Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

photo or link

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

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

Considering a picture on the front page is something you really cannot miss though, and at least "Universal House of Justice" Baha'is find it quite quite offensive then surely changing it to a link (as the wikipedia image policy suggest when a picture might be offensive [1]) may be considered. Its really just something I do not want to see. Thats not censorship as its freely there. -- Tomhab 17:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

about this issue, i will copypaste what i said before (why its ofensive) "you see, Bahai´s usually see photos(..) of Baha'u'llah on pilgrimage(which is a special moment to bahai´s), by showing the photo in the article without any warning is very ofensive/shocking to bahais. im not saying the photo should be deleted, but at least put a wikilink to it instead.. " - --Cyprus2k1 19:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the age of the Internet. So what are you Bahais going to do? Stop every single web site in the world from putting up the photo of Bahaullah? It is not intelligent to swim against the current. Accept the fact that we are now in the Internet age. What you see happening in Wikipedia is natural, and there are numerous other projects that are similar to this one, in multiple languages. Martin2000 17:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on offensive imagery: "11. Think carefully if offensive pictures are really necessary. Consider providing a link to the picture, and a warning of the picture's contents, rather than place it directly in the article. If you have concerns regarding the appropriateness of an image, discuss it on the relevant article talk page."

People have quoted this policy here, so you must be aware of it. If you were not aware of the offence that you cause to Baha'is by insisting on publishing his picture on this article, enough Baha'is have explained that to you now that ignorance can no longer be a defence. Personally, if you are so wedded to the idea that people *have* to be able to access this image of Baha'u'llah that you have uploaded here, I'd prefer you to do it in an external link to your own website, where you will also be able to bad-mouth Baha'u'llah to your heart's content. Of course, I've outlined my strong suspicions about your bona fides as a wikipedia contributor below, already. --PaulHammond 03:17, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Should we just end this by putting a link to it and removing the picture, then reverting to this whenever it gets added in again? Put the link in the external links AND in the top paragraph so its not being hidden away? -- Tomhab 13:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User Martin2000

This user appears to be an identity created on 14th Jan whose only reason for being is to upload Baha'u'llah's picture and add it to this article and the one on Baha'i Faith. here is his entire list of contributions to Wikipedia. I think Baha'u'llah's image ought to be removed from the Wikipedia database. PaulHammond 21:24, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in contributing to a subject in which I have accurate, detailed, and correct information. If you like to paint a rosy and romantic picutre of Bahaism, and certain facts ruin this picture for you, don't blame those who state those facts. In other words, don't shoot the messenger. I am simply stating some facts. Going to multiple people's personal pages and knocking on every door trying to portray me as some sort of evil character just because I have contributed FACTS AND CORRECT INFORMATION to Bahai-related articles, is not a good idea, there are good chances that it will backfire on you. Is there any misinformation that I included in any of the articles? Is the picture that I uploaded not authentic? What is your problem with my contributions other than the fact that I do not have a long list of variegated contributions? Martin2000 23:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Martin2000. The picture is a piece of factual information, its authenticity is not under dispute and it is not a copyright violation. So in summary: It is factual information, abeit with a twist - it upsets some people. AFAIK we have no policy in wikipedia to remove factual, undisputed, unencumbered information. If there is upset about the "prettiness"of the picture - I would not disagree to exchange the picture with one less "Rasputinesque", as long as it is equally authentic, simply to keep the peace, but removal would be very wrong. And whether or not Martin2000 has created his identity to upload something which s/he anticipated to be controversial is not really the point under discussion. Refdoc 17:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought the going suggestion wasn't removing it. I don't think theres much point in anyone trying to hide the picture - someone keen enough can always find it off the web. The point was exchanging it for a link, so you only see it if you want to (as wikipedia image use policy suggests when an image might offend someone). I think Paul's point is that Martin2000's entire agenda is to annoy the Baha'i community. I don't think Rasputin is the problem here :). -- Tomhab 23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, then I would suggest provide us with evidence over and above "I do not think the photo should be here" and we will move it into a link. Refdoc 10:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes.

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 6, 1939)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 539)

I think thats the main bit of literature on the matter. I think generally Baha'is would prefer that the picture be off the net all together for this reason, but since its already in public domain I don't see what difference whether its linked or not. Needless to say I would really like the picture to be replaced by a link. -- Tomhab 13:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also as for replacing it for a prettier picture I doubt you'll find one on the net as most Baha'is wouldn't put it up if they had one for the above reasons. I believe this one got released by people who considered themselves Baha'is but did not follow Shoghi Effendi (who the vast majority of Baha'is do follow). -- Tomhab 13:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As no-ones complained about the idea, I'll replace the image with a link. See if it stops the edit wars. If this stirs people into saying the image HAS to be on the page then we can change back -- Tomhab 02:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No I agree, the link is clearly the best place, reading the explanations and Wikipedia policy. Further, Martin2000, you are seriously out of order, using personal attack and editwarring against a developing consensus to push your way. Refdoc 09:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

martin, Tomhab based on the talk page putted a link to the photo AND asked "If you have problem with this please use discussion page first" which you havent and thats the reason i reverted again. if you really are interested in improving wikipedia please see [[Talk:Bah%E1%27%ED_Faith#solutions]], and please do NOT flame others. - --Cyprus2k1 09:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your history speaks for itself. Wikipedia is not a platform for religious promotionalism (any religion). Don't like it? Tough. Thank you. --Martin2000 09:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

dear martin, Wikipedia is not a platform for religious promotionalism of any religion, i agree with you , everybody here agrees with you on that. no need to keep saying the same thing over and over, instead, give CONSTRUCTIVE arguments, in order to improve wikipedia, keep in mind however that your personal opinion on a topic may not the best or the correct one. be reasonable. (and no personal attacks please) - --Cyprus2k1 10:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moved this section up here as its relevant. Sorry guys - thought the idea might suit everyone. Didn't mean for it just to bring up another argument. -- Tomhab 12:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

wives times three

I've been looking into Babism and limits to the amount of wives you can have. Anyone got anything off wikipedia about it being reduced to two by the Bab? I know this isn't about Babism but the wives of Baha'u'llah is in this article so makes it relevant. -- Tomhab 00:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know the Bab did this, but I don't know where. Looking on Jonah Winter's site seems impossible unless you already know where to find something. Someone with Ocean ought to be able to find it. -- PaulHammond 03:35, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've just completed a reasonably thorough search through an up-to-date Ocean and found nothing on the matter (on either the authoritive or other Baha'i books). I will continue looking, but if someone could find a reference that would be very handy. -- Tomhab 16:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it somewhere. I'll try to find it again. -- Jeff3000 17:06, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Just found this Miller boook. Do a search for "two wives" and it has a short passage on it. I'm still looking for something authoritive as the Miller book isn't known for lending much respect to the Baha'is. Is this the one you read Jeff? -- Tomhab 21:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't that reference. I did some quick searching, and I can't find it. Once I do I'll post it here. -- Jeff3000 23:41, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)