Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Hijri (AH) dates in lead

What are people's thoughts about including Hijri dates (AH) in the lead, per User:Chadchumley's recent edit? The article on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only uses Gregorian dates, and he advanced a claim similar to Bahá'u'lláh's, albeit not to the extent of creating an independent religion. The article on Muhammad only uses Gregorian dates (perhaps understandably, as the Hijra defined the start of the Islamic calendar), and the articles on Ali and Husayn use Hijri dates, among others—but the difference there is that these articles are clearly within the scope of Islam and not that of an independent religion. If anything, it seems as though this article should either include dates in the Bahá'í calendar or stick to using Gregorian dates only. Thoughts? dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Chadchumley (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC) More knowledge = more knowledge

Chadchumley (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Technically the Gregorian calendar is not Bahai either. Should we just put the Bahai calendar dates? No.

I don't think anyone would suggest using only Baha'i calendar dates either; I'd be in favour of using only Gregorian dates in the lead. I'm mainly concerned that adding Hijri years, while informative, would needlessly clutter the lead, rendering it less readable (especially for people who aren't familiar with them).

That said, I'm open to discussion on it. I think it makes sense to include some reference to the Hijri date of Bahá'u'lláh's birth, as that would allow for a discussion of His date of birth and why Bahá'ís now celebrate His birth as the Festival of the Twin Holy Birthdays (along with the birth of the Báb). I'm just not convinced that the lead is the right place for it. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I could see the dates down in the text clearly delineated but in the lead seems more likely to confuse at least in an English language wiki. Smkolins (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Titles

If someone has the right references, the article should explain the use of titles. When did Baha'u'llah start going by that title? Did he pick it himself? Also should explain what does Mirza and Siyyid mean. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I can do that once I have a moment. The Dawnbreakers discusses the origin of Bahaullah's title at the conference of Badasht. Rm9820 (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There's actually a brief mention of this already in the section "Acceptance of the Báb" Rm9820 (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Issue with inconsistent punctuation

I have noticed the page title and numerous occurrences throughout the page text have Bahá'u'lláh spelled with inconsistent ' and ʼ symbols. My personal preference is not to use smart quotes however if the consensus is to use them then they should at least be consistent. Can the article title and content please be updated to use either Bahá'u'lláh or Baháʼuʼlláh? Stefan939 (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIIW "Bahá'u'lláh" (no smart quotes) is Wikipedia MOS. Is there a reason why the current text is Bahá'uʼlláh (first quote smart, second straight)? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes; it has to do with the correct Bahá’í transliteration rules. The two different apostrophes represent two different Persian letters. Leejordan9 ^✉ 23:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Prophet / Profit

They sound the same - but they're totally different words you know. And even "Prophet" - the word that was, one suspects, MEANT in this case, is not quite right word - it is not NPOV ("neutral point of view") - "religious leader" is less contentious and more suitable for a general encyclopedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Baháʼu'lláh was a profit.

Bahaullah is the profit of the Bahai Faith. Labelling him as a religious leader is inacurrate and misleading. I attempted to make the edit myself but the system refused my changes. I am strongly interested in correcting this inaccurate public information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:A403:D2BA:4CE4:D2BC:BF48:606A (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Image in the infobox

Is there any reason why is an image of the Shrine of Baháʼu'lláh in the infobox instead of a picture of Baháʼu'lláh himself which is featured in the Photographs and imagery section? Cheers, OakMapping (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a debate settled long ago with a consensus to leave it as you see now. Basically, it is a tenant for Baha'is to not display his photographs and only view them on special occasions, such as pilgrimage. The photo on the page was published by an enemy of Baha'is. The consensus was to leave a section dedicated to the photograph issue, instead of a link to the file or on the top of page. See Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo for the background discussions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how do you know that he was an "enemy of Baha'is."?Serv181920 (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are you removing "lying impostor" quote of Baha'u'llah?

Cuñado, you have done that twice? Why? Didn't Baha'u'llah say:

Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying imposter. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such a claim. Should he repent, God will, assuredly forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! -Baha'u'llah (Kitab-i-Aqdas)

I don't think I've seen that be a major theme in any academic article or general review of Baha'u'llah's life and teachings. It is relatively obscure and I'm not sure it deserves space here. Smkolins (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It is heavily redundant to the previous sentence, which says, "Baháʼu'lláh also taught that the cycles of revelatory renewal will continue in the future, with Manifestations of God appearing about every thousand years and the next one not to be revealed until at least the year 2852 CE." You can't just drop in a sentence and ignore the flow of writing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not. How is that redundant? This is something different, related to the topic. The reader should come to know the claim of Baha'u'llah about those who claim a revelation after him ere the expiration of 1000 years. Don't you think so? Serv181920 (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The main point to get across is that Baha'is expect no new prophets for 1000 years. The logical implication is that anyone claiming a revelation during that time is not actually having a revelation (i.e. lying or delusional). Why would you repeat the same thing two sentences in a row? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I looked through David Barrett's The New Believers and Carol Matthews' New Religions, and neither mentioned the 1,000 year issue. Smith's Introduction to the Baha'i Faith said, "Future Manifestations would arise under the 'shadow' of Baha'u'llah in the millennia to come, though none for at least a thousand years" (p.109). That's the only reference in 213 pages on the Baha'i Faith. Paula Hartz wrote, "Baha’is also understand that in time God will send yet more messengers to guide humanity. Baha’u’llah will not be the last. He promised that another messenger would come after him, after 1,000 years."

In general, quoting primary sources is discouraged. There are thousands of potential quotes from Baha'u'llah that could be added to the page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado Firstly the source that that I have put for lying importer quote is from secondary source so kindly stop calling it primary source. Secondly if something is said By Bahaullah and it has a secondary authentic source then it is inappropriate to revert it. Also I checked the edit done by Serv181920 and the user has put two secondary references. It seems its a common practice for you to just come and revert to pages which does not match your POV.Asad29591 (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The core content policies can be complicated, and in this case the quote you want to cite is a primary source. If the same primary source is quoted in a secondary source along with an explanation, then it can be appropriate to add it to the article as well. In the case of the doctoral thesis you referenced, it says, "Baha'ism is millennial as it prohibits the revelation of another charismatic authority before a thousand years have passed: 'Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor' (Baha'u'llah 1994, 346)." In a Wikipedia article you don't want to support every statement with a primary source, you want to write it as the commentary does that preceded the quote.

The commentary in this wiki article says, "Baháʼu'lláh also taught that the cycles of revelatory renewal will continue in the future, with Manifestations of God appearing about every thousand years and the next one not to be revealed until at least the year 2852 CE."

And finally, weight has to be mentioned. Your reference is a 139 page doctoral thesis about the Baha'i "history, transfiguration, and doxa". I have already mentioned several independent sources I scoured looking for a mention of the issue. Another is Cole's biography in Iranica, which has three paragraphs on Religious doctrines, and also does not even mention the 1000 year issue. It also writes in the style that I mentioned, summarizing the teachings of Baha'u'llah with little to no quoting of primary sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado

In short you are trying to say it does meet wikipedia criteria however its not matching Cunado criteria and hence being removed.

Reference for lying Imposter:

1. New Keys to the Book of Revelation By Ruth J. Moffett · 1977 -> Page 133.

2. Behai Quarterly -Devoted to the Teachings of the Great Sun of Truth which Appeared on the Horizon of the East "Beha'U'llah." · Volumes 1-4 -> Pg 17 and Pg 19.

3. Writings of Bahá'u'lláh -A Compilation By Baháʼuʼlláh · 1994 -> Page 161.

4. Baha'i Writings A Concordance By Hugh Carden · 1975 -> Page 81.

5. Baha'is in Exile -By Ph. D. Vernon Elvin Johnson · 2020 -> Page 114.

6. Bahá'u'lláh A Brief Survey of His Life and His Works By Shahrokh Monjazeb · 2007 -> Page 147.

7. The Face of God Among Us How the Creator Educates Humanity By John S. Hatcher · 2010 -> Page 140.

8. Promises Fulfilled by Nabil Hanna -> Page 215 under section Future Manifestation of God.

9. The world order of Bahaullah -> it is available on Baha'i Reference library under Authoritative Writings and Guidance.

10. Baha'u'llah in His Own Words By Peter Terry · 2009 -> Page 103. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad29591 (talk • contribs)

Hi Asad29591, The "lying impostor" thing is already there in the article. I would suggest you add more citations to it as Taherzadeh is not a very good source.Serv181920 (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Johnson is the best of those sources as far as meeting WP:RS. Please go ahead and add it. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I see you already added it. Please ignore me haha. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ancestry

The ancestry section needs to be edited to clarify that he CLAIMED that ancestry. Right now, the section makes it sound like he truly does come from a long line of Kings. That claim should not be made on Wikipedia without extensive verification Science Is My Life (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

why is the photo of Baha'u'llah not toggle-able instead?

I did a brief read through of the history of the discussion regarding whether or not to display the photo, but from what I can tell, there was never any real discussion regarding *how* to display it a respectful manner.

I am curious why no real discussions seems to have been had on either:

1. putting the photo where it normally would be and instead blurring it out with some JS and letting users click on it to unblur it or
2. putting the photo where it normally would be and instead making the photo collapsed by default.

The only discussion I see regarding making it collapsible is here [1] and it never gained much traction. kinda curious why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by For death and glory (talk • contribs) 06:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Because it is non-standard practice and doesn't solve anything. Years of discussion - years - have arrived at this concensus. Smkolins (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, the current solution is also non-standard practice and I don't see how my suggestions don't solve anything. Non-Baha'i's who want to view the photo can toggle the pic and Baha'i's who want to avoid the pic get their requirement fulfilled. Even more so in my opinion cause in the current layout, they may accidentally see it if they scroll down enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by For death and glory (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CENSOR, or Depictions of Muhammad#Wikipedia article, if you want to get an idea of the issue. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

However, we could put an item near the top of this talk page to explain how logged-in users can block the image of Baha'ullah from appearing for themselves based on Help:Options to hide an image. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur with others here, NOTCENSORED applies. the priority is to be informative, and appropriate illustrations complement the text in that regard. naturally, this will sometimes run afoul of religious or other prohibitions, but we shouldn't compromise on content just to appease a particular faction, however passionate they may be. Metropolitan's idea, just above, is a good one IMO. Xcalibur (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Images of Messengers of God

To display an image of any Messenger is just not necessary. The physical image of anyone is not important. It's their lives work and the impact they had on humanity and the good they did that needs to be the focus, not the picture of what they looked like. That can lead to idolatry and worshipping pictures and things instead of worshipping The One and Only God. Which is the whole reason why He sends Messengers progressively over time in different parts of the world to bring the focus back on God and not the religion that had become stale and in need of regeneration. Then humanity repeats the process by literally killing them and their followers and we're sitting here wondering why the world is messed up because our leaders for the most part have been insane, narcissistic tyrants that we just love to put in positions of "power". Have Faith and pray and don't worry about that someone's body looked like, instead focus on their actions and words and deeds. Peace. 107.242.113.24 (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Point taken -- appearances are insignificant compared to words/actions/deeds. And in fact, the article is focused on the life and teachings of this prophet, with photos as a complementary detail. Naturally, some illustrations will offend religious sensibilities, but being informative takes precedence over the desires of a particular faction, however strong they may be. Otherwise, it would be impossible to have a neutral, informative encyclopedia. So, we follow the policies of adding proportionate photos/illustrations of the subject of interest. Xcalibur (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Family History, Afghanistan connection

His family lingue tracks to both Iran and Afghanistan as per Abdul-Baha, can someone add this in the right section?

"Bahá’u’lláh too is a lineal descendant of Abraham, for Abraham had other sons besides Ishmael and Isaac who in those days emigrated to the regions of Persia and Afghanistan, and the Blessed Beauty is one of their descendants. (https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/search#q=Afghanistan)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:AB41:8F00:CC21:32D0:294C:7ED9 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Update for this article

It appears this article hasn't had a major revision in many years. I've put together a draft rewrite of the page in my sandbox. If interested, please look it over and share thoughts. Meditating (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you spent a lot of time on it already. Thanks for your contributions, since this article could use a makeover. At first glance, your draft needs some cleanup and reorganizing before moving to mainspace. The main issue is that the tone should reflect how Baha'u'llah is described in neutral sources. For example, Iranica, BBC, Britannica, Pluralism Project, or Smith's Concise Encyclopedia are all good sources to get a summary and structure for the article.

If we can move some of the extra stuff in the lead sentence out (born Mírzá[b] Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí; Persian: میرزا حسین‌علی نوری‎ ; 1817–1892), that would help a lot. Excessive details in the first parenthesis make it hard to read. The other sources mostly just say (Arabic: "Glory of God") or something like that. Maybe it needs a new first section to describe the name, title, pronunciation, etc.

I'll try to work on the draft a bit. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Meditating, for your hard work towards expanding the article. It's great to see more information added, since some sections (such as the Writings section) are pretty piecemeal in the existing version. After Cuñado is done any changes he thinks are necessary, I have no issue with your new version replacing what's currently there.

I'm a bit concerned that the sources used are almost entirely Baha'i sources, which could lead to an over-representation of Baha'i views on the article topic and thus go against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (see WP:NPOV). The general principle is that we should cover views in proportion to their support from reliable sources (see WP:RS). Abbas Amanat is an example of a non-Baha'i scholar who has worked on the history of that period, though his main book on the topic only goes up to 1850 to my knowledge. Denis MacEoin's book The Messiah of Shiraz goes a bit further, I think.

Anyway, I think it's fine to publish your version with some tweaks and then make improvements from there. I'll keep the existing version in a sandbox just for comparison afterwards. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia's coverage of the Baha'i Faith! Gazelle55 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging comments, Gazelle55, especially about the added information which I am hoping builds a more well-rounded article. Your bit of concern about sources and NPOV is something I've been trying to work more on. After Cuñado brought up about neutral sources, I've been going through various info points in the article to replace sources I had used with others from publishers that should generally be considered neutral. I appreciate your shared thoughts/advice on ways to improve this article, which I'll try to keep in mind as I do more tweaks before publishing. Meditating (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Great to hear, and thanks again for your time and effort. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I don't see any free time in the next 1-2 weeks. If you want to move it over to mainspace sooner, I think that's fine and I can keep working on it there. Or if you don't mind the wait I'll eventually get to it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Per earlier input from you and Gazelle55, I've switched many Bahá'í citation sources to reliable non-Bahá'í references, reorganized and reworded parts, and cut some unimportant details. I feel the revised article now offers a well-rounded, more in-depth, NPOV view of Bahá'u'lláh for readers. I feel it's ready to move to mainspace, so I'll probably do that later today after some final tweaks. Thanks again to you both. Meditating (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• A tremendous amount of work. I think there are a few comparatively syntactical problems and I'm concerned about the picture 'Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh, with Mansion of Bahjí in background' [2] which seems to have had some photo editing attempting to highlight shadows or something. I'd prefer one that was more natural. Lot's to look over! Congrats! Smkolins (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest [3] or [4] as potential alternatives to that picture if the goal is to provide a more environmental look at Bahji. I favor the second one alittle though it looses a sense of the space. Smkolins (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Smkolins for the suggestion to use another image, after looking more closely at the one prevously used I see it does look like it may have been edited somehow. Meditating (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I've read about half and I have a number of suggestions for consideration:

Wow, that's a list of suggestions Smkolins. I'll try to respond to each below. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Soon after declaring his spiritual mission to Mullá Husayn,[f] the Báb sent him to Tehran to deliver a special tablet[g] to Bahá’u’lláh."

• My understanding of the sources is that Husayn didn't know it was going to go to Baha'u'llah at the outset - Husay determined Baha'u'llah was the intended one after spending some time in Tehran. So perhaps "…the Báb sent him to Tehran to deliver a special tablet[g] promising he would figure out to whom it was intended and picked Bahá’u’lláh."

Ok, I’ve made what transpired clearer & given a citation. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"In his teachings the Báb identifies himself as the first of two Manifestations of God whom the Creator …"

• 'Creator' might be replaced with the more generic 'God'?

It gets monotonous using “God” all the time, so for variety’s I feel readers appreciate some variety when terms such as “Creator” and “Lord” are used sometimes. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… at least 10,000 Bábís …"

• 'ten thousand' to me conveys the scale without the appearance of some kind of precision.

The citation from Saiedi says “about”, while others say it may have been more, so wording seems ok. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…in the notorious Síyáh-Chál of Tehran…"

Síyáh-Chál, the subterranean prison, of Tehran

Ok “subterranean” is good. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… a manifestation of God, the Promised One heralded…"

To me it is odd to capitalize one and not the other - and is not the 'Manifestation of God' the name of a thing and so should be capitalized?

“manifestation” isn’t capitalized as he is one of many in a category, but the “Promised One” is a specific being. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…1853 Baháʼu'lláh with family members…"

I suggest "…with three of his four family members, his newest infant too young to undertake the voyage…"

For an overview article, it’s always challenging to decide if certain specifics are necessary or not, as adding them can make things quite detailed and even tedious. I felt this wasn’t particularly important to add, and doing so would then require something being said later about how the child was finally reunited with Bahá’u’lláh. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… flagging spirits of persecuted followers of the Báb in Iran."

Suggest Persia for two reasons - one is period term and second is the looser definition of the lands included as Babis were beyond the strict land of 'Iran'.

In Farsi, the word for “Persia” is “Iran”. Also, control of borders for Iran have frequently changed as the political situations has fluctuated with its neighbors and other powers. Like with using different words for “God”, I think it’s fine to use either word on occasion. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…Yahya left Iran in disguise…"

Again, Persia?

Both words are really interchangeable, and it gets tiring to use one only – like with “God”, so using the other term once in a while is ok. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…advent of the promised one."

'promised one' should be capitalized because it is a specific person suggested, a kind of name of that person?

Yes, per what I said above – it is the specific “Promised One”. Thanks. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…by secretly spreading false rumors…"

I suggest 'privately' as it was not intended to be actually secret as it was meant to be shared. I'm open to another word, or even dropping the word.

Good point, I’ll simply drop “secret”. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… near Sulaymaniyyih in Kurdistan…"

add 'to the north' for general reference/readability.

Ok. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… reached Bábí friends in Baghdad they suspected it was Bahá’u’lláh and asked one of his relatives to locate and beg him …"

Perhaps 'reached Bábí friends and his family in Baghdad… and asked 'Abdu'l-Baha' to locate and beg him…

This basic description seems fine. Taherzadeh (in “Child of the Covenant, p. 65”) specifically says it was Shaykh Sultan, Mirza Musa's father-in-law, a staunch Bábí, who went to Sulaymaniyyih to find Bahá'u'lláh and beg Him to return. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… verdant Najibiyyih garden-park on the other side."

I suggest add 'at the invitation of an admirer.'

Ok, I put something about it. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…declared to his companions that he was…"

I suggest 'declared to some of his companions'…

Per H&M (and BIC booklet “Bahá’u’lláh”) his declaration was made to all companions, he’d specifically chosen them to accompany him. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…various government ministers of the sultan,… (and) the prime minister suggested the sultan banish …"

Should sultan be capitalized because it is a specific one?

Yes; fixed it. Thnx. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… to their Faith if he assassinated…"

I suggest 'religion'.

Okay. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…Yahya “always has been thinking in this way.” "

That quote needs a citation I think.

Done; tweaked wording and added citation. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…he was God’s latest manifestation, the promised one of the Báb."

In this case I'm fine with 'manifestation' not being capitalized because it's a category but then Promised One seems to be specific and deserves capitalizing.

Yes, per up above re this. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… the Báb’s teachings about the promised one…"

I suggest capitalizing to Promised One because it is specific.

Yes, per above. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Smkolins (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

About [5] my reasoning on the age was a way of conveying that Abdu'l-Baha was acting as the contact person, an assistant to Baha'u'llah. I agree the age itself isn't relevant perse but I do think conveying why the meeting was with Abdu'l-Baha is relevant. I'm open to how that can be done. Smkolins (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The Dr’s letter to The Times says Bahá’u’lláh “does not readily concede an interview to strangers… We were received by his son…”, so I’ll find a way to mention why it was 'Abdu'l-Bahá. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll get back to general review and suggestions later but I wanted to address the Iran vs Persia detail more. In Farsi the words might be interchangeable and good writing aided by flexible word use, but in my experience in English the words are distinct. For example you never hear of the 'Iranian Empire' but only the 'Persian Empire'. Beyond that Persia conveys an historical reference whereas Iran conveys the more or less present, again, in English. This is also why we use period wikilinks in a variety of spaces rather than their modern connections. But I'll see what others have to say on this. Smkolins (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

On the last point, my sense was similar to what Smkolins said, that Iran is used mainly to refer to the modern state in English. However, Iran#Name seems to disagree, saying that the term Iran isn't only for the modern period. So in the end no strong opinion on which should be used, though I do support mentioning/linking to Qajar Persia specifically where appropriate.

More generally, thanks Meditating for your revisions and I hope to look at them soon. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Meditating, I think Cuñado's revisions highly meritorious - most especially moving the whole name grammar stuff down to its own section and overall shrinking of the lead sections. Smkolins (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

First sentence

See MOS:FIRST: "Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere."

Considering that Baha'u'llah had two names in other languages, one of which is actually made of three parts, I'd really like to not clutter up the first sentence with a long parenthesis. The footnote is an option, but I've mostly seen this addressed at the end of the lead, or in the first section. Generally I think this article needs some of the footnotes rolled back into article content, so I'd prefer the section method because there is significant explanation needed for the names. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thumbs up. I found the extended name information distracting so early in the lede. ThanksSmkolins (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Elected councils vs houses of justice

In the section on Baha'i administration, it talks about how Baha'is elect nine-member councils. Given this is an article on Baha'u'llah and not an article on the Baha'i Faith in general, I think the section of his teachings should focus on what Baha'u'llah spoke of, which is houses of justice. This is briefly mentioned in Peter Smith's 2000 encyclopedia on p. 185 but probably there is a better source that will go into more depth. I have no objections with explaining for context that currently a system of spiritual assemblies is used and that these are seen as the embryonic form of houses of justice, but the focus should be on what Baha'u'llah envisioned, with the houses of justice being administrative and also involved in criminal law (hence the name). I don't feel the current version gives a full or balanced view of the matter. Happy to help with improvements. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

White washing, biased, and imbalanced

The article on Baha'u'llah is highly biased in its current state. This first sentence is wishy-washy and uses the present tense for a deceased individual: -

Baháʼu'lláh calls upon individuals to live lives based upon spiritual principles by which solutions can be found for every social problem. Materially humanity has all it needs to resolve its challenges, what it still lacks is clear insight into what is possible and the spiritual maturity to unitedly act to do what must be done to realize oneness amidst its amazing diversity.[1][2][3]

This following sentence is white washing the situation. "For what he taught" fails to acknowledge the criminal charges Baha'u'llah faced for his role in civic and anti-government violence during the Bab'i uprising, and ignores the familial discord -- including murder plots -- which prompted authorities to act to separate him from his brothers: -

For what he taught, Baháʼu'lláh faced torture, exile, and decades of imprisonment, but he left a large body of writings that expound his teachings.[4]

Again, the following sentence is white washing the Bab'i Faith by failing to acknowledge the instigation of violence, including book burning and misappropriation of property, promoted by the Bab, which forced authorities to act: -

Bahá’u’lláh became a major proponent of the Báb, a young Persian with messianic claims.[5] The Bábí Faith spread rapidly, attracting violent opposition from Muslim clergy and Iranian civil authorities fearful of its influence.[6]

A more balanced approach is needed to present Baha'u'llah as he was, warts and all.

Drcombo (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Am not a fan of Baha'u'llah but do you mind offering some credible sources for your false allegations, such as "..instigation of violence, including book burning and misappropriation of property, promoted by the Bab..."; and preferably sources that do not originate with state or seminary propaganda connected to the Islamic Republic of Iran? Qalandar303 (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding use of the present tense for a deceased individual: This is a matter of style. When ideas of a deceased person, particularly a prominent one, have survived to the present day -- for example in the person's writings -- it is common to use present tense to indicate their influence upon the living. The fact Bahá'u'lláh's teachings continues to affect millions today is a good reason for such usage. The Internet abounds with well-written usage of this writing style.

* "This following sentence is white washing the situation. "For what he taught" fails to acknowledge the criminal charges Baha'u'llah faced for his role in civic and anti-government violence during the Bab'i uprising" --> Well-researched information from academic scholars prove beyond a doubt that charges against the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh were motivated by religious prejudce, and any "civic and anti-government violence" was initiated by opponents of the Bábís (who only responded in self-defense).

* "ignores the familial discord -- including murder plots -- which prompted authorities to act to separate him from his brothers: -" --> Saying there were "murder plots" doesn't make it so. This article presents a balanced overview of historical matters relating to Bahá'u'lláh with scores of references from academic sources.

* "Again, the following sentence is white washing the Bab'i Faith by failing to acknowledge the instigation of violence, including book burning and misappropriation of property, promoted by the Bab, which forced authorities to act" --> Such a far-out statement would need multiple good academic resources to back it up to be acceptable in Wikipedia.

* "A more balanced approach is needed to present Baha'u'llah as he was, warts and all." --> By making the effort to look into the scores of academic resources given for points raised in this article one will see a very balanced approach.

Meditating (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think all the issues mentioned have been fixed, although the warts did not make the cut. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the lead is way too long and needs to be cut down to 4 reasonable paragraphs. I can't seem to accomplish that so I'm hoping someone else can take a stab. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The updates represent a considerable improvement. However, there are still problematic statements such as the following: -

"He was born in Iran to an aristocratic family, and faced torture and banishment due to his adherence to the messianic Bábí Faith."

Again, depicting his torture and exile as a result of his adherence to Babism is inaccurate: he was a convicted criminal and his association with anti-government and civic violence is well described in literature acknowledged as reliable by Bahai's, e.g. Nabil's Narrative describes Baha'u'llah inspecting fortifications erected to fight the government's army, and elsewhere describe his accessory to murder and intimidation of witnesses following the murder of an elderly woman in a Babi led attack on a village. It's also well described that his exile was often brought on by public spats with his brothers. It would be more accurate to describe Baha'u'llah's torture and exile as a consequence of his criminal and/or anti-social behaviour. Drcombo (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

But he wasn't a convicted criminal. He was part of a mass arrest and slaughter. When his own case was brought up the charges were dismissed and he was banished anyway. Smkolins (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

He was charged with crimes then sentenced to exile. His actual crimes were more extensive than those he was charged with (assassination plot). The bahai.org website even acknowledges that Baha'u'llah intended to join an insurgent military action against the government: "When three hundred Bábís sought refuge in a deserted shrine called Shaykh Tabarsi, Bahá’u’lláh set out to join them, but He was prevented from reaching His destination." (https://www.bahai.org/bahaullah/life-bahaullah/). Of course, here again, there is white-washing as "sought refuge" doesn't reflect the fact that the Bab instructed his followers to raise a flag and march with weapons -- clearly criminal activity requiring a government response. This article requires a greater focus on Baha'u'llah's track record of problematic behaviour. The current "innocent victim" narrative is historically inaccurate. Drcombo (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You over simplify "He was charged with crimes then sentenced to exile." He was charged, found innocent, and forced into exhile

• Alkan, Necati (2022). "'Abdu'l-Bahá 'Abbás". In Robert H. Stockman (ed.). The World of the Bahá’í Faith. Routledge World Series. London & New York: Routledge. p. 73. doi:10.4324/9780429027772-8. ISBN 978-1-138-36772-2. After four dreadful months in the dungeon, Bahá'u'lláh was proven innocent and released, but he had to leave Iran.
• Soli Shahvar; Boris Morozov; Gad Gilbar, eds. (Nov 30, 2011). Baha’is of Iran, Transcaspia and the Caucasus, The Volume 1: Letters of Russian Officers and Officials. International library of Iranian studies. Vol. 26 (annotated ed.). London & New York: I.B.Tauris. pp. 190–191. ISBN 9780857720689. OCLC 8902791418. Found innocent of the assassination attempt, he was released but was sent into exile with his family and a number of companions.
• and yes the older Saiedi source of his innocence: Saiedi, Nader (2000). Logos and Civilization: Spirit, History and Order in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh. Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland. p. 4. ISBN 1-88305-363-3. Smkolins (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "faced torture and banishment due to his adherence to the messianic Bábí Faith" is accurate and appropriate for a summary. This has come up before, and it's no easy thing to summarize this complex issue in a way that is technically accurate. The lead needs to be balanced for weight and reflect the subject as it appears in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Many details are below in the article on the subject of the attempt on the Shah and the conflict with Azal. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

These citations neglect the facts. It's not possible to acknowledge that Baha'u'llah adhered "to the messianic Bábí Faith", without acknowledging that this entailed criminality, given that the core tenets of the Bábí Faith included criminal activity (e.g. burning of books, seizing of property). That Baha'u'llah suffered consequences for his actions -- and contributed in part to the loss of 20,000 lives -- must be presented here. Depicting him as an innocent victim despite clear and reliable references to his active involvement in criminal and nefarious behaviour is a deliberate misrepresentation. You mustn't omit these historical facts on the basis of your faith, i.e. a belief that the criminality was a necessary part of God's plan to birth a new religion. Drcombo (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

While you are busy sweeping things along you keep ignoring the facts like the ones here and in the article. Back up your narrative. Citations. I've never heard any suggesting your narrative. Right now you are just waving your hands, or fingers, as the case may be. Smkolins (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous examples of Baha'u'llah's involvement in criminal behaviour and even his functioning as a civil war general. For example, in Nabil's narrative we learn about the murder of an innocent woman following a Babi attack on the village of Naẓar Khán:

*Zarandi, Nabil (1932) [1890]. Shoghi Effendi (translator) (ed.). The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl's Narrative (Hardcover ed.). Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Baháʼí Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-900125-22-5. [...] they pursued them until they reached a village which they thought to be the village of Qádí-Kalá. At the sight of them, all the men fled in wild terror. The mother of Naẓar Khán, the owner of the village, was inadvertently killed in the darkness of the night, amid the confusion that ensued. The outcries of the women, who were violently protesting [...] {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)\

We then learn of Baha'u'llah's visit to the village where the murder had taken place and his inspection of a fort which had recently been the scene of numerous bloody skirmishes with government soldiers. Baha'u'llah dispenses advice on the construction of the military fort, and makes a personal recommendation for an experienced and veteran fighter to strengthen the military position: -

*Zarandi, Nabil (1932) [1890]. Shoghi Effendi (translator) (ed.). The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl's Narrative. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Baháʼí Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-900125-22-5. Bahá'u'lláh, in the course of that visit, inspected the fort and expressed His satisfaction with the work that had been accomplished. In His conversation with Mullá Ḥusayn, He explained in detail such matters as were vital to the welfare and safety of his companions. 'The one thing this fort and company require,' He said, 'is the presence of Quddús. His association with this company would render it complete and perfect.' {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)\

It's clear that Baha'u'llah was involved in the bloodshed associated with this fort and was advising fighters who had days earlier committed the murder of an innocent woman. His exile and torture can't simply be ascribed to his "adherence to Babi beliefs", but rather for his active role in instigating civil and anti-government violence and creating anarchy and public disorder. Drcombo (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

All WP:OR. Not a single source of your narrative. You are lifting phrases and words for your narrative. Go find a published reliable source for your narrative. I've never seen it. Smkolins (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You asked for a source and I provided one that is widely cited and reliable. It clearly describes Baha'u'llah adopting the role of a war general for a military fort involved in bloody skirmishes with government soldiers, and advising individuals who had committed murder. This isn't [WP:OR]], rather it's a widely cited source providing historical context for who Baha'u'llah was. This wikipedia article needs to present facts not provide a favourable narrative fitting a strange agenda (a belief that he was God). Drcombo (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a single sentence in there that supports your claims. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have your history and chronologies completely garbled, while verbatim regurgitating narratives made popular by state and seminary sources located in Iran. Qalandar303 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It couldn't be more clear. During the building of the fort, individuals from nearby villages repeatedly attacked and were killed: -

• Zarandi, Nabil (1932) [1890]. Shoghi Effendi (translator) (ed.). The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl's Narrative. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Baháʼí Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-900125-22-5. In the course of these operations, they were continually harassed by the people of the neighbouring villages, who, at the persistent instigations of the Sa'ídu'l-'Ulamá', marched out and fell upon them. Every attack of the enemy ended in failure and shame. Undeterred by the fierceness of their repeated onsets, the companions valiantly withstood their assaults until they had succeeded in subjugating temporarily the forces which had hemmed them in on every side.' {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)\

Baha'u'llah inspected the fort and approved of it. The Shah was forced to organize an army of 12,000 soldiers to attack the fort: -

• Zarandi, Nabil (1932) [1890]. Shoghi Effendi (translator) (ed.). The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl's Narrative. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Baháʼí Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-900125-22-5. Within a short space of time, he had raised an army of about twelve thousand men, composed largely of the Usanlu, the Afghán, and the Kudar communities. He equipped them with whatever ammunition was required, and stationed them in the village of Afra, which was the property of Naẓar Khán, and which commanded the fort of Tabarsí. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)\

All 600 individuals who defended the fort were killed by the government. Countless government soldiers were killed by Babis in the fort. This was a major military conflict with the government which Baha'u'llah had personally endorsed and helped to organize. * Borjian, Habib (September 2006). "A Mazandarani Account of the Babi Incident at Shaikh Tabarsi". Iranian Studies. 39 (3): 381–399. doi:10.1080/00210860600808227. JSTOR 4311835. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcombo (talk • contribs)

This is purely original research (see wp:OR) which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Academic sources say that the Babi conflicts were defensive in nature:

"With the three major conflicts at Tabarsí, Zanján, and Nayríz, the Babis were accused at the time of insurrection by their enemies... In all three instances, the Babis were provocative in their assertion of their mission, but the fighting that ensued was defensive in nature, and in the case of the two urban struggles closely tied up with pre-existing social and political tensions within the towns. Again, there is no evidence of a coordinated plan of action."

"The Babis, in accordance with Shi`ite law, held that when an Imam is in the world, only he is allowed to declare holy war. War might be undertaken in self-defense, but attack was unacceptable without an explicit order from the Imam—i.e., the Bab himself. From the earliest days of the movement the Babis expected that such an order would come. The Hidden Imam was to wage war against his enemies and defeat them, and the Babis expected to join this crusade to purge the world of evil and unbelief. The Babis of Zanjan were ready, but the order had not come—indeed, the Bab is said to have prohibited Hujjat from ordering the use of force when he passed through Zanjan three years earlier."

"All three cases - Nayriz, Zanjan, and Shaykh Tabarsi - involved defensive action on the parts of Babis, who were surrounded and under attack from the Iranian army."

Tarikhejtemai (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Drcombo, you're piecing together primary sources and interpreting them. If you want to make a case, you need to find reliable secondary or tertiary sources, and even then, you need to demonstrate that your description is how the preponderance of those sources describe him. For example, Margit Warburg wrote: "as Babism gained in popularity, the government gradually began to consider the Babis a source of public unrest and a danger to the state. This was not without reason, since the Bab's claim of being the Hidden Imam in principle meant a claim on both religious and political leadership; his claim might nullify the legitimacy of the rule of the Shah. The Babis grew more and more radical with the increased opposition." The opposition was primarily religious, not political. It was the abrogation of Islam that made Mullahs rally mobs to go ransack and kill Babis, but the violent escalation was always initiated by the opposition, not the Babis.

The other thing you're missing is that you need to find your interpretation in summaries of Baha'u'llah by reliable secondary sources, and as mentioned several times, those don't exist. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

White-washing these battles with the government as defensive is a flagrant misrepresentation and is an article of faith without any rational or historical basis. The Bab gave very clear instructions to kill non-Babi's, to burn non-Babi books, and to seize the possessions of non-Babi's. That the Bab's instigation of violence and disorder elicited a military response from the government was inevitable. This article about Baha'u'llah must acknowledge his active and willing participation in the promotion of the Bab's violent ideology, and his prominent role in societal disorder and bloodshed.

Cuñado your claim that "you need to demonstrate that your description is how the preponderance of those sources describe him" is unacceptable and results in the article becoming an echo chamber for Baha'i ideas that are biased (e.g. he is infallible therefore we can't allow critical views). Drcombo (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts (starting more generally and then moving to the specific point of contention). I think many parts of the article use language that subtly or not-so-subtly glorifies the article subject. I have fixed a few but there is more work to be done. This article should not be a hagiography. A separate (but related) issue is the sources used. I think some sources like Taherzadeh and Hornby should be replaced, and some like Abbas Amanat (Resurrection and Renewal), Denis MacEoin (The Messiah of Shiraz), and Juan Cole (Modernity and the Millennium) should be included. (Doesn't have to be exactly those ones, but there needs to be significant recognition that the Baha'i narrative of Baha'u'llah's life is disputed my some respected scholars on the topic.) So both the language and sourcing are often biased. I appreciate Meditating's work expanding the article but I think the tone of the new version, intentionally or not, is apologetical.

With that said, Drcombo, while I agree with you more generally, when it comes to the specific sources you are suggesting, they are all primary sources. Nabil's Dawn-Breakers is certainly respected by Baha'is, but it isn't ideal as a scholarly source. The 2006 article you shared is a translation of a primary source. What we need is academic commentary on the primary sources (that is, secondary sources). See WP:PSTS. I do appreciate your effort to make the page more encyclopedic, though. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Drcombo your argument is a good example of why we don't write articles with primary sources. If you haven't already, read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially the part about weight, balance, and bias in sources.

Gazelle55 yes the tone needs some work, as noted before the changeout. I recently got a copy of Resurrection and Renewal and it was not very helpful for this article. Warburg's Citizens of the World has a lot of material, and she avoids the bias that comes from MacEoin and Cole being former Baha'is, the latter with an axe to grind. Also Hartz's book is quite useful for finding condensed summaries of topics for the lead. A lot of the materials go into depth without giving a summary. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Cuñado, sorry for my slow reply on this. Yes, I agree that Warburg and Hartz are good – I didn't mention them cause they're already cited to some extent, but yeah using them more would be great. And yeah if the Amanat book isn't helpful here that's fair enough, I guess it only goes up to 1850 anyway. I do agree that ex-Baha'i sources can have their biases and that Cole seems to have an axe to grind, and we need to take that into account (e.g., by attributing controversial points in the text). That said, Wikipedia does allow biased and opinionated sources to be used and it is not straightforward deciding which ones are most biased. Ex-Baha'is may feel some resentment or that they need to prove a point, but on the other hand having been both Baha'i and non-Baha'i may give them extra insight into the topic in some ways. On the flip side, we're definitely free to use Baha'i scholars like Smith, Buck, Stockman, Venters, Momen, etc. (and I wouldn't suggest we stop since they've done a lot of good work, despite again the potential for bias). I think it is more true to WP:NPOV to include all reliable sources and then explain disagreements between them, rather than just try to find one least biased account. Gazelle55 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please offer credible sources for your false claims that are not located in state, seminary or hostile Qajar era sources. Qalandar303 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"The Bab gave very clear instructions to kill non-Babi's"

Where?

"..to burn non-Babi books..."

Where?

" and to seize the possessions of non-Babi's."

Under a Babi state in a Babi state, yes. But was there a Babi state in Iran between 1844-50?

"That the Bab's instigation of violence and disorder elicited a military response from the government was inevitable."

Actually, the violence was first instigated by the clergy followed by the state in toe. But the projection and cognitive dissonance here are simply amazing for anyone who knows this history as well as the history of modern Iran, since every last thing you are accusing the Babis are actually things that the Ayatollah Khomeini, his supporters and the Islamic Republic of Iran have actually done; that is, unless you forget that the Islamic Republic came into being by means of a violent revolution that overthrew the Iranian state under the Pahlavis. But you lot have the gall to accuse the Babis of wanting to overthrow a state, clerical elite and dynasty which itself came into being by violently overthrowing another before it: the Zands.

I don't think you want to walk down that road lest your unsourced, biased arguments blow up in your face one by one. Qalandar303 (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

References

strange article

the article seems like its written by a member of the bahai faith. It feels a bit biased. It also doesnt mention bahullahs real name in the opening section. The "spiritual unity" part of the intro feels strange. palisa (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

His birth name has too much detail and would clutter up the lead sentence. It's also unnecessary in the lead since he is only known by the title Baha'u'llah.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spiritual unity" part of the intro.

Regarding the feeling of bias, be bold! and make improvements. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Full name and photo

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.

---

It's about time that this article gets updated based on our Manual of Style. Namely:

• Inclusion of the subject's full name in the lead sentence, per WP:MOSBIO and specifically MOS:FULLNAME: While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials). The MoS covers cases where cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference and it's clear that we should ignore this prohibition. In addition, the MoS gives an example of a long name in multiple languages plus a pronunciation guide, so claims about "clutter" are irrelevant.
• A depiction of the subject as the lead image, per MOS:IMAGES and specifically MOS:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. This is a biographical article and readers expect to see a depiction of the subject. This is reinforced elsewhere in the MoS, at MOS:IMAGEQUALITY: A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject.

I've looked through this talk page's history and can see that these issues have been brought up many times, only to be shut down by referring to some longstanding consensus. I can also see from the article's edit history that the name and photo have also been added many times, only to be reverted—again, referring to this consensus. But consensus can change, and if editors are repeatedly adding this content (or requesting that the content get added), then that's a sure sign that it has. I would also argue that any consensus telling us to ignore the Manual of Style—a guideline with broad approval across the project—is a local consensus that we should ignore. Woodroar (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Full name in opening sentence of the lede and image of the subject (if available in the right non-copyright status) is standard for all articles. There should be no exception here. Especially not if the argument for the exception is religious censorship. Silverseren^C 03:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Including full name and photo in the lead is the default thing to do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Support. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support (normally, though, we don't need to do this because editors usually respect policy.) Nythar (💬-🎃) 10:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We should absolutely not let religious sentiments dictate how an encyclopedia must be written, regardless of how many people oppose something due to them. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: Just to be clear in case someone misunderstands and raises an issue, I'm referring to ibcluding both the photo and name. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support including name/photo per above. Policy clearly indicates doing so. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the "consensus" being referred to by people to remove the image happened 17 years ago and was actually in favour of leaving the image in upper corner rather than hiding it by demoting it or with a link, by a 9-8 margin [6]. The fact that this consensus is being misused and wrongly described is also inappropriate. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: It was 9-9. You aren't counting HaeB's vote to move the image to the bottom for whatever reason. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: Ah I see it, I misintereprted it. But the fact is their still wasn't a consensus in favour to hide it unlike what you claimed. And only 8 were in favour of demoting it to the bottom, HaeB did not support demoting it to the bottom at all. So it is clear you are choosing to do what you like, instead of following any actual consensus. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: I have no idea how you are reaching such flawed conclusions. support image at bottom. was the exact phrase used by HaeB.
As previously explained, the discussion happened at Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Archive Picture with a summary posted at Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo. Ultimately, having the image on the bottom was the status quo and became the WP:EDITCONSENSUS. That's just how things work sometimes.
For the record, I'm also not doing anything. I'm trying to stay out of this since I've already made my opinion known. I'm allowed to have opinions even if they disagree with the majority.
Please, don't ping me again unless you correct your earlier and continued misgendering of me (despite the fact I've already made you aware of this). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: My mistake, I can be stupid at times and didn't carefully read that earlier. But it's still a 9-9 vote tie (yes this time I did properly count), so your claims are extremely flawed too. There was no consensus in your favour. And as for staying out, you got involved in the discussions. Yes you did mislead people. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: I looked at your accusation of misgendering, but the comment you linked was nowhere misgendering you. I only called HaeB a "he" which I do in general for anyone whose pronouns I don't know. Don't accuse people wrongly again please. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right. You only misgendered me once. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

When I wasn't aware of your gender. I use he as a general pronoun for everyone whose gender I don't know. Please apologise or I'll be reporting your conduct. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: No, I don't think I'll apologize. Feel free to report me. Though, I'd check with Cullen before you do. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The details and original Arabic of the name do not need to be in the first sentence. See MOS:FIRST: "Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere." There is a section dedicated to the name. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It is my understanding and experience that prior common editors of the article acted in good faith with the perceived norms and consensus reports of the past. That i know of, none of the people from the original period are here and none here now were present there then. As for the debate/vote, I see some overlap with the discussion about Muhammad as:

• Talk:Muhammad/FAQ (Q4 - Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 2.

The point detailed is what is the usual depiction? Muhammad's depiction has its particulars. In my experience when people depict the person of Baha'u'llah they use a rose on a chair or a picture of the shrine. How do we support consistency across articles in this case? To my reading none of the present editors favored removing the picture or removing the birth name. Smkolins (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support including the photo of this person and the birth name at the very beginning of the article. I disagree that the birth name is "clutter". Including it is standard practice in this encyclopedia. The Mohammed comparison is not relevant because nobody knows what Mohammed looked like, but we have a public domain photo of Baháʼu'lláh. That rose on a chair/ shrine photo stuff is fine for material published by the Baháʼí Faith, but is not appropriate in a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support including both name and photo. I'm seeing no argument based on policy that would support not including them. The Mohammad argument appears fundamentally flawed, as per Cullen328. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not true that "The Mohammed comparison is not relevant because nobody knows what Mohammed looked like…". If you look at the votes and discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 2, which agreed to use calligraphy in the info box, by far the most common reasoning is that that representation is the most common form used discussing the person of Mohammad. Comments that there was no picture are present but are rare. The most common arguments against the option is that it represented a double standard (meaning they supported one of the two debated images of Mohammad even if they were artistic.) Less common were arguments not using one of the two images was an example of censorship as well as the argument that an image was a better choice. As I read it the consistent position between those here wanting to use the picture top right and that discussion was for that article to use one of the artistic drawings (the so called 'unveiled' images), a position that failed 58 to 47 in my attempt to count things.

I'll comment further that dropping the image from this article here was never much in discussion here - the question was whether to have the picture top right in the info box or bottom in a section discussing the picture. That being said the fact that using calligraphy on the Mohammad article was least controversial was actually the second most cited reason for using it.

These seem very relevant to this discussion - the most common representation of Mohammad, especially when not being polemical, is not his picture. And the rational of not offending people was a notable reason why people voted for calligraphy. I'll note calligraphy was never much considered here. Smkolins (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Smkolins: I read through the argument you refer to about Muhammad. The common reason is that the there simply isn't an agreed upon common representation of any portrait or painting as they are a minority and there is no agreement on whether they're accurate. And that circles back to my argument on ANI about how there isn't a wide agreement about how or what religious figures and people before photography looked like. The images are not being hidden to appease religious sentiments of Muslims. Whereas with Baháʼu'lláh no one disagrees that it is his accurate representation and it is used in many places, especially non-Bahai. Your entire argument is flawed. And above all it is obvious that unlike Muhammad, the major reason to hide it here is respecting religious sentiments. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: I disagree with your analysis and it rings of OR. Literally that is not what people comment on save rarely - a fringe interpretation one might say. And those people were as clearly for using the artistic portraits. The fact there as no picture was *rarely commented on. Clearly there is a rush to judgement going on here with a fan wave of people who had no previous interest in the article leaping to conclusions and making sweeping unrefined arguments and accusations. The common reasoning used in the voting of that issue is *clearly* common usage and the secondary reason is *clearly* not wanting to be controversial. Your analysis fails a simple check of the facts.Smkolins (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Smkolins: Rings of OR? I commented after seeing the discussion. I clearly mentioned there is "agreed upon common representation of any portrait or painting as they are a minority". This was in reference to no commonly accepted depiction of Muhamnad, I don't get what's so hard to understand. And yes such things do happen due to: 1) No photography of such a person. 2) Relatively small number of portraits compared to say calligraphy. 3) Thus creating a lack of public consensus on what's the best representation for Muhammad. These are facts, not OR. You can see some voters explicitly commenting how such paintings/portarits form a minority of representations.

A few people do use controversy as a reasoning, but they are a minority and most opposers don't share the same view as them. So trying to use that as a reasoning as to why your censorship should be allowed is illegitimate, especially given none of the "consensus" you've cited here have been in your favour.

Whether you think my statements are OR or not, unlike that argument of Muhammad yours isn't based on any claim of common depiction. Your entire argument is based on not hurting religious feelings. So citing that discussion is pointless when your reasoning is not even similar. You shouldn't comment on people judging in a rush and decide for them what they cannot do. This isn't a website run by rule of the Bahai faith. Please stop imposing that. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Also upon careful examination, only 4 people opposed solely based their reason on it being offensive. 11 considered that since there is no commonly accepted depiction and calligraphy is the most commonly accepted depiction, it can eliminate potential for offence.

Which directs to the policy of WP:GRATUITOUS: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Also the lede part of that policy WP:OM clearly redicts to MOS:OMIMG when talking about offensive images and defines how offensive material is considered should be treated should be based on "typical Wikipedia readers". Which if you check the note means "majority of the website readers". Not a small group of religion.

Your entire argument is based solely on religious sentiments of Bahais. Not on policies. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support As per above arguments. A biography about someone should start with their name 166.205.97.48 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • As a note, the name has been removed again by user:smkolins 166.205.97.48 (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This needs to be split since people are conflating the name and photo issues. SMKOLINS didn't remove the name, he removed the provincial identifier. If you don't understand how Persian names work, don't get in an argument over it. If you had read the first section of this page, all the info is there. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, as long as the votes already cast are not discarded. If they are supporting both then both sections get the votes added to them. If they only support one, then the vote goes there. If it appears their vote is unclear, they should be asked which options they support. User:Woodroar I hope you have no problem. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections if people want to discuss the name and photo separately. I've been researching the name and was going to suggest a footnote to (hopefully) resolve the edit warring. So for example, we could put "Ḥusayn-Alí" in the lead but a footnote could elaborate: "Some sources give the name Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí [and then some explanation of what both Mírzá and Núrí mean]". But that can wait for its own section. Woodroar (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What? This section is clearly about full name And image. It is slightly misleading to derail my vote as for one and not the other. Thus article has been censored, and my vote is to give the article no special treatment. Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí is the common name, and is what we should use alongside the image. 166.205.97.48 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The first section of THIS PAGE is basically a big footnote that describes what you're talking about. This whole conversation is odd. After a revision in February 2001, the lead looked like this. It used promotional language and tried to stuff too much in the name in the first sentence. I threw out the old lead and replaced it with this, which was basically what it looked like until a week ago. Part of that revision was to move all the material on the name down into its own section and declutter the first sentence. The suggestion that I did this out of some kind of bias is ridiculous. MOS:LEADALT: "The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability. Use this principle to decide whether mentioning alternative names in the first sentence, elsewhere in the article, or not at all." I'm not even opposing putting the name in the first sentence, but his name is Husayn-Ali. This is not controversial. Yal need to go find Jesus or something. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Baha'i Studies Review cites his name as Mirza Husayn-Ali Nuri [7]. His father was also called Mírzá ʻAbbás Núrí. So we'd need a reliable source to confirm what you say. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth II could be called Princess Elizabeth of York. What was here name? Elizabeth. Princess is a title, and York is where she is from. Mirza is a title rougly equivalent to the English "sir". Nuri means "of the Iraniann province of Nur". What was his name? Husayn Ali. I can see why this gets confused, because he did not have a surname, as most people did not during that time in that part of the world. In the case of Elizabeth II, her full name would be "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary", but she could have gone by numerous titles so there is a page dedicated to her titles but her lead just says "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary)" to avoid clutter. Other name prefixes in Persian are Mulla, Hajji, Siyyid, Aga, Ustad, Amir, Imam, Khan, and others. Ladies get Khanum after their name. Depending on how complicated the name is, it might get stuffed in the lead sentence, or it might need to be shortened and elaborated elsewhere.

Amanat's Resurrection and Renewal' has a glossary that gives this definition for Mirza: "In the nineteenth century, if placed before proper name, Mirza indicates religious or bureaucratic training. If placed after, it indicates that the bearer is a prince."

If you want examples, Hartz gives the full name as Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri then after that uses Mirza Husayn Ali for short in the story until he took the title Baha'u'llah, then used that for the rest. MacEoin in World's Living Religions gives his name as Baha' Allah with no given name. In Stockman's A Guide for the Perplexed: "he met Husayn-`Ali of Nur (1817-1892), who later took on the title Baha'u'llah... Husayn-`Ali was raised..." (p. 76). Warburg's Studies in Contemporary Religion: "the prophet Husain Ali Nuri (1817-1982), known as Baha'u'llah" (p. 2), and "Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri (1817-1892), later called Baha'u'llah" (p. 11). Amanat's Resurrection and Renewal uses Mirza Husayn `Ali Nuri as the full name and Mirza Husayn `Ali in further instances of it. (p. 361). Cole in From Iran East and West: "Mirza Husayn `Ali of Nur, Baha'u'llah (1817-1892)" and "Mirza Husayn Ali, Baha'u'llah, the son of Mirza Abbas" (p. 1). Smith's Introduction...: "Mirza Husayn-`Ali, known by the Babi religious title of Baha (later Baha'u'llah)" and later "Mirza Husayn-`Ali - Baha'u'llah" (pp. 14, 16).

So the short form is more commonly "Mirza Husayn Ali", but best practice would be drop the "mirza" except for the infobox and section on name, where clutter is not an issue. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Your comments do seem to be correct then. The name should be shortened to Husayn Ali. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Cuñado. Your last sentence is offensive and dismissive of your fellow editors. Stop it. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Without tone I can see how that might not be interpreted as the light humor that was intended. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Telling people to go find Jesus after having a long frustrating argument over a religious article, doesn't come across as just a joke. It is bound to come across as mocking and dismissive. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry this has not been frustrating to me. It's about what someone's name is. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You're telling people to go find Jesus or something and stop doing what they are doing while having an argument with them. Please stop that. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

We are now at a point where conduct disputes are being discussed on article talk pages while content disputes are at WP:AN/I. This is utterly ridiculous. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That is because conduct disputes should be resolved before it reaches ANI. And you're deciding how an article gets to be written based on your religious sentiments, hence ANI was the appropriate place. You have also misled about consensus here. I do believe you should be banned from editing for not adhering to WP:NPOV. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Support inclusion of given name and photo in lead. And frankly, it's virtually a WP:SNOW issue: the policy and community consensus on such matters is overwhelmingly clear and not surprising for a project that prizes open knowledge so highly and is predicated in informing the average un- or semi-informed reader, not placating groups that have a personal interest in the subject matter of particular articles leading to particular sensitivities to factual content.

As to the counter-arguments to WP:CENSORSHIP advanced above, they are of extremely poor quality, imo: this is clearly not the kind of situation contemplated by either WP:PROFANE or MOS:SHOCKVALUE, which clearly concern salaciously violent imagery or choices obvious intentionally selected to be offensive or unnerving to the general reader--not a perceived lack of reverence to a religious figure believed by those who venerate him to have a special sacred status to his visage. Those two scenarios are clearly worlds apart in terms of any reasonable interpretations of the wording of the policy and the MoS guidance in question.

Likewise, the Mohammad argument is similarly deeply flawed. I actually don't altogether agree with the response advanced above that the fact that we don't have a photo or 100% certain notion of what Mohammad looks like is at all dispositive here: afterall, for the vast majority of his contemporaries, we use historical depictions in the lead, if we have them. Rather, the reason the Mohammad arguments falls utterly flat here in justifying keeping the photo out on this article is that it is an WP:OTHERSTUFF rationale, rather than a principled, a priori argument for how the choice to hide the image and name lower in the article could possibly comport with long-established policy and community consensus that clearly indicate this is not appropriate.

Furthermore, the fact of the matter is, the Mohammad article should absolutely have a lead image using a historical depiction of the subject, and the fact that it doesn't is not an example of policy being applied correctly, but rather a whole lot of complicated real-world pressures which I think hardly need to be explained to any living person who has not spent their entire life under a rock. In any event, the proponents for including the lead image are not required by any policy to prove that the appropriate and valid policies governing these kinds of calls are being interpreted identically and enforced equitably across every relevant article on this project: they need only demonstrate that it is the appropriate (and in this case, fairly obvious) reading of guidelines as they apply here. And they have definitely done that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Support full name in the introduction. Dissagree on the picture, there is no added value of the picture for the avarage reader. I support having it at the bottom, similar to the article for Muhammed. I think that's a good middle ground. --Steinninn 23:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Steinninn, why do you think it adds no value to the "average reader"? The first time I heard of this person was a few days ago, when this disagreement developed at WP:ANI. This image was very useful; I could actually see and know what this person looks like. There is no reason for this image to be at the bottom. The Muhammed analogy is also not correct because there weren't any camera's back then (more than 1,000 years ago) and we don't know what he looks like. The image in this article, however, accurately portrays Baháʼu'lláh in a real photograph. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of name and photograph, in line with the MOS. The full name of an individual is encyclopedic and there is no sort of privacy interest of a living person that provides any rationale against using it. The argument that including this religious figure's full name in the lead will create unnecessary clutter is simply unconvincing; we list the full name of Elizabeth II in the very first sentence—and that's a featured article. Omitting the name merely because including the name is found as offensive by adherents of a particular religious tradition is explicitly against settled policy; WP:NOTCENSORED notes that [a]ttempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia (emphasis mine). Likewise, the inclusion of a photograph of a person is encyclopedic—readers expect to see images of people in biographies and omission of the image from the article would cause the article to be less informative in that regard. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Who said the given name is offensive to adherents? I'm the one that moved it to its own section and I don't have a problem moving it back to the first sentence. It has also been the first thing in the infobox. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of both name and photo as they add to the article. I would also support adding it to the article Baháʼí Faith. Gusfriend (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on inclusion of the name, so I'll leave that to the consensus of others. However, I disagree with inclusion of the photograph at the top of the article, and would like to see it remain at the bottom where it has been. I think that is a reasonable compromise considering followers of the Baha'i Faith to not want the image displayed at all, and would find it offensive to view that image casually. I don't think complaints of religious censorship are valid because the photograph is accessible in the article. The issue seems just to be prominence. MOS:LEADIMAGE states ...so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. which certainly is true for any Baha'i follower. T0lk (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

T0lk, pushing the image down is actually censorship. Wikipedia should not "compromise." You're not able to come up with any explanation other than "someone who thinks this religion is real doesn't want to see images of this man", an argument which could be used by any other person who believes any one of the thousands of religions that exist are real. I'm not a follower of this religion and I expect to see his image at the top of the article, specifically inside of the infobox. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 08:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

T0lk, 99.9% of our readers have absolutely no problem with viewing a 19th century photograph of this man. We do not and will not alter our content to cater to the taboos of a tiny minority. That simply is not going to happen in 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEADIMAGES is talking about what is appropriate to include and what is offensive. That part about offensiveness directs to MOS:OMIMG which says However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner... Typical readers is defined as cultural beliefs of majority of readers by the same policy in a note alongisde the phrase "typical readers". So there is no reason to demote it because of feelings of Bahais. Also censorship isn't limited to removal, but also suppressing or hiding something which is happening in this case. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

And WP:NOTCENSORED redirects to HELP:NOSEE which opposes hiding images in any form. Hiding Bahaullah's image is censorship and against our guidelines. It's excluded from the lead image only to appease Bahais by making sure that much of the readers won't see it as they don't scroll beyond the early paras of an article. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Supoort including full name and photo in lead per MOS:LEADIMAGE, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. Expecting to see someone's photograph at the top of article is standard for Wikipedia. I find the claims that it is offensive or shocking or gratuitous as highly exaggerated. To an average reader this is not even 1% as shocking as the lead images in this or this or the hundreds of other articles I can think of. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose adding photo to the top per WP:IAR and yes, the long-standing consensus. This minor, cosmetic change does not fix or improve wikipedia in any way. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't apply because the photo still exists in the article. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • GhostOfDanGurney, "minor, cosmetic change" is complete misrepresentation of censorship. What other reason can you provide for pushing the image down? Is it not relevant? It's literally his image. There's nothing "shocking" about it. There's nothing "offensive" about an image of a man from 1800s. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Almost all participants in this discussion have trivial engagement with the article or the discussion points. I'd like to see someone other than myself and Roman Reigns Fanboy analyze the voting on the Muhammad articles use of depictions to see which kind of arguments represent the common values that implement the guidelines of wikipedia. I maintain following the common representation and not using antagonistic approaches of material is supported in wikipedia culture while not simply censoring material just because of local policy. Deprioritizing offensive content that also follows common practice can work. Smkolins (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Smkolins, focus on the current discussion. Consensus is clear. Regards, — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That's what I'm critiquing. "Concensus" isn't reached by uninvolved people making a snap judgement, "voting" and moving on. Consensus is a living process of people participating and understanding the points of discussion, not mere voting. Smkolins (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

For example i found this. This paper summarizes the arguments used for using the purposeful inflammatory versions of the cartoon depiction of Muhammad that won the day and why.

"We propose that the For editors gained the editorial support necessary to successfully enforce their decision to retain the cartoons despite a lack of consensus because the values hierarchy they articulated reflected the values-in-practice of the broader editorial community of Wikipedia. The For editors’ emphasis on the importance of precedents for the inclusion of the Muhammad cartoons, the cartoons’ relevance to the article and their successful framing of Wikipedia’s mission in terms of its anti-censorship stance may help illuminate other instances where English language Wikipedia has prioritized freedom of information over multicultural inclusivity, in spite of its official rhetorical emphasis on equal access and global empowerment." *"Lifting the veil: the expression of values in online communities" Authors: Jonathan T. Morgan, Robert M. Mason, Karine Nahon Authors Info & Claims iConference '11: Proceedings of the 2011 iConferenceFebruary 2011 Pages 8–15 DOI 10.1145/1940761.1940763 Published:08 February 2011

Clearly that article is about the cartoon and should reference the image prominently. But even there there was still a lack of consensus and diverse values engaged about how this works. This article is about the broader topic of the person, not the image which was used where the image was discussed. I'm paying attention and doing research on the subject. I'm engaged. It matters. Smkolins (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Using off-wiki papers does not change or influence our policies or the consensus process here on Wikipedia. I've read all I need to know to make an informed !vote. No rule says users who don't understand everything about a subject are posting ill-informed comments. As stated multiple times before (for the Mohammad article specifically), we don't know what Mohammad looked like. We can guess, but it's not a true representation. This, on the other hand, is an actual picture. Not the same case. Not a good comparison. Not useful to look for arguments used on Talk:Mohammad. No reason can I find for pushing the image down other than "it offends me because of religious reasons". I don't usually base my !votes on papers written by people whose reasoning works differently than the way consensus on Wikipedia operates, who only seem to be writing analyses. We need to be aware of relevant policies, and we should cite these policies. Currently, the only opposing users are arguing "its offensive" for a picture of a man from the 1800s. It's exhausting when I see this happening, because I personally don't see why this image is so offensive that it would have to be removed. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the only opposing users are arguing "its offensive"... Please point out where I said that. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

They're not specifically referring to you User:GhostOfDanGurney, but the consensus you refer to never was clearly in favour of any side and those opposing the photo were considering religious sensibilities. [8] Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney, actually, you provided no argument at all in your vote above. I was referring to other editors' votes. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 21:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose having the photo in the lead and support having it in the lower bottom of the article. This clearly does not violate WP:NOTCENSORED, as the photo is still on the article. Support having the full name. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Tarikhejtemai, without adressing any of the points above? Simply "I want this and that" with no explanation whatsoever? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 22:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

    Re the photo I support the same rationale provided by others in this thread, i.e. respecting Baha'i readers who'd prefer not to view the photo casually and at the same time respecting other readers by making the photo available on the page; I think this is a fair middle-ground. Re the name, I support mentioning the full birth name along the name that he is known generally by i.e. Baha'u'llah. I think the name is not a big issue here anyway. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

We are not supposed to respect anyone's particular religious beliefs. See MOS:OMIMG which clearly defines respecting cultural sensibilities of the typical or majority Wikipedia reader when it comes to offensive images. Feelings of a small number of readers should not dictate how Wikipedia is edited, non-Bahais wouldn't be shocked by the image. I don't think such reasonings should even be allowed here in the first place. This also goes against WP:NPOV. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This thread is about reaching a consensus, and as WP:Consensus states a consensus sometimes require compromises while preserving the spirit of the policies. Having the photo on the bottom of the page I believe is a good compromise and it does not violate Wikipedia policies. Also the fifth pillar of Wikipedia:Five pillars clearly says that the rules are not carved in stone and their content and interpretations could evolve over time. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Tarikhejtemai, you don't seem to understand what it meant by "compromise". If by "compromise" it means we should push an image down because someone feels they shouldn't be seeing an image because of respect for a religious leader, then no, that violates WP:NPOV and shouldn't be used for a compromise. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Consensus and compromises must not violate Wikipedia policies. Such a compromise that you propose is directly going against MOS:OMIMG and WP:NPOV by letting religious feelings of some Bahais dictate how a Wikipedia page would be edited. I don't know why such arguments are even being allowed in the first place. The image isn't being added to offend Bahais, but to show people how Bahaullah looked and because it's his photograph, not some painting. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The image is not offensive to them, they'd prefer to not view it casually. Also I don't think having it down the page violates WP:NPOV because the image is still there, and the policy does not talk about imagery. I don't have anything else to add. I am happy with whatever the consensus would be. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Tarikhejtemai, the only reason someone could have to push the image down is to purposefully make it less visible, which will have policy implications. And the preference of a small number of readers to "not view it casually" is the weakest argument I've seen here. Regards, — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Why would Bahais find it bad to view it casually? And how is it even casual given that it's the image of the subject article and it should be expected that a Wikipedia article will use a subject's photograph when one is available? A person would expect to see a photograph of the subject whose article they are reading on Wikipedia, given we do it wherever the photograph is avaiable (there are only a few exceptions like victims or families not wanting photos published). It is obvious that they won't like it because it doesn't conform to their religious sensibilities. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose photo at top. I realized that my only comment was at ANI so I'm leaving it here since this is where a content dispute goes. The name issue is unimportant - I previously moved to its own section to declutter because there are a lot of details that go with explaining the name and title. The name didn't need to get wrapped up in this and I don't care if the name goes in the first sentence. On the photo, I think there are several good arguments to not put it in the infobox. There are almost no reliable sources that use the photo of Baha'u'llah, almost every source follows the Baha'i convention of not displaying it. This issue has been mischaracterized here as pandering to "religious sensibilities". If that were the case the photo would be removed. Editors have maintained the status quo for about 15 years by restoring the photo while most of the vandalism has been deleting it. There is a story that goes with the photo, which makes it fit better in a section dedicated to it. The claim that moving it lower on the page is censorship is just ridiculous. One more note for posterity: the photo is not "offensive" to Baha'is, it is just information; they use the photo on special occasions but don't use it casually like displaying it in their homes or in art. To me, this seems much better than the image-worship practiced in many religions. I don't think Baha'is care if other people look at it, but if someone is trying to avoid looking at it casually, it does represent a shock to have it on top. Maybe a better solution would be to have it in the first section along with the background on the name. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The status quo you refer to never had a consensus in the first place nor was a status quo, but was a 9-9 tie. [9] So it's clear some users decided to impose what they wanted. I don't understand your claim of why others will be shocked. If they don't follow rules of Bahai religion they can't be shocked. If a Bahai gets shocked or offended they don't form the typical Wikipedia readership and we are not supposed to cater to everyone's religious sensibilities. See MOS:OMIMG. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The archives are a mess and many of them address the photo, not just what you linked. I was there participating in the conversation since 2006. Your account is 6 months old. I haven't seen any value in digging through the archives and demonstrating what went on because it was a long time ago and that shouldn't prevent discussion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying my account is 6 months old has little relevance to this discussion. One of the main arguments is that there has been a consensus since 2005 regarding this issue, but there clearly wasn't any. I guess some others might have opposed showing the image in infobox, but do note those opposing the image itself and wanting it removed isn't the same as that. I also notice that you've entirely disregarded those who want the image removed in entirety. Regardless users have been claiming a consenus they have been unable to show exists until now. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Digging a bit more, I've found another consensus dating back to 2005 which was against including the picture [10]. I haven't checked other discussions and consensus, so this is just one. However I found that User:Cuñado (then Cunado19) explicitly showed religuous bias in his decision to demote the picture to the bottom. He says that he's a Bahai and cites offense to Bahais, while trying to justify his decision by citing example of Muhammad. Clearly your decision to remove the photo of the infobox was due to personal religious motivations, this is a clear-cut violation of WP:NPOV by you as well as others opposing the image for their personal feelings. I don't doubt it's the same reason you're opposing it for now, since you've used poor arguments and improperly cited policies to keep the image out. I'm surprised you haven't been banned yet. User:Cullen328 User:Nythar I think an action should be taken against this user, because this is a clearly bannable offense. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that one of us should be banned from editing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You've claimed your edits here haven't been due to any religious motivation. But looking at your past comments and comparing it with the behaviour displayed here, clearly they are. Unlike your claims that I've been falsely accusing you. I had let the behavioural issues drop, but after seeing the truth it's clear you shouldn't have been allowed on Wikipedia after 2005 itself. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Any local consensus from 15 plus years ago is null and void. The 2022 consensus is very clear. I am not going to be blocking any editors unless they engage in disruption in the future. Both of you need to drop this matter and move on now. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support both name and photo: I agree with including the name and the photo. A person should be presented with how they actually looked and what actually represents them. Some users seemingly claimed that people will be offended, but that'll be more than likely just a small part of Wiki viewers. I've read through some of the points raised but this discussion is too long to address them. Linkin Prankster (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support both. WP shouldn't be considering arbitrary religious conventions. At all. Geordie (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support both name and photo: Bahais present their beliefs online across multiple actively maintained websites, where their preferred approach to censorship and display of photos can be practiced. WP is not the space for that agenda at all. Drcombo (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing of the photograph

• I would like to remove the photograph of Bahá'u'lláh. Because in our Baha'i faith, Bahá'u'lláh should be not photographed, drawn, or even potrayed as a person because he is the founder of the Baha'i faith. And to keep it holy, I would like to have a permission to remove the photograph. (PS: If you want to argue with me because of my conversion to Baha'i, please don't. I don't like arguing about religions because I just don't want to be disrespectful to other religious people. Peace!) Gio loto (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see the discussion right above your post, titled "Full name and photo". And please don't use incorrect edit summaries when editing the article. Fram (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unconcerned with "holiness". Geordie (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not going to happen. Wikipedia is entirely neutral and does not cater to religious taboos. Cullen328 (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I refactored this to make it a subsection as it's relevant, and was considered when closing. JeffUK (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

Options to hide the image

Irrespective of what the consensus will be in the RFC above, there are ways to hide the image without violating any wikipedia policies. Help:Options to hide an image has details on how a user can hide an image for themselves by modifying their css. Those who don't want to see the image can follow the options given there instead of trying to impose their religious perferences on every reader. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the concern was about the 2-3 Baha'i editors. More like the thousands of Baha'i viewers who won't be logged in. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And there would be way more non-Bahai viewers. So that argument is redundant. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed instructions at the top of this page on how to hide the picture with <div> tag because I couldn't add it to the infobox. Does anyone know how to add the code to the infobox?Steinninn 00:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Depictions of Muhammad (and probably other pages) have a FAQ, which links to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Maybe we could add something here? If it helps, Q3 at that FAQ gives exact instructions for hiding images there. I tested it out with

.page-Baháʼu_lláh img {display: none;}

and it hid the image (for me) on this article. Woodroar (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's best to use the same code as before. It was .bahai-depiction {display: none;}. Here is the previews message. Steinninn 01:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Does that code work for you? It doesn't for me. Anyone else have luck with it? Woodroar (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)