Please stop linking this article to the "Orthodox" Bahá'í Faith. The link is totally irrelevant - it is as if Jehovah's Witnesses would put a link to their site on the article about Jesus, just because they believe in him. This article must be a short biography about Bahá'u'lláh. Thank you. --Saed 20:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, it is perfectly reasonable to put a the link to the Othodox Baha'i faith. Look at say John the Baptist, 5 religions are mentioned because they believe in him. You are in the wrong not the link. Besides, what do you have against the othodox babs anyway? You have removed every linking to them. Yes, we can see exactly what you change. --[[User:Sunborn|metta, The Sunborn ☸]] 20:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

one thing is a religion, another is a sect(constituted by a dozen people)!

I think that a link to the Orthodox Baha'i faith is valid - although I completely understand the Bahá'ís view of this. The article about Jesus does link to the article about Jehovah's Witnesses - as it should. While I recognise and sympathise with the Baha'is view, the fact is that another group also claims a link to Bahá'u'lláh and they have been judged significant enough to have an article here. To not link to the orthodox Bahá'ís is to make a point of view judgement on their validity - something that is outside the bounds of Wikipedia. Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

isnt making a judgement that they are significant enough also POV?

I have nothing against the group of the Orthodox Bahá'ís. It is a matter of relevancy. Should we put on the article about Jesus every single link to the more than 20,000 groups, parties, sects and movements that are associated with him? The article about Bahá'u'lláh is a biography about him and his life. During the lifetime of Bahá'u'lláh (and even during the lifetime of his son ´Abdu'l-Bahá) the Orthodox Bahá'ís didn't even exist, so they have nothing to do with his biography. Thank you for your cooperation. --Saed 20:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All I can say is so what? It doesn't matter the just because they didn't exist at the death of Bahá'u'lláh. They are an important religious phenominon. We list things with relavence. The 10,000 missing christian denominations are not there because they are not an important religious phenominon. They have their own list and are mentioned there. Orthodox Bahá'ís are important for two reasons, they are the second largest Baha'i group in the world. And two, their existance is interesting because the Baha'i religion is not supposed to have an factioning, it is against dogma. ---The Sunborn

In this case there are not 20,000 groups - there are only two (one much smaller than the other to be sure). Both recognise Bahá'u'lláh as a manifestation of God (if I am remembering my terminology right - I am not Bahá'í) and both have an article on Wikipedia. And both articles should be linked to from here. To do otherwise is introducing the point of view that Orthodox Bahá'ís are not legitimate. The Orthodox Bahá'ís would say that they did exist before the death of Bahá'u'lláh (and Abdu'l-Bahá). They would say that they are the true and legitimate continuation of that line - and whether you or I agree with that is beside the point. We have to report the facts and not comment on our own beliefs - that is the essence of NPOV . Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Sannse, I agree with you that we must report facts. What are the facts? The Orthodox Bahá'ís have claimed for forty years now that they have a membership of more than thousand believers, yet every insider knows there is only one "leader" somewhere in the US with a handful of very active followers on the Internet trying to tell everyone that they are the second largest group after the "Heterodox Bahá'is". Of course they are the second largest group, because they are the only one, there is no other group! So if I would create a website about my new Bahà'í sect and had I five followers could I make it to Wikipedia? Just because someone seems to be very active on the Internet is a legitimation for him to be included in Wikipedia? You can go to Encylopaedia Britannica, check your lexikons about religion, look in theological publications etc - there is no word of the Orthodox Bahá'ís. They seem to be big, because they are so active on the Internet (and on Wikipedia it seems). --Saed 21:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that at least part of the problem is that it is difficult to verify the significance of this group. There appears to be propaganda on both sides (please note the word "appears", I do not wish to slur either side). Perhaps there is some way to find a provably unbiased account of the significance of this group. I know that I was aware of them before I came to Wikipedia (I have an interest in religions in general and Bahá'í in particular), and I think an article on them is justified - and if an article is justified then a link from this article is also important. If there are discrepancies in the reporting of membership and significance of the group then that should be included in the Orthodox Bahai Faith article.. but there would still be a case for inclusion of a link in this article in that instance. Removing all references to this group is not acceptable and feels like censorship - that is not what I believe Wikipedia should be about -- sannse (talk) 21:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With the above in mind, I have re-added the link. -- sannse (talk) 18:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And have restored the link in the absence of further discussion here -- sannse (talk) 18:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--- Below is a comment from User:Foant, moved from the article by sannse (talk) 21:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC):

I still wanna se an image of the guy. Where can i find it? I ask they respect my curioisty.

End of moved text

such "alternative" groups are very very small and are already mentioned in the main article, mentioning OBF everywhere is like mentioning "Potters of God" on every Chrstian related article. the OBF look "big" because there is pretty much one or two persons around the world that create a lot of different sites about them, to give the impression that they are very significant. plz dont let wikipedia get hoaxed.. --Cyprus2k1 08:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are 70 localities where Orhtodox reside, there are poeple that or 4th generation orhtodox now, so grow up. Also, at this point I am re-again putting the link in as both groups claim the smae founder, and as wiki forbids the erasing of links, further if the erasieris continue and you want an erasier war then be prepared for soem unpleasant consequences on your major sites.

As mentioned in the article, for Baha'is, Baha'u'llahs picture is not shown for signs of respect. Most Baha'is do know that a photo exists outside the Baha'i archives building, but don't even want to go and search for it. It is not a minor part of their (my) faith.

I think that the message could be changed to something that says that Baha'u'llahs picture exists and can be found on the web, but as a sign of respect for Baha'is that the precise link not exist. If people really do want to see the picture they can go ahead and find it. -- NavidAzizi 19:27, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Some more info. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, who was appointed the successor, to Abdu'l Baha (who was appointed the successor to Baha'u'llah) has written the following. "There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes." So just for the sake of respect I ask that the precise link not be posted. -- NavidAzizi 19:32, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

The question is - should Wikipedia articles be restricted out of respect to its subjects, and if so, who should define respect - neutral Wikipedia users or the subject. What if a spokesman for the US Army asks to remove the images of prison torture "out of respect"? Or children of a Nazi war criminal ask to remove his photo "out of respect"? (not equating Bahaullah with any of those, of course). My opinion is that Wikipedia is not a Bahai encyclopedia, so in no way should writing of articles on Bahai faith (including related articles, such as this one) be governed by the principles of Bahai faith. If we can't put a link to the photo, because Bahais do not want so, can we put criticism of the church or would that be disrespectful too?

So my view is that Wikipedia can make no such concessions to what material is included. This is an article about a person. There is a photo of that person. That photo is in public domain. Ergo, the photo should be included (or the link to it, it doesn't make much difference). Paranoid 19:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, this is a biography article, and the only picture of him is integral to writing it. On wikipedia, informing our users trumps desires by religious adherents to not include it. →Raul654 06:31, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

you see, Bahai´s usually see photos(there are at least two or three, the one in this article is the worst quality one) of Baha'u'llah on pilgrimage(which is a special moment to bahai´s), by showing the photo in the article without any warning is very ofensive/shocking to bahais. im not saying the photo should be deleted, but at least put a wikilink to it instead.. - --Cyprus2k1 05:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this photo is the best one, because the ones that the Bahai Center in Israel shows the pilgrims are retouched photos (in fact one of them is a bogus one based on this photo) and they are worked out to make Bahaullah look "more presentable", which, if you think about it, is actually an insult to Bahaullah. If you believe in this guy, then just accept him the way he really looked. If he is not "good looking enough" for your taste, then shop around for a better looking prophet or "manifestation of God". The authenticity of this passport photo has been officially acknowledged by the Bahai authorities. --Amir 15:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article looks like most of the claims were taken directly from Bahai myths/scripture. Wikipedia cannot contain information, which can't be independently verified. I think that without references to some independent history books/studies (i.e. not Bahai texts) some of the information may need to be removed or at least rephrased to indicate ambiguity and uncertainty. Paranoid 19:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The references have been stated in the article. E.G. Browne was an English Historian who met with Baha'u'llah while he was imprisoned in Akka. He was not a Baha'i and he wrote a book called A Travellor's Narrative where he wrote about both the Babi and Baha'i histories. You can find the book in some libraries. I urge you to go out and find info which is not in accordance with the article. The things that could be taken out of the article are what people felt and how they reacted to Baha'u'llah and I am willing to remove them if necessary. I am going to remove the disputed tag, until you can find sources that say that the information in the article is wrong. -- NavidAzizi 20:15, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that A Traveller's Narrative was written by the son of Bahaullah (and translated by Browne?). The first line in the introduction says "This book is the history of a proscribed and persecuted sect written by one of themselves." [1]. Clearly this is not an objective source. Ditto for the second reference. Please do not remove the disputed tag. It is not intended to imply that the current version is blatantly wrong (or even wrong at all). The only thing it implies is that there is an unresolved dispute, which there is (we are disputing whether there are sufficient references). It should attract the attention and stimulate other users to contribute to resolving the dispute. Paranoid 22:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No that is another book called "New History" which is a translation by E.G. Browne of a Babi before Baha'u'llah even declared; it has none of the history of Baha'u'llah's exiles and his declaration. A Travellor's Narative is is E.G. Browne's own accounts when he went to the middle east. Again, please point out what is disputed, and only then place the disputed tag. Other than the picture, I can't see why the disputed tag is there. -- NavidAzizi 04:52, Jan 15, 2005.

I've left the disputed tag there, but I'd like a list of disputed items, or I will remove it in a couple of days. -- NavidAzizi 05:01, Jan 15, 2005.

Paranoid is right. In fact, Edward Brownse, in another book talks about some gory details of how the Bahais and Azalis brutalized one another, in particular, how the Bahais were intolerant of the Azalis. The Bahais today know these facts very well, but do their best to keep such mess under the carpet. As for "extremely offenisve to the Bahais", well, tough. First of all, let's be honest, the reason you don't want this photo publicized is because he looks like Rasputin, or he looks like the crook that he was who hijacked the Babi movement. If "out of respect" you don't want his photo displayed, then how come the photos of his son Abdulbaha is all over the palce? Because he was more photogenic and his appearance is more "marketable". If you think about it deeper, it is you who is being offensive to him by saying that his appearance is not good enough! But as it was pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not a Bahai encyclopedia. It is stupid to put a photo of some house in this article, when a photo of Bahaullah is available. And this photo is authentic and is his passport photo. Martin2000 22:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Baha'is see Baha'u'llah as a messenger of God, and as so displaying his image is unrespecful. It has nothing with anything with the way he looks. I'm going to go back to Paranoid's suggestion of jsut linking to it. -- NavidAzizi 04:52, Jan 15, 2005.

You removed most of my contributions to the article, which were objective and historical facts. Why? Which of my contributions were wrong? Also, you removed the part where I said Bahaullah escaped from Persia and went to Baghdad (just like many other Babis had done), you changed that to "he was exiled from Persia", yet, a look at the history of the page Subh-i Azal shows that you (NavidAzizi) wrote explicitly that he "escaped" to Baghdad. What evidence do you have that Bahaullah (who at the time of his escape wasn't even the leader of the Babis) was exiled to Baghdad? So this clearly shows that you are dishonest and you are promoting Bahaullah while at the same time demoting Subh-i Azal, consistent with your other "contributions" on this subject. I will give you a chance to correct all these misdeeds and give the article an honest contribution, or else, be prepared that someone who knows the history of the Babis/Azalis/Bahais very well, will rewrite the whole chain of articles. Martin2000 05:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which of your contributions were wrong? Here's a list of your contributions and my comment to them:

1. "Although it seems highly strange that a distinguished nobleman in the court of a Persian King, not provide any formal schooling for his son. Even more strange is that after his father's passing, they would offer a high-ranking position to a person with no formal schooling."

So that addition is a POV, and I accept what was there originally could be seen as POV, and is thus removed.

2. "leadership was with Mirza Yahya ."

It is true that the Bab said that Mirza Yahya was the leader, but he did not guide anyone and that is why people looked to Baha'u'llah. But you are right, and even though it the original article did write Mirza Yahya was the leader lower down, I have moved it up.

3. he escaped from Persia to Baghdad, then a city in the Ottoman Empire and joined many other Bábís in Baghdad. At that time, the official leader of the Bábís was Bahá'u'lláh younger half-brother Mirza Yahya Nuri, known az "Subh-i Azal" who was appointed as the leader of the movement by the Báb himself, when the Báb was in prison.

Baha'u'llah did not escape. The authorities who had imprisoned him, let him go after they had ordered his exile. He was never really free, since they only let him go AFTER the exile order. If he had escaped, why would he go to Baghdad. Mirza Yahya was in a different prison in the north of Iran. Baha'u'llah's travel to Baghdad had nothing to do with Mirza Yahya's travel to Baghdad. The particlular reason that Baha'u'llah was exiled was the Baha'u'llah was the one whom the Persian prime-minister believed had instructed the assassination attempt on the Shah of Iran, and thus they wanted to get rid of him. Mirza Yahya was already in prison during the time of the assassination attempt.

4. "success among Bábís started a split in the Bábís community, and the followers of Subh-i-Azal became known az "Azali Bábís" and the followers of Bahá'u'lláh became known az "Bahái Bábís" -- later, they became simply known az "Azalis" and "Baháis""

You are right, except that the split happened after Baha'u'llah claimed he was the one whom the Bab has prophesized. I moved it to that part of the document.

5. "According to non-Bahá'í historians, the reason for the Ottoman government sending both the Bahá'ís and Azalis out of Baghdad, was the constant violence and brutality between the two sects. Eventually Bahá'u'lláh was exilted to Akka (now in Israel) and Subh-i Azal was sent to Cyprus."

This is not true at all, the violence if you call it was purely in words, except for Baha'u'llah's poisoning.

6. "According to the Bahá'is during"

I kept this there. You're right.

So in general, a lot of your changes were correct, there were POV in the article, and the article is updated to reflect a better version. Thank you for pointing them out. But the espace from the Siyah-Chal is plainly false. So please tell me what else is wrong with this article or any of the other articles I have edited. I will change the Mirza Yahya page to make less POV but that article is generally does not have a POV.

NavidAzizi 06:20, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

One other thing I wanted to add is that you say I wrote the Mirza Yahya page. Actually that is not true, I just added stuff from Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. You can find the encyclopedia article here [2] as linked to by the the Wikipedia article [[1911_Encyclop%E6dia_Britannica]].

Particularly in the Brittanica article you can see the following text (even with OCR errors). Note that britannica says Mirza Yahya escaped, and note that it says he lived in great seclusion. I did not say these things. Most wikipedians accept the 1911 Britannica as neutral and true.

The Bflb was succeeded on his death by MIrth Yahy of Nflr (at that time only about twenty years of age), who escaped to Bagdad, and, under the title of Subh-i-Ezel ( the Morning of Eternity ~),became the pontiff of the sect. He lived, however, in great seclusion, leaving the direction of affairs almost entirely in the hands of his elder halfbrother (born 12th November 1817), MIrth Husayn All, entitled Ba/ui ulld/i ( the Splendour of God ), who thus gradually became the most conspicuous and most influential member of the sect, though in the Iqdn, one of the most important polemical works of the Babis, composed in 1858-1859, he still implicitly recognized the supremacy of Subh-i-Ezel

NavidAzizi 06:54, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean that he escaped form the Siyah-chal, what I mean is that after he was released from the Siyah-chal, he escaped out of Persia as many other Babis did at the time, because after the failed assassination attempt, it was extremely unsafe for the Babis in Persia. Bahaullah made a conscious decision to take his family to Baghdad where there already existed a sizable Babi community. To my knowledge, there is no authentic evidence to support the claim that he was sent to exile by the authorities. In fact, I can't even remember having read or seen any historical evidence (other than the Bahai literature) that he was even imprisoned in Persia. This, I have only read in Bahai literature, but not elsewhere.

On another note, I have no problem with a link to his photo, but honestly, for the life of me I can't understand why it is "offensive" to have his photo in the article. In all honesty, to me it seems that the Bahais are actually insulting the guy by indirectly rejecting his appearance. Wouldn't every Christian or Muslim have loved to know exactly what Jesus or Muhammed looked like?!! The claim that "out of respect we don't want his photo here" is indeed strange and even lame -- but I will not insist, because in my heart I feel that the real reason for this objection is because the Bahais consider his photo to be ... hmmm ... "unmarketable". That is like saying "we love the guy, we just wish he looked a little better so we could comfortably include his photo in the article"!! Martin2000 07:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the picture, a couple reasons. One is so that the picture does not become an icon, where people idolize the icon and not the teachings. Secondly like I wrote about, Shoghi Effendi wrote not to view the image. There is a strong link of authority in the Baha'i Faith, and when Shoghi Effendi has written not to place the image in public places, most Baha'is do listen. You might call this listening to authority a restriction of freedom, but Baha'is see it as a way of conserving unity and protecting it (not eliminating it) from divisions. The point about people seeing this authority as a restriction to personal freedom is in the main Wikipedia article on the Baha'i Faith.

As for the escape/exile to Baghdad, you are partly right, he wasn't exiled to Baghdad, but was told he had to leave the country (and thus an exile). He was given the choice to choose the destination of the exile, he chose Baghdad. I don't know why Baha'u'llah chose Baghdad. And I don't know if he chose it because Babais were already there or if the other Babis followed Baha'u'llah to Baghdad. Actually the persian authorities wanted to execute Baha'u'llah just like they did to the Bab, that would have been the easiest thing to do. But since people in shah's court knew Baha'u'llah and his father they asked for proof that he was part of the failed assassination. So the next best thing was to get him out of the country. NavidAzizi 15:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I also have found a non-Baha'i source which says Baha'u'llah was exiled. The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation has a series of documents on different Religions and Ethics [3]. In the Baha'i section, you can find the following quotes "The prime minister of Persia decided that it was preferable for Baha'u'llah to be banished from the state and he was released from prison in 1853. He was stripped of his wealth and possessions and travelled to Baghdad with his wife." [4]

Furthermore, in regards to his schooling "In his early life he had a relatively limited education (which was normal for the class from which he came). He learned horsemanship (he was known as a fine horseman), swordsmanship, poetry and calligraphy (he was also renowned as an excellent poet and calligrapher). His Islamic education was strictly non-technical, but despite this, his knowledge of Islam (and of other religions) was far beyond what could have been expected of someone from the wealthy governing class." [5] In general the BBC site confirms a lot of the stuff I removed in the past couple days. NavidAzizi 22:36, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and made sure it is in accordance with the BBC article noted above (and in the references). This is a non-Baha'i source. I will wait a couple days, and if there is no objection to the changes, I will remove the disputed tag -- NavidAzizi 02:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

One additional non-Baha'i source. I have just read the 1988 Encyclopedia Brittanica; it states clearly that Baha'u'llah was exiled from Persia to Baghdad. NavidAzizi 22:49, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

From teh Orthodox Baha'i Perspective, the picutre also should be removed, not because it is a Baha'i site, but for the same reason on the section of Islam no one puts up the print of Muhammad that might be available (there is a sketch) but no one would think of putting it up sicne this would be offinsive to those of that Faith, unless we want to say Wikipedia will allow offending peopel of various religions by putting in thinks that are deliberately offensive, Like how about putting a picture of the swastika on the Jewish page, or maybe soem other such I am sure we can all come up with reason to justify why we do what we do.f Also the reason for no picture goes back to Islam. Both Bha'is and Islamic followers bvelieve a picture representation of any Prophet is not a thing to be done, but specidifcally of their own prophet they definately should not do or have done to them. It is not just a Baha'i thing. I will not remove what has been placed up there but strongly object to it being put there without a disclaimer under it that Baha'is like their Muslim brethern do not believe picturers representing the prophets should be allowed, and that this picture therefore is offensive to them. If you were to put that under the picture I would still object to it, but would have to recourse but to accept it.

Actually, Orthodox Muslims believe that having pictures of *anything* that exists in reality is blasphemy because only God is allowed allowed to create - this does not stop us from posting pictures of things that exist. Wikipedia is not censorered or bowdlerized. →Raul654 04:19, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)