Talk:Baháʼí orthography

Correct transliteration

Take a look at Arabic transliteration. The system that most resembles Shoghi Effendi's method of transliterating is the ALA-LC, which is the Library of Congress standard. I have been itching to fix up the various transliterations on various Baha'i pages that currently use a variety of symbols for transliterating the 'hamza' and 'ayn' letters. I would like to use the standard found on that page, with hamza transliterating as ’, and ayn transliterating as ʻ, regardless of where it appears in the word. There are also dots that need to be put under several of the H, S, D, and T's.

Any comments? Cuñado - Talk 20:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The transliteration used by Shoghi Effendi does not follow any of the ones on that page since none of them use á or í (intead they use ā ), so I would say to 'not use the the ALA-LC scheme, but just follow the Baha'i form. Also, I'm not for the use of the dots under the use of the words, since the font used by Wikipedia make it unduly hard to read the word. -- Jeff3000 21:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The only difference I think is that they use a dash over long vowels, where Shoghi Effendi used a tick mark. Consider the example of Abdu'l-Baha. A correct transliteration would give all of the information that is in the Arabic. So the correct transliteration needs to reflect the 'ayn' at the beginning, and the hamza at the beginning of "al-Baha", and the hamza at the end of Baha. The official site, www.bahai.org uses two different ways of writing this: `Abdu'l-Bahá [1] and 'Abdu'l-Bahá [2], and reference.bahai.org uses a different one: ‘Abdu’l-Bahá [3], and none of them carry a marker for the hamza at the end of "al-Baha". For convenience, most Baha'i wiki pages are currently using the apostrophe ', for the hamza mark, but the 'ain' marker is different on different pages. I'll remove my previous suggestions, which aren't on the list of easy-to-click-on characters underneath the edit window, and suggest the reference.bahai.org ticks, which are on the wiki clickable characters, using the ‘ for ayn, and the ’ for hamza. This is actually the same standard as most of the transliterations, if you look close.

This comes to another issue. I think there should be two levels of transliteration on these pages, one being the "correct" version, with dots and acute accents, used in the opening sentence, followed by the original Arabic text when possible. After that there should be a "lazy" transliteration, without dots, using apostrophes instead of acutes, but still using accents over long vowels. The lazy version should be used in page titles. See Fatima Zahra for an example of what I mean. It's how most of the Islamic pages are done, except they don't use accents in titles. Cuñado - Talk 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I spoke too soon, I did more reading into it, and the grave accent ` is on the keyboard, so it makes sense to use that as the 'ayin', and the apostrophe as the hamza, so `Abdu'l-Bahá would be the correct version, which is how it is already. Cuñado - Talk 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The specific apostrophe/dashes/etc can be changed to whatever is common, but ` and ' are on the keyboard (as you stated) and ‘ and ’ are not, so it makes it even harder to type out Bahá'í, with almost no visible diffference. So I'm in favour of keeping the ` and ' In other thoughts, I know that I've been placing the diacretics on most Baha'i words, but I would be in favour of removing all diacretics as well, if there is consensus. -- Jeff3000 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think removing diacritics from the article titles would be a great idea. I would approve of removing all diacritics, as long as they are mentioned correctly, at least once, in the beginning of an article (like the Fatima Zahra example). Cuñado - Talk 01:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I really support having the diacritics used rigorously in the articles. As concerns the page-titles, I'm not very savvy on what characters may or may not be problematic for technical restrications reasons, so that's a totally different issue. The entire reason for having a transliteration standard is to ensure uniformity among Latin-alphabet-using Bahá'í communities. The fact that many publications and websites are less rigorous is mostly due to habit from when such diacritics were either impossible or incredibly hard to render uniformly across multiple platforms. With the onset of Unicode and standardized coding schemes, it would seem contrary to the intent of the Guardian's transliteration standard and Wikipedia's quest for academic rigor to ignore it. When I search for the original Arabic or Persian script form of a given word, name, or title (among other reasons, to include it in a Wikipedia article (e.g. Huqúqu'lláh)), having a precise transliteration to start from gives me a lot of direction, and makes finding and recognizing the original a lot easier. It seems to me that including the diacritics helps at least a minority of people (i.a. linguists, etc.), and doesn't really make it harder for those who aren't interested. Of course, I may be wrong, and I'll support whatever consensus is reached. Keldan 03:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabic poll

Even though this doesn't apply to the Baha'i pages, please check out [[Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic)#poll for standard transliteration. Cuñado - Talk 02:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bahá'í orthography & languages other than English

The opening paragraph refers to this system being used for rendering Persian and Arabic words in English. Is it accurate to say that this system is used for other or all languages written in Latin script? On a separate but related matter, I added the category "Arabic romanization" to the article. --A12n 00:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing the transliteration

I haven't seen in any of the citations the use of any under-dotted letter but for ḥ. For example, Bahai IQ. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Coding the underscore

@Cuñado: Carrying this over from a page-move discussion re. proper coding for ayin and hamza.

The html underlining we were using here was not copy-safe. Among other things, it can't be used in article titles (assuming we'd even want to use it that way). It should be a Unicode diacritic. Since this didn't affect the move discussion, I went ahead and changed it here. What do you think?

There are three choices. #x332 COMBINING LOW LINE has been around since Unicode 1.1 (1993). The line breaks on <gh>, at least with my fonts. But then, html underlining may not underline the <g> at all, depending on your font.

&#x331 COMBINING MACRON BELOW doesn't connect into a single line.

&#x35F COMBINING DOUBLE MACRON BELOW has been around since Unicode 4.0 (2003), so it should have good font support, if not as universal as #x0332. (I don't know if there are any fonts out there that support the dotted letters but not 35F.) It's a single diacritic placed inside a digraph. It will not break on <gh>.

Compare s̲h̲ s̱ẖ s͟h and g̲h̲ g̱ẖ g͟h.

Under 'Urdu', Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic (never implemented) has 331 (combining macron below) for underscoring a single letter (e.g. S, equivalent to our es-dot), and 35F for underscoring a digraph (e.g. Sh). I think that's probably what the marks were intended for, so we should follow. 331 seems to have been intended for decorative underlining, as in a header, while the macron is intended as a diacritic that changes the value of the letter or digraph, as here. Given my browser fonts, a double 332 looks good on digraphs, and 35F looks fine in roman typeface but horrible in italic, using the inline 'unicode' template. <g͟h> looks better with 35F, but there's too much space under the <sh>. But using 'wikitable unicode' format in a table, 35F looks better throughout than 332. It's the proper with on 'th' (332 extends too far to the left), it's not too far below 'sh', and it doesn't break on 'gh'. Given such font-dependent variability, we probably shouldn't read too much into how they display. — kwami (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

For clarity: combining diacritical marks such as &#x331 (COMBINING MACRON BELOW) and &#x35F (COMBINING DOUBLE MACRON BELOW) can not be used in article titles. See WP:TSC (policy), first bullet: "..., avoid combining diacritical marks, which are difficult to type and interfere with adjacent characters." – click the link in that quote: the entire unicode range of combining diacritical marks is excluded from use in article titles. So, whatever you do for this mainspace article (the merits of which I have no clue on), don't do it in view of using it in article titles, that's afaics an unrelated and different matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, and thus my caveat above. I meant it as an example of where using html formatting breaks down. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, 35F is slightly modified from proposal N2457, where it was intended for e.g. t͟h for the English theta sound in M. Webster dictionaries. This is exactly the convention used for the same sound when transliterating Urdu.

(BTW, I was using Candara as my sans-serif font, and it has rather minimal support. Changed to Andika, and this displays better.) — kwami (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The expertise in Unicode is greatly appreciated. I have an interest in this because I studied Arabic many years ago and I've always struggled to standardize Arabic transliteration on all kinds of WP pages. Regarding the Baha'i system, I have tried to maintain two "levels": a very accurate one (that includes underdots, underscores, and the hanging hamzas at the end of words) and a more friendly version. The friendly version is used in article titles and in most of the text, and the highly accurate one is used the first time in the article along with the original script. The way I see it, any system has to balance between accuracy and usability. As long as the first reference includes the highly accurate version, it's available for people who know how to read it. Using the friendly version on everything else makes it easier to read and edit.

Regarding the MACRON, I think you're right about x35F working the best.

I edited the page to copy the Unicode character without having the code value in the text, if that makes sense. Is there any reason we can't do it that way?

Although it's not an ayin or hamza, when the apostrophe is used before the L in the definite article (e.g. In <Baha'u'llah> the first is hamza and the second is not) it is always given the same form as the hamza. I double checked in an original book published by Shoghi Effendi in 1944 and they are clearly the same character. I'm not sure why it ended up that way instead of <Baha' Ullah> or <Baha'ullah>, but that has been standard usage. I'll try and edit the page to comment on that. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"if that makes any sense" -- sorry, no, not following you.

Re. hard-copy print versions, sure, the hamza and apostrophe are identical. That's because whether they were using metal sort or a typewriter, there was only one symbol to use. So they had no choice. But WP is an electronic format, and we use Unicode. In Unicode, punctuation and letters behave differently. The 'okina used in Hawaiian is distinct from the quote mark that has the same shape. Actually, now that we have electronic fonts, with effectively no limit on the number of characters, many of them have a slightly different shape or hight for 'okina and the quote mark. Similarly, a colon-shape for vowel length is distinct from a colon, an exclamation mark for a click consonant is distinct from the punctuation mark, etc. If we use a hamza, then with the possessive it would have to be <Bahaʼullah's>. If we add the apostrophe in the name, we shouldn't use a hamza, because it's not one. And we shouldn't use a curly apostrophe, as those are being purged from WP. So best not to use it at all (as per several of our sources) or to use a simple ASCII <'>. — kwami (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Verification fails

Verification failed for:

1. first reference after the table in the "Comparison to Common English Representations" section: Wikipedia text spells "Baháʼí", source used for verification spells "Bahá’í". --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
2. multiple dead links: 4 in references Nos. 7 to 10, and one in the external links section.--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
3. both sections with each of the two major tables have no reference at all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
4. nearly all sources are WP:PRIMARY and/or published within the Bahá’í organisation itself, this causes problems for the WP:NOR and WP:ABOUTSELF (5th point) core content policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
5. only half of the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the "Background" section is confirmed by the given source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC); Further, the link to the Bahá'í Library Online website used in the reference for that sentence fails WP:SELFPUB (and WP:ABOUTSELF) policy, and should thus be removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Follow-up regarding #3: I removed the sections per WP:CHALLENGE. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Follow-up regarding #5: I replaced the link to the WP:SELFPUB website by a JSTOR link, which, however, resolves only half of the problem mentioned in #5. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You could try supplying refs rather than disrupting WP. It's not difficult. Look: I did it for you. — kwami (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The source (i.e. Bahá'í Library Online – see also second part of #5 above) is unacceptable for use in Wikipedia: see Notes about and history of the Bahá'í Library Online,

This library is a private, independent, all-volunteer project created by Jonah Winters and a team of contributors. It and its content are wholly unofficial and are not sponsored or endorsed by any Bahá'í body or institution.

(my emphasis):

• all-volunteer means that it is a WP:USERGENERATED source, not acceptable in Wikipedia;
• wholly unofficial means that it can not be used in a WP:ABOUTSELF logic about Bahá'í topics.

Sorry for your work, but this source fails the WP:V policy, and the WP:RS guidance. If in doubt whether that is a correct appreciation, I refer to WP:RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I placed a {{Self-published}} tag in the "Perso-Arabic script" section, as a consequence of the above (related to #3 in the OP list). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• In connection to #4 of the OP list, I restored the related tags on top of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Further follow-up regarding #5: restored {{failed verification span}} tag. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

3 apostrophes

Since ppl have had uncertainties about the apostrophes and apostrophe-like letters, I thought I'd cite Winters on Bahai diacritics,[4] who speaks of "the meaning of the three apostrophes in ‘Abdu'l-Bahá’," in which he distinguishes an ayin, a hamza and an actual apostrophe. Though written in 2002, that's compatible with current Unicode practice. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Diacritics and transliteration" by Jonah Winters (2002) at the Bahá'í Library Online website is an unacceptable WP:SPS per Wikipedia's policies. See also discussion about other pages of the Bahá'í Library Online website in previous section. Content sourced to that page is too insufficiently sourced to remain in mainspace, per Wikipedia's core content policies (and related guidance). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Francis, I think you're misreading the word "volunteer" in the description of Bahai-library.com. The site organizer is a volunteer and hosts the server at his own expense. The site is a publisher of material, most of which is not original to the site. For example, a useful article for this page is by Moojan Momen, posted here, and it includes a description of where the article came from. The author is a widely published author on Baha'i subjects, and the article was a draft for an encyclopedia entry. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't say I don't understand, I understand perfectly: the website is unofficial, and "not ... endorsed by any Bahá'í body or institution" (see quote in previous section). It self-publishes edited versions of older writings (no conversion to Unicode, the matter for which the source is used here, is documented in the actual writings), unapproved interpretations of such writings, and self-written introductions to such writings. Whatever way one looks at it, unusable in Wikipedia context per WP:SPS. If in doubt about my appreciation of the suitability of the Bahá'í Library Online website as a source in Wikipedia, again, as said above, put the matter at WP:RSN. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliability is not determined on whether it is posted on bahai-library.com. The site hosts articles like this that are not available anywhere else. The reliability is determined by the publishers and authors. You're right about many of the points you brought up on the page, but not about trying to dismiss bahai-library.com as "unusable in Wikipedia". The "volunteer" reference is to site hosting, not content. Jonah Winters talking about three apostrophes can be used to talk about itself as an example of a Baha'i online library trying to grapple with how to render Arabic into English, because it is about itself. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "The site hosts articles ... that are not available anywhere else" – WP:REDFLAG big time. Suitability as reliable source in Wikipedia is determined by the WP:RS guideline and core content policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR.

Re. "... determined by the publishers and authors", yes, but *how* that determination is done for Wikipedia's purposes is explained at WP:SPS: up to you to demonstrate that Keven Brown is an "... established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (if you want to use the web page to which you link as a reliable source in Wikipedia). But that's not even the source we're discussing here: for using the article "Diacritics and transliteration" by Jonah Winters (2002) at the Bahá'í Library Online website as a reference source in Wikipedia, the same needs to be established regarding Jonah Winters: this author has scholarship in Comparative Religion matters – with a thesis and at least one article published, in Iranian Studies ([5]); all other publications appear, afaics, self-published either at his own website or as user-generated content in Wikipedia's Baha'i- and Winters-related articles (for clarity: Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source, and some of the Wikipedia edits might be subject to WP:COI) – none of that makes him an "established expert" in linguistics such as "Diacritics and transliteration", thus I repeat what I said above, "Whatever way one looks at it, unusable in Wikipedia context per WP:SPS". --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There was, somewhat over a year ago, a WP:RSN discussion about bahai-library.com, archived here, in which Jonah Winters participated: outcome of that discussion was to take this on a case by case basis, the case in this section being the possible usage of "Diacritics and transliteration" by Jonah Winters (2002) at the Bahá'í Library Online website as a source in the Baháʼí orthography article. As said, if my assessment in this case ("unacceptable WP:SPS per Wikipedia's policies") is doubted, take the case to WP:RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, the reliability is a case by case basis for material on the site. So Keven Brown is a PhD in Philosophy, writing an article about philosophical views of evolution that relate to his expertise, and it was published in a book by Kalimat Press, an established Baha'i publisher. As far as I can tell the article is only available in print and electronically at bahai-library.com. Thus I said "not available anywhere else". If the content on bahai-library.com is Jonah Winters commenting on his frustration with rendering text, then it is verifiable and meets the standard for self-published sources about themselves, see WP:ABOUTSELF for criteria. So like I said, it can be used as a reference that an online publisher of a large volume of Baha'i related material has had difficulty Romanizing Arabic text. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "it can be used as a reference" – no, it can't, not in this article afaics. Again, as said, multiple times, take this to WP:RSN if you disagree with my assessment. With all what I see, have and had before me, and read, above and elsewhere, this remains a no for this article. Unless a consensus otherwise can be found at WP:RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

And which of these conditions does Jonah's self-published article fail to meet?

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

A plain reading of the policy for self-published sources says it can be used for information about itself. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't pass WP:ABOUTSELF as already said multiple times. I'll explain that at WP:RSN if you take it there. Trying to prod me with something that goes so blatantly against logic here only annoys me, and far from makes me change my mind. As the same is true for you: take it to WP:RSN if you can't accept my assessment (as already said multiple times). But trying to engage me here without bringing this before the wider community seems not to be helpful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style

On the issue of making an MOS for Baha'i-related pages, User:Francis Schonken made the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Bahá'í spelling. I suggest we use this talk page to figure out what that page is for or if it should be moved/deleted.

Personally I don't know enough about when an MOS is needed to comment on that. The Baha'i orthography page currently has enough information to inform on the issue, so if an MOS is a better route then most of this page would just be copied over there.

I used to maintain the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic page but it went dormant because not many people worked on it (it's also much more complicated and covers a large number of pages). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been looking at transliteration issues lately and am happy to discuss if this is still relevant! dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 05:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Simplified spelling

I'd like to propose a major change. I think the spelling on all Baha'i pages can be simplified in most cases. I suggest we remove diacritics, dots, and turned commas, and just use a keyboard apostrophe for hamza and contractions. The detailed, reversible transliteration should be used in the first instance of the word. When the word has its own page (e.g. Abdu'l-Baha, Kitab-i-Iqan), the original Arabic and the detailed transliteration should both be available in the linked article, and doesn't need to be in every instance.

Anyone wanting to know how to pronounce things correctly will have access to the detailed transliteration and hopefully the original Arabic/Persian script. The great majority of people don't know how to read the extra markings and they don't serve much of a purpose. Removing them would be more user friendly. The change will make it so you can type all the common words on the keyboard without using unicode. It would also match how most articles use Arabic transliteration (e.g. Jamal Al-Karboli, Faiyum).

If everyone agrees, I'll update the MOS. It will involve many article title changes as well. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Smkolins, Gazelle55, Tarikhejtemai, Kwamikagami, Dragfyre, Meditating. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Are you saying name of article only or in the body of the text? Also I think I've seen cases where there isn't an exact unicode agreement about what an apostrophe is - just saying - but if bots just edit I don't have a problem with it. Broadly I'm in agreement but thinking accented characters are a common minimum in general usage when trying to be formal. Smkolins (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• I think it's fine to drop them out of anglicized words and names, e.g. Bahai rather than Bahaʼi or Baháʼí. We'd drop the hamza <ʼ> because it's not an apostrophe. Similarly, ʻAbdu'l-Bahá would be Abdu'l-Baha -- we'd drop the ayin <ʻ> because it's not an apostrophe, but retain the actual apostrophe. But I'd object to intentionally misspelling names as e.g. *Baha'i, which is wrongly written with an apostrophe, just as we wouldn't use *Hawai'i in an article. (That is, we'd choose between fully anglicized Hawaii and proper Hawaiʻi, but not some bastardized spelling in between.) This is, after all, and encyclopedia, and we should avoid obvious errors like that.

However, in some articles there are large numbers of non-anglicized names that we wouldn't want to drop the glottal stop, ayins and diacritics from, because otherwise readers wouldn't be able to tell how to pronounce them. In such cases we'd have a situation where Bahai is spelled without any "apostrophes" or diacritics, but less central names are spelled with them. Also, for all names that we drop letters from, we'd need to include pronunciation info at first mention. We shouldn't ask readers to look up every name they come across, and for some we have no article for them to check. That would mean greatly increasing the number of pronunciation guides in our articles.

Smkolins, I assume this is intended for the text. Having glottal stops, ayins and diacritics makes little difference in a title. It's in running text where editors may be inconsistent. I suppose readers might get thrown either way, though. — kwami (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think dropping to Bahai and Abdu'l-Baha would not be appropriate. Nor do I think everything should be raised to the point people can't contribute. I think the technology supports using an *approximation* of things like Bahá'í and `Abdu'l-Bahá and that specialized knowledge of higher refinements belong in an article and not obstructing people's editing, the relative consequences of things like an imposition on readers for the blind, and statistical analysis systems that could fail to render the "correct" renderings. I am sensitive to the idea that respect for original languages matters - which is in part why I object to Bahaism and Bahá'í faith and other things I consider misspellings (in addition to being out of the norm of mentions) - but I also don't think the technology supports everyone being able to edit in wikipedia in their own browsers, their own platforms, all of which intersect to create a visual experience that is not consistent. One person my type a "'" and another person calls that an apostrophe, and the unicode rendering might agree, but that doesn't mean that's what the typist ment or should be interprited as. Smkolins (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that it would be incorrect to drop apostrophes in the above cases. Spellings like "Baha'i", "Baha'u'llah" and "Abdu'l-Baha" are just too prevalent and recognized, and dropping them would result in pretty glaring omissions. Also, see my comment below. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 07:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion about this, though I think having a consistent standard is good. I've seen reliable sources using either the Bahai orthography, anglicized orthography, or something closer to the Persian that isn't Bahai version (I'm thinking about Iranica). I'll be happy to use whichever it is that other editors decide on. Thanks, Kwamikagami for that helpful explanation. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support changing titles to remove diacritics, while keeping an initial gloss in leads using full diacritics according to Baha'i orthography. The relevant piece of policy is WP:EN, which basically says that using diacritics and modified letters is neither discouraged nor encouraged, although WP:ESTABLISHED seems to guide editors towards using whatever is the most established form of a name in reliable English-language sources. I feel like this would suggest we lean towards spellings without diacritics like "Baha'i", "Baha'u'llah" and "Abdu'l-Baha" mentioned above, which many English-speaking Baha'is already use in informal situations.

I would however oppose removing apostrophes as I mentioned above, as unlike on-letter diacritics, apostrophes play a significant role in word recognition, and removing them could cause significant confusion. This applies not only to people but also to search engines: To illustrate this, compare the following Google Scholar results for bahai and baha'i, in which the former returns no results related to the Baha'i Faith. As well, searching Google News for "bahai" results in a list of articles of which the majority include the apostrophe. I believe this would support "Baha'i" as an established spelling.

On a different but related note, I would support dropping any backticks (`) in titles or within article text, as these are quite uncommon characters which also have the potential to mess with machine readability. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 07:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)