at the end. I think citing at the first entry of a source is better than at the end. But I'm open to more thoughts on that. Smkolins (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This makes sense for me, thanks for the input on this, I haven't been sure what it the best practice and slogging through policy articles doesn't always clarify things quickly :p The example you gave in the article makes a lot more sense to me than the way I had it, I'll try to do this from now on. penultimate_supper (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Attracted to Siyyid Kazim's teachings

I'm not sure what the sources have to say about this but as a reader I'd wish there was more on why he sought out Siyyid Kazim since it was pivotal to everything that followed. Or if little is known that saying that is good too.It would be good to note dates of when Shaykh Ahmad died (I also noteiced it is missing on his article as well as his birth date even if in-exact) to give leadership to Kazim (again, honorifics as part of names.) Smkolins (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think Amanat has some info on this actually, I just got my hands on a physical copy of Ressurection and Renewal and will see if he includes more info. The whole honorifics thing gets soo confusing in this setting, because the name/title divide in Arabic/Persian isn't analogous to English. In some ways referring to Shaykh Ahmad feels like saying President Obama every time, which gets sill, but referring to just Ahmad is imprecise and actually less accurate in some ways since names and title became integrated in everyday speech. penultimate_supper (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. I support it is natural following the mixture of eastern practice and westerners trying to catch up. It's also from another era entirely where last names were developed initially just because of where you lived or what you did so accomplishments were a way of differentiating…. Smkolins (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mullá Husayn. 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/20060821215555/http://www.lvbahai.org/Kitab_i_Iqan_Glossary.htm to http://www.lvbahai.org/Kitab_i_Iqan_Glossary.htm

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) 11:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mullá Husayn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 20:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I am reviewing this. Normally I would just start the review right away, but I noticed you have not edited since October 2017. So I will just wait and see if you respond first.20:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

So we meet again. Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I am Buddhist and have little knowledge about Bahá'í religion. I did meet a number of Bahá'í devotees during my life, for what it is worth.

The main problem with the article is the sources used. Details follow.

Overview

• 1. Prose:

• At times, the article lacks an encyclopedic tone with proper academic distance. Beliefs should be designated as such: "Mullá Husayn was a Persian religious figure...and the first Letter of the Living of the Bábí religion." is religious language and should be rephrased as "is believed to be", "is called", etc., or in an active voice "Bahá'í devotees believe him to be...", etc. The phrase ...a prominent participant in the perceived fulfillment of many elements of Islamic eschatology., on the other hand, is correct encyclopedic style.
• On a similar note, technical terms vital to understanding the text should be glossed inline, translated, or simply avoided.
• I will go into detail later below.
• According to this Earwig scan, there are no copyright violations.

• 2. MOS: the article meets MOS standards at GA level.
• 3. References layout: There are some Harvard errors, which you can identify using this tool. The year and the surnames of all authors must be in the shortened footnotes and match. The Brittanica article has become a dead link.
• 4. Reliable sources: The article makes much use of primary sources. Sources which are primary are all the sources from the Bahá'í Publishing Trust. In my interpretation of core policies, a source which approaches the subject with academic distance, published by an academic publisher, even if it is a Bahá'í, is allowable. This is disputed on Wikipedia, however. Regardless, statements which pertain to the reliability of the subject, such as Contemporary reports indicate that he received treatment for epilepsy and heart palpitations... or ...was reported to have drawn significant public attention cannot be supported by merely primary sources, whether positive or negative in nature. Primary sources should only be used for basic facts which require no specialist interpretation, and also, are unlikely to be a form of cherry-picking. So this means you might have to cut out some content here and there, or find more secondary, reliable sources instead of the primary ones.
• 5. Original research: Possibly, as primary sources are much used.
• 6. Broadness: A number of scholarly works have not been used in the article. Google Scholar lists many sources if you search for Mullá Husayn.
• 7. Focus: The article has the proper prose size (38 Kb).
• 8. Neutral: Some sections, such as the lead, have WP:PEACOCK terms that should be removed or specified, such as a paragon of courage and spiritual excellence.—even if these terms are attributed.
• 9. Stable: article is stable.
• 10-11. Pics: There are several files that have no tag for the USA yet.

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section, as soon as you or someone else replies.--22:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Farang Rak Tham, fixed point 3. Perhaps you could send an email to Penultimate supper, due to the long time since editing? --Usernameunique (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, i'll try. Thanks, Usernameunique.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Emailed nominator, but no response. Failing.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 00:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bábism

Hello @98.224.116.27, thanks for your efforts to improve the article! I totally get your perspective on the term 'Bábism', but it is the most commonly used name in the academic study of the religion, and 'Bábí Faith' isn't an NPOV way of referring to it unless there are lots of sources using that name, it's just a way to make it parallel to the Baha'i Faith. As you can see, the page is at Bábism, not The Bábí Faith, and you can see discussions on that page indicating a consensus towards using Bábism. I'll also try and find a link to a more substantial discussion about the term on another page and share them in a moment (NVM, The one I was remembering is on that page). I didn't want to just revert your edits, but instead start a conversation here if you had a different perspective, or wanted to share some sources that would support changing the term used on this and other articles. penultimate_supper 🚀talk 19:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)