A sub-page Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo has been added to post opinions regarding the photo issue

1. /Archive 1 Orthodox Bahais, some factual (in)accuracies, Baha'ullah's wives and the picture
2. /Archive 2 contains more debate about the picture and the wives
3. /Archive 3 about Mirza Yahya and a lot more about the picture
4. /Archive 4 Has not been parcelled out to the other archives yet. Cunado19 02:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. /Archive 5 Has not been parcelled out to the other archives yet. Cunado19 17:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Archives have been reorganised as follows to make it easier to follow the discussion threads:

• /Archive Exile
• /Archive Format
• /Archive language skills
• /Archive NPOV
• /Archive Orthodox
• /Archive Picture
• /Archive Wives
• /Archive Personal_Attacks

The original Archives remain unchanged for the time being. --Occamy 22:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just completely redid the page. Several sections are commented out instead of deleted, so things can be put back in easily.

I also started using the quote format found here... Quotation Cunado19 6 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)

OK I'm pretty much done with grammar and link edits. I'll leave the commented out portions in there for another few weeks in case someone wants to merge parts in.

It appears to me that a lot of the "objective" sources used here are just people that read the Baha'i history books and made their own comments. I don't see them as a unique source of information. The Ahmadiyya web site, which is quoted all over the Baha'i pages, is a group who wrote "history and doctrines of the Babi movement" in an attempt to argue away the Baha'i Faith and establish their own prophet as the true Mihdi. They are not even from the same area, their movement began in Pakistan in the late 19th century. Their best arguments are just making accusations and have no historical foundation. Feel free to quote it all you want, but don't present it as some objective source revealing the true story of Baha'u'llah. Cunado19 8 July 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Some, such as Dr. Suheil Bushrui, feel that His writings in Persian and in Arabic are of excellent literary quality [2], while e.g. Ahmad Kasravi, a renowned (but not uncontroversial) Iranian scholar and linguist, posits Bahá'u'lláh has poor grammar and style in his Arabic writings. - Uhmm with the reference to the last bit, how can a Iranian be a judge on Arabic writing? maybe at the time of Baha'ullah since back then Farsi had more Arabic, and in what proof does he have? --Aryan 12:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's entitled to his opinion. I imagine that he may well have been fluent in Arabic? Don't forget Baha'u'llah was Iranian too... As for the second part of your question....... Ahmad Kasravi wrote in Farci and I don't know anyone who's ever read his stuff (so we've had a hard time scrubbing that quote). He was rather secular and spent much of his life slating everything and anything that wasn't mainstream Islam (and even some of that too). He hated sufiism and therefore also Baha'u'llah and Babi writings. He is however rather well known in Iranian circles so its a little hard to just discredit him. He was assassinated after annoying just about every religious person in Iran at the time...... -- Tomhab 21:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea, if anyone knows how to do this, we should put a link at the top that makes a sound pronouncing "Baha'u'llah". Most people can't pronounce it from seeing how it's spelled. Here is an example of another wiki page doing it. Cunado19 00:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought - Its quite easy though - simply record your voice saying the name to an "ogg vorbis" format sound file and link it. In my opinion I think it might be good for a native Persian speaker to say it however as I'm well aware that the pronounciation gets slurred by the rest of us.

Why use ogg vorbis? read the page and you'll see. Its all to do with licencing (strictly speaking if wikipedia were to use mp3 then they'd have to pay around 2-3c every time a file is saved I believe. Vorbis is available under "free" licence (and is also better). -- Tomhab 21:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what's got me writing this is the line:

"most notably the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and the Book of Certitude"

in the first paragraph. Its fine, except it uses the Farci for Aqdas and the English for the Iqan. First off the Aqdas was written in the Arabic anyway (and formally called the "Kitab-al-Aqdas" which is how it is said in Arabic), but thats not the point.

My proposal is to have some sort of scheme for this type of thing. I offer my personal favourites, but only insist on consistency (for obvious reasons of one confusing between the Kitab-i-Iqan and the Book of Certitude).

I propose sticking to the Farci (as they're best known as) of "Kitab-i-Aqdas" and "Kitab-i-Iqan" and references to their English meanings are only added afterwards. Thats because "Most Holy Book" sounds odd, and not too many people know what the Arabic name. For other books use the name which they are most commonly known by (no need to dig up how to say "Hidden words" in Farci.

Please let me know your thoughts. -- Tomhab 17:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good suggestion. --Occamy 21:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. As long as they're linked it doesn't matter too much I think. Cunado19 03:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about we take this further and remove all diacritical marks. English does not use diacritical marks. It seems silly to have the French spelling of a name on an English page. That goes for all Baha'i and Bayani pages.

English does use diacritical marks, just not in every day language. Since these pages go for factual accuracy, then it is necessary to introduce the entire offical spellings.

About Subh-i-Azal making a claim... There are a number of things that Bayanis claim that are contrary to Baha'i history books. The murders, the poison, the character of Baha'u'llah, the character of Azal, the successor of Azal, and I'm sure many others.

As I've come to understand, the only real external source was EG Browne. The fact that he didn't record Azal making his claim doesn't mean anything. If Azal did make the claim, he eventually gave it up, that's obvious now. But Baha'i history books say that he did make the claim, and as a Baha'i, I have some confidence in those that I don't have in Bayanis. I don't expect others to feel the same, but I wouldn't exactly call it a Baha'i myth. I'll take out any references that he did order murders, poison Bah'u'llah, and claim to be HWGSMM. And I'll make them Baha'i references instead.

The following is interesting on the subject...

"The name of E. G. Browne stands very high among orientalists of this or any age. His fame is supported by solid, enduring achievement. But in the works of this renowned scholar Mirza Yahya is given a prominence which is misleading. It has actually misled some whose sincerity is above reproach, and has also provided argument to men obviously hostile to the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh... it is also a fact that Edward Browne was tragically mistaken, that his considerable prestige aided the furtherance of the designs of the adversaries of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh."

"It is strange to see Mr H. Kamshad presenting Bahá’u’lláh and Subh-i-Azal as ‘descendants’ of the Báb, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as the ‘founder of Bahaism’. Also strange is Mr Peter Avery’s statement that Bahá’u’lláh was the ‘chosen successor’ to the Báb. Stranger is Mme Vera Kubickova’s reference to Haji Mirza Yahya Dawlatabadi as a member of ‘the Bahá’í sect’—proficient man-of-letters and a famous politician, who was in no way favourably inclined towards the Bahá’í Faith. Prof. Joseph M. Upton states that it was Subh-i-Azal who was ‘transferred to Adrianople at the request of the Shah’. Mr John Marlowe in a footnote asserts that ‘Bahai’ism is a heretical variant of Islam’. Mr Donald N. Wilber mentions that some 40,000 Bábís were massacred about two years after the martyrdom of the Báb, and that Mirza Yahya ‘settled at Adrianople’. These are only a few instances chosen at random from more recent works."

(H.M. Balyuzi, E.G. Browne and The Baha'i Faith, p. 5)

Cunado19 03:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me. I am looking for accademic claims that Subh-i-Azal claimed to be Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest (will use HWGSMM from here). I have read quite a lot on the history of the era and on the topic of those claiming to be HWGSMM but can't remember seeing anything about Subh-i-Azal claiming to be it. I am fully aware of the various claims and counter claims of the two Babi 'sects'. If you can remember where you've read it then we can put it in, but it doesn't appear to come up often in the stuff I've read.

I called it a Baha'i myth, but perhaps meant an urban legend - something that is mentioned in children's classes and during uninformed Baha'i banter, but not in accademic literature (as they know better).

Having said this, I would be happy to be proven wrong -- Tomhab 23:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my research, I've found no solid claims that Azal ever thought he was HWGSMM. However, in the years following the Bab's death, more than 20 of Azal's closest relatives and friends claimed to be HWGSMM before Baha'u'llah ever proclaimed that he was the one. Whenever I think of what Azal had to go through, I understand completely the anguish he must have felt in trying to find HWGSMM. He was given a responsibility by the Bab and it seemed like the people closest to him all tried to trick him and take that responsibility.

Anyway, when we look at the Azalis today, it becomes quite clear that Azal never openly claimed that he was HWGSMM to his followers. The Azalis, or Bayanis, seem to be an extension of the Babis, with no strong definitive scripture that builds on the original Bayan. Anonymous 14:32, 15 October 2005

Well said, but there is still no scripture that seems to say he didn't ever make the claim. As you've noted a great many people made the claim - what is there to make one say that Shoghi Effendi was wrong? Nabil who wrote the Dawn Breaker's claimed to have been HWGSMM, before retracting it and supporting Baha'u'llah.

As for "strong difinitive scripture that builds on the original Bayan" you've forgotten the Motammem Al-Bayan which Azal wrote personally and is now considered as significant as the Bayan by Azalis/Bayanis. He is revered seemingly in much the same was as Abdul'Baha is to Baha'is - quite a lot - and his teachings (from what I've noticed) are pretty gospel binding. -- Tomhab 22:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quote about all the academic sources making wildly inaccurate statements was kind of the point. EG Browne is the most accurate as far as I can tell, but even he made some mistakes. When he interviewed Azal, of course he didn't record him claiming to be HWGSMM, but that doesn't prove or disprove it, since one "academic" source said that he was a Baha'i.

Baha'i sources report his claim in God Passes By and The Dawn-breakers, which are the two primary sources of history.

So really there's no way to academically prove it that I know of. If he did, for obvious reasons he stopped, and his followers hid any trace of it to keep their movement alive. Like I said, I think it falls into the category of disputed claims, like the poison, that have no external academic sources on the subject. Report it however you want, I'm really not as opinionated as I'm sounding. As long as you don't call it a Baha'i myth/legend, cause it is stated in Baha'i history books. Cunado19 15:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that academic sources are based on primary sources anyway, and the primary sources here come from two groups that are entirely opposed to each other, and whose accounts differ in most respects - something that's very hard for a historian to later put together a certain account of - they all have to deal with the questions of *which* accounts they're going to trust. Hmm - I can't remember GPB and Dawn Breakers mentioning Azal making a claim to anything other than being the Bab's appointed successor. Cunado, can you give us the extracts from those two sources that say that? Bahá'í (it's a long time since I read them, and they are both long books - still I thought I would have remembered something as important as that about Azal's claims!) PaulHammond 11:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but God Passes By and the Dawn-breakers are *not* the two primary source of history. First of all, they were writen many decades after the events they purport to portray. Secondly, we have many many sources that pre-date these. It is relatively clear from Azal's own efforts that he never claimed to be HWGSMM, since if he had, then he would have simply responded to all those others, "No it's me!" and he didn't. He responded by saying, "No you're not" or effectively similar actions. And I echo Paul, post quotes that say that he claimed to be HWGSMM with the page numbers so we can read it for ourselves. Thanks. Wjhonson 19:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the instigation of Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani, Mirza Yahya betrayed the trust of the Báb, claimed to be His successor, and intrigued against Bahá’u’lláh, even attempting to have Him murdered. When Bahá’u’lláh formally declared His Mission to him in Adrianople, Mirza Yahya responded by going to the length of putting forward his own claim to be the recipient of an independent revelation. His pretensions were eventually rejected by all but a few, who became known as Azalis

(note 190 of The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 248)

Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani, who is described by Shoghi Effendi as the “Antichrist of the Bahá’í Revelation”. He was a man of corrupt character and great personal ambition who induced Mirza Yahya to oppose Bahá’u’lláh and to claim prophethood for himself...

(note 192 of The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 249)

Mirza Aqa Jan was accordingly commissioned to bear to Mirza Yahya the newly revealed Suriy-i-Amr, which unmistakably affirmed those claims, to read aloud to him its contents, and demand an unequivocal and conclusive reply. Mirza Yahya’s request for a one day respite, during which he could meditate his answer, was granted. The only reply, however, that was forthcoming was a counter-declaration, specifying the hour and the minute in which he had been made the recipient of an independent Revelation, necessitating the unqualified submission to him of the peoples of the earth in both the East and the West.

(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 167)

The conduct of Mirza Yahya, who claimed to be the successor of the Báb...

(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 114)

I know this isn't specific, depends how you see 'successor'.

for he longed to take the place of Bahá’u’lláh and, indeed, when formally apprised in Adrianople of Bahá’u’lláh’s claim, made his counter-claim and declared himself to be the bearer of a new revelation.

(Adib Taherzadeh, The Child of the Covenant, p. 34)

In order to communicate this message to Mirza Yahya, Bahá’u’lláh revealed the Suriy-i-Amr (Surih of Command) in His own handwriting and instructed His amanuensis Mirza Aqa Jan to take the Tablet to Mirza Yahya, read it aloud and demand a conclusive reply from him. On being apprised of the contents of the Tablet and the claims of Bahá’u’lláh, Mirza Yahya indicated that he needed some time during which to meditate on the subject. The following day he sent a message to Bahá’u’lláh that he himself had become the recipient of divine Revelation and it was incumbent upon all to obey and follow him.

(Adib Taherzadeh, The Child of the Covenant, p. 120)

The crisis was caused by Mirza Yahya, Bahá’u’lláh’s half-brother, whose covetousness and jealousy of Bahá’u’lláh prompted him to openly challenge Bahá’u’lláh’s authority and to issue his own claim to be the Promised One.

(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 113)

Couldn't find it in Dawnbreakers. I think cause that book is mostly about earlier events. Now I'm not sure if you're arguing that it was not actually stated, or that it was originally made up and got passed down in the Baha'i history books. I don't really care how the article puts it, cause like everyone said, there's no academic way to positively prove or disprove it. But it is claimed in Baha'i texts. Cunado19 14:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take it all back :). Having said that, I think it should be important to say that Baha'is believe that, but I'm sure Bayanis don't. It would be quite a damning acknowledgement for them. -- Tomhab 16:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's most likely that Bayani's do not believe that he claimed to be HWGSMM. I'll email that Bayani group and ask them. Wjhonson 19:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this image on ru.wikipedia

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Shrine_of_Bahaullah.jpg

I think it is of the shrine but i'm not sure. Could it be useful?Geni 11:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's of the shrine. This is the corner where his body is. The picture usually used is of the door on the left of this picture. The house where he died is in the background. Go ahead and add it. Why are you on the Russian page? (I think it's Russian) Cuñado - Talk 12:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was seeing which wikis the person I protected this page against had been active on.Geni 13:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are diligent. I edited the picture on the top. Might I suggest you just protect the page for awhile? The only edits for awhile have been involving the picture. Cuñado - Talk

there will always be fights over the picture and I don't want to keep this page protected forever so I just keep it on my watchlist and hope for the best.Geni 15:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This link represents a biased POV here. The "Baha'i Divisions" ariticle lists membership at one thousand. The "Orthodox Baha'i Faith" article states "Total membership is estimated at up to a few thousand." If this represents say 5,000 at the outside, then this is 0.1%± of the membership of the mainstream Baha'i community, taken here at 5M members. Having a link to this organization on this page makes less sense than linking to the Baha'i Faith on the Jesus Christ bio article. 5M members vs. 2.1B is 0.2% --MARussellPESE 17:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you can try, but I think there's a guy whose mission is to add this link to all Baha'i pages, going back to when Rick Boatright was involved in editing the Baha'i Faith article about a year before I joined. The person who most recently added this link back in may not be the same person, but his edit comments suggest he'd be willing to revert war over keeping that link in. I'm not bothered enough about it to go that far to keep it out! PaulHammond 23:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made one effort at a solution - if it's relevant to have a link to the Orthodox article in that section, it's much more relevant to have a link back to the mainstream Baha'i article, don't you think? PaulHammond 23:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jawohl! An elegant approach. I'll browse Archive 1 to see what consensus, if any, there was on the subject. I don't want (Read: have time) for a revert war over this, but this link seems most irrelevant. --MARussellPESE 12:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really, there never has been a concensus. The simple reality is, the OBF exists, and as to numeric ratios, there are other standards. The OBF is the only heretical Baha'i division to manage to as yet, survive the loss of its founder. (Well, in a sense. In the sense to which Marangella was the one who convinced Remey to make his statements, who played on his depression and sense of loss, who manipulated the tragedy, then they have NOT yet survived the loss of their founder, but that's a technicality and a nit.) They are the largest Baha'i division by far, and deserve the link about as much as say the Coptic church deserves a link off the Jesus Christ page. (There are no exact parallels, don't let's get started there.) -- the simple reality is, that by constantly fighting the existance of these minor links, we draw attention to them. Instead, the FAR FAR BETTER SOLUTION is a rich web of dozens and dozens of Baha'i pages with deep content interlinking in a rich way. There are, for example, much of the explication of the administractive order, lots of history, links to promemnant Baha'i Communities, etc, which do not yet exist. There is, for example, no link to the oldest Baha'i community in the nation off the Wisconson page. Let's focus on the important stuff. Comments which focus on suppressing heresy, instead make the mainline Baha'i community look like a bunch of religious zealots attempting to emulate the inquisition. Let's not do that. Rick Boatright 13:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Rick's got a valid point on suppression. Baha'is can, and sometimes do, look like stormtroopers on this. I personally think that any edit made by an anonymous IP address should automatically be a candidate for speedy deletion.

- The question I raised, and has been raised previously in the Archives, was one of relevance, not dogmatic orthodoxy. In point of fact, today's "Jesus Christ" and "Joseph Smith" do not link to Copts or the Reorganized LDS. Also, I think that folks from Wisconsin would likewise be cheesed off (Sorry, couldn't resist.) about a link to the Baha'i Faith off the "Wisconsin" article.

- Paul's solution of adding a link back to the main "Baha'i" article dovetails nicely with Rick's excellent point that the comparison of mainstream Baha'is to these groups is striking. That's why I'm now suggesting replacing the OBF link with one to "Baha'i divisions."

- As the OBF has itself splintered wouldn't it be more NPOV, and in-line with and encyclopedia to link to an article that discusses these divisions neutrally?

- I appreciate the thoughtful discussion all around. --MARussellPESE 13:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, but Kenosha, Wisconsin sure needs the word Baha'i to appear there. I mean, Don Amiche, Danial Tavanti, Orsen Wells, sure, all deserve their place as hometown boys, but surely SOMEONE can make a note of the oldest Baha'i community in North AMerica. Not to mention Enterprise, Kansas as number two. Rick Boatright 19:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely disagree with your point #1 - and you'd find many other wikipedians would disagree on principle. Granted that sometimes an anon edit is someone trying to avoid, say, a 24 hour lock on their account, or falling foul of the 3 revert rule - but then there are anon edits who are newbies making spelling corrections. The fact that *anyone* can edit Wikipedia, and you don't have to sign up to do it is a big point of principle for some - not so much for me - but I'd say you have to take each edit on its merits, and not just assume things about the author because they haven't signed in. Sure, it can be a warning sign of an active vandal - but very often something else is going on. PaulHammond 22:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that anonymous edits should be speedy deleted, just that they should be candidates. I've been around enough online flame-wars myself to view online anonymity with a jaundiced eye. These Baha'i pages seem to suffer a lot from anonymous edits undoing work that you regulars have put into this. Removing the picture seems to regularly be executed anonymously. I'm getting the picture though that the price of wikipedian freedom is eternal vigilance. MARussellPESE 12:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the point you originally brought up, how to deal with a link to OBF on every page... well there are 20 other links that could be relevant on any given page under the "see also" section. The link to OBF under 'see also' is because it is not allowed on the template, so you could simply repeat a bunch of template links there, or add relevant non-Baha'i links. For example, on the Administrative Order page, also link to World government or Messianism. Cuñado - Talk 04:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just link a page to every Baha'i page on the orthodox Baha'i pages? How about Bahá'í Faith, Universal House of Justice, International Teaching Centre, Bahá'í World Centre and the like? -- Tomhab 21:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Author,

In the section, Early Life, in subsection Background, Bahá'u'lláh's father's name appears thrice. Twice it is spelt in one way, (Mirza Buzurg), and once it is spelt in another, (Mirza Burzurg). One of them has to be correct.

I would have made the change myself. But I don't know the correct name, and I don't want to commit further errors. So you please correct the error.

Pranesh Bhargava 10:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Pranesh Bhargava IIT Bombay, India.[reply]

Thanks, it's fixed now. -- Jeff3000 13:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "He [Bahá'u'llá] claimed to fulfill the Bábí prophecy of 'He whom God shall make manifest', but in a broader sense he also claimed to be the Messenger of God prophesied in all great religious traditions." In what sense do all "great" religions have a messenger of god? Off the top of my head, take Buddhism. I'm sure there are other examples. 129.44.216.105 01:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Baha'i belief, Buddha was a Messenger of God, and founder of Buddhism. The Baha'i writings talk about the concept of the Manifestation of God (which are Messengers of God who is God's mouthpiece) . In the Baha'i writings the founders of other religions are Manifestations of which include among others, Krishna, who Baha'is see as the founder of Hinduism, Moses, as the founder of Judaism, Jesus Christ, as the founder of Christianity, Muhammad, as the founder of Islam, and Zoroaster, as the founder of Zorastrianism. Baha'i scripture also sees Adam and Noah as Manifestations of God. Buddhists of course don't see the Buddha in the same manner as Baha'is do. Also Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah fulfilled the prophecies regarding the Fifth Buddha. -- Jeff3000 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A compromise was required because it is Bahá'í practice to not view this image, while the goal of Wikipedia is to neutrally present all information available. The picture has been placed at the bottom of this page to satisfy both interests."

That's garbage. The goals of Wikipedia are the only thing that matters here. This is not a place for Baha'i practice, or for that of any other religion. I intend to move the photograph to a more prominent place in the article.Timothy Usher 01:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about consensus, a consensus was built. You can't just go against that. -- Jeff3000 01:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that consensus knowingly compromised the goal of wikipedia, as is frankly admitted by the warning I've quoted above, we certainly can; indeed, we're obliged to do so. Also see WP:NBD.Timothy Usher 01:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The note that the note in the comments is more directed at Baha'is who keep deleting the image. Even though we keep putting the image back in the article, it limits the photo vandalism. The location of the image does not go against any Wikipedia policy. The image is not censored, and in fact the note at the top, and the discussion on the image, makes it more prominent than anything. The actions by the Baha'i editors, by putting the image back every time it's deleted, shows that we are indeed not trying to censor anything. -- Jeff3000 01:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Usher's point is valid: we don't need to compromise with photo vandals. Wikipedia is a de facto secular encyclopedia: it does not adhere to any religious faith, affirm any religious doctrine, or follow any religious code of conduct. We don't have anti-blasphemy or anti-heresy laws on Wikipedia, and with good reason. It is not necessary for us to "compromise" with religious articles of faith, even for the noble goal of avoiding offending people, when doing so shows defential treatment to certain religions and thus biases Wikipedia.

However, Jeff3000 is also correct that the current compromise was one that was long-fought for, and Wikipedia is run by consensus, with the most recent consensus being that we should leave the image in the article, but have it at the bottom so it can be put in its proper context and explained (and, presumably, so that we don't offend certain people unnecessarily). If certain users feel that this consensus is mistaken, then we should make our arguments, discuss the issue reasonably, and attempt to establish a new consensus, which agrees to place the image at the top of the article. We should not rush into editing the article willy-nilly and get into unproductive revert wars or arguments over the issue; in time, history has shown that Wikipedia tends to correct such errors, and precedent strongly shows that Wikipedia does not need to adhere to any specific religion where doing so compromises its ability to provide information in a consistent and useful way: see the image at the top of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. If the image isn't moved to the top of the article next week, it probably will in a few months, or in a year; there's no big deadline to meet, and therefore no reason to get hot-headed about this issue, one way or the other. It is perfectly possible to discuss these matters reasonably and patiently, no matter how clearly wrong you believe the other side to be. :) -Silence 01:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy the photo has it's own setion that is linked to at the top of the page. How prominent do you want the thing to be?Geni 01:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silience, I understand your points somewhat, but if Baha'i religious doctrine was followed, then the image would not be here at all. In fact, the Baha'i editors have constantly put the image back on the page when it is taken off, going against our religious beliefs. If censorship is the issue, as was the case with the cartoon controversy, then I believe that there is no censorship here, as the image is in the article; moreover, due to the note at the top, the image much more visible. How many more people have come to see the image of Baha'u'llah just because of the note, which in many ways goes against what Baha'is beleive is decent behaviour of a Manifestion of God (again going against Baha'i belief). As Geni notes above, the image with it's note and own section is more prominent than it would be if it was at the top. -- Jeff3000 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"but if Baha'i religious doctrine was followed," - I didn't say that the doctrine was being followed exactly, I said that we're compromising with the doctrine: finding a middle ground between Wikipedia policy and religious beliefs. And that's what Timothy and I have a problem with. If we compromise between Wikipedia's standards and a religion's doctrine on this issue, then we must, to be fair, to do the same for every other religious doctrine.

The problem here is that you're assuming that just because some Baha'i editors don't find the current compromise acceptable, that means we're at an ideal point of balance between Wikipedia's policies and Baha'i's standards and articles of faith; obviously that's an extremely unreliable indicator, though. If we moved the image at the top of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy to the very bottom of the article, and Muslims still tried to delete it, would that mean that the situation is ideal? Of course not.

There is no more need to reach a "middle ground" between Wikipedia's policies and goals and the beliefs and ethics of Baha'i followers than there is to find a "middle ground" between Wikipedia's policies and goals and the beliefs and ethics of Buddhists, or Scientologists, or Mithraists. When Wikipedia's goals are best served with a "10" and Baha'i's beliefs are best followed with a "0", the correct response is not to go for a "5", as we currently are, but to go for a "10"!

"As Geni notes above, the image with it's note and own section is more prominent than it would be if it was at the top." - Patently false. Having the image at the very bottom of the article, where users must scroll all the way through all of the external links, references, see alsos, notes, and other sections of the article just to find it (and anyone familiar with Wikipedia's page layout style will be baffled by this, as no user would ever expect to find an image in this placement; I expect that any user who is skimming and misses the note you speak of and just starts digging into the article will stop reading near the end and never even realize that the image section is there!), is inherently more out-of-the-way and less prominent than if the image was at the very top of the article, where it would be mandatory for everyone who comes to the page to immediately see it. If you hide a prize behind a door for a person to seek out, it is always more out-of-the-way than if you'd simply given the prize to the person, even if you go out of your way to construct a giant glowing neon sign explicitly telling people to open the door to find the prize. That's simply unavoidable. -Silence 02:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there has been a compromise with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is about presenting information, and the image is on the page with lots of information about it. What the location of the image does, is that is allows those who choose to not want to view it, to not view it. Anyone who still wants to view the image, can still do that with its current placement.

Now you have a point with the image being below the references and the notes, and I've now moved it to the section just before the See also section. It is much more discoverable at this location (even though the note would have been read by anyone reading the article anyways). -- Jeff3000 02:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is a poor comparison. this article is not called Photo of Bahá'u'lláh the photo is only a fairly small part of his life.Geni 03:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy stating that the image has to be at the top of the article. In fact there are only 'suggestions' on where to put images. It is not compromising wikipedia policy, because there is no policy. It is also not pandering to a religious POV, because the image is on the page. All the Baha'i editors would rather have the image linked on or off-site, which would likewise be a reasonable situation because the information is not being censored. There is a misunderstanding here that Baha'is are somehow offended by the image, which is not the case. Baha'is prefer to only view the image as part of pilgrimage, which is a once-a-lifetime special event. Casually coming across the image sort of ruins it for them, so Baha'is deserve the opportunity to not view the image. If it's on the top of the page they will have no choice. If there is a warning then they will know how to navigate the page without looking at it. The first time I saw it on this page it was quite a shock (although I already saw it in Haifa).

If you want to re-hash the discussion, then I suggest having an in-text link to the image, or creating a new page called 'Photo of Baha'u'llah' and moving the contents of the section to it, with the image on the top of the page. Short of these options I would suggest moving it back underneath the references. Cuñado - Talk 07:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cunado that the photo should be be at the very end of the article. The reason is simply that those wanting to see the photo can hit the END key and see it immediately while readers who prefer not to see the image--because of feelings of reverence--can scroll through the article to the references without inadvertently viewing the image. Seems a reasonable compromise to me. --Occamy 20:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]