1638:. I think those religious arguments, are much more coherent and reasonable than the well-meaning, but ultimately groundless, attempts by non-adherents of those faiths to frame this as anything more than that. On this talk page, there are frequent, periodic calls for Knowledge editors to treat the reverence Baháʼís hold towards the sacred images of their Prophet with respect and understanding. They ask that others empathize with them because of the shock and distress these images can cause them, and seek compassion on that basis. They, unlike you, have not failed to grasp that this is not an exercise in dispassionately balancing oppposing interests, focused only on apparent evenness and compromise. They understand that this discussion will always implicate deeply-held convictions that require us to try to understand each other. This isn't about tallying up some measure of fairness, or about avoiding double standards, it's about conflicting views on how much deference Knowledge should afford perspectives that differ from the values that animate it as an independent and collective project.
1630:) says just as much, if not more, about Christians as it does about their prophet as he existed historically. The same goes for the decision to depict Muhammad through a calligraphic representation of his name. It represents Muhammad and the perspective his adherents hold towards him just as much as an imagistic depiction of him would. The choices we make about how we should best represent those prophets can never be divorced from ideology; any position take will inevitably be a religious or even political one. The decision to include the photograph of Baháʼu'lláh is also ideological and I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise. Rather, the argument is that the choice to privilege historical accuracy, objectivity, and neutrality in the face of censorship attempts leaves us in a position that better accords with the ideology that animates the Knowledge project.
1120:
constitute a large audience - since Baha'is (like me, lol), by strict religious custom, are only meant to view Baháʼu'lláh's photograph in Haifa (this is based on my general knowledge and obviously the knowledge of the propagators of the previous consensus, I'm funnily enough having trouble finding sources for this because the same photograph keeps popping up alongside the google results.) Since
Knowledge is meant as an informative, encyclopedic source, isn't it oxymoronic to alienate a population of readers as a result of its lead image?
506:
280:
1767:
and by placing it on the
Knowledge page it opens it up to online desecration through photoshopping and idolatry. The Baha'i Faith has very similar rules about depictions of religious figures to Islam, and this matter is nearly identical to not having illustrations of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) on his Knowledge page. I am asking you to remove it out of respect for Baha'u'llah and his followers worldwide. Thank you.
677:
652:
379:
1874:. All three editors commenting on the proposal noted that the re-write has a neutrality problem and it needs further work. The lead was re-written but I think everyone currently active would agree that most of the article needs NPOV improvement... The article should present the subject with the weight found in modern reliable sources (independent experts that have done the synthesis of the primary sources).
857:
867:
836:
570:
975:
957:
744:
723:
1739:
1049:
250:
1216:, on this Talk page. If you're looking for consistency by removing the image in this article instead, well, I don't know what else anyone can say. Yes, the prohibitions against imagery is somewhat similar, but a biographical subject whose photo was taken within their lifetime is, to me, different from a biographical subject with no extant images for at least 650 years after their death.
560:
754:
539:
439:
497:
1066:
1718:
985:
1671:
To be clear, my take on the issue is this: indeed, this is a question about how much deference (or accommodation) Knowledge should afford minority perspectives—it is a case of a lead image with potential shock value for those minorities. I don't believe it's unreasonable to try to maintain some level
1633:
There is an obvious reason why the vast majority of biographical articles on
Knowledge include photographs of their subjects when they are available. The fact that Baháʼu'lláh was a signficiant religious and historical figure who lived during the time of early photography should be more, not less, of
1589:
these prophets, Baháʼu'lláh lived close enough to our time that we have extant photographs of him. This cannot be said to be a depiction of a prophet in the same way that any of the lead images, or any of their proposed alternatives, in any of the articles you mentioned can be because it is more — it
1224:
tied with the Qur'an. You could also consider the case of Jesus, where we have images from "only" 200 years after his death, plus there's a rich tradition of pumping out portraits of all kinds. You can draw parallels between all of them, but the reality is that there's no apples-to-apples comparison.
1150:
from
December 2022. It was confused by a particular editor thinking that Baha'is were trying to impose censorship. I think there's a good argument to move the photo to the first section instead of infobox, but that would have to be another RfC, and the article needs an overhaul to improve NPOV first.
1937:
Bahá’ís prefer not to have the picture of Baha’u’llah displayed in public. Bahais will display the picture of Abdul Baha, Baha’u’llah’s son and the perfect exemplar of the Baha’i Faith in their homes but not the picture of Baha’u’llah. Bahá’ís are asked to treat the image of any
Manifestation of God
1766:
Hello, I am a Baha'i and am humbling requesting that the photograph of Baha'u'llah be removed from the page, or at least put towards the bottom with a disclaimer. It is currently there as a portrait. Baha'u'llah's photograph is considered sacred to us and only to be viewed in a setting of reverence,
1577:
Bahá'ís object to depictions of their prophet. Even if I accepted that this discrepancy was unfair, and to be clear, I don't, I would still think that the solution to this double standard would be to add a lead image of
Muhammad to his Knowledge article instead of change this one. I'd sooner remove
1304:
Again, it's hard to see how the majority of the
English-speaking readers of a website devoted to the dissemination of free information would share the cultural beliefs of a minority religious group that drive them to call for its censorship. What is more likely is that this issue has received undue
1309:
readers, as it has been defined) and editors are more likely to belong to a minority group whose cultural beliefs diverge from the majority's, thus biasing the discussion and giving the illusion that this is a balanced debate. It's frankly absurd to think that the censorship preferences of certain
1796:
Removing the image in question based on its religious significance to certain people would violate the principle of neutrality that
Knowledge seeks to uphold. Knowledge refrains from censoring its content in favour of any specific faith. Removing content that people find offensive while balancing
1569:
I was responding, very specifically, to the statement you made about the current state of the articles concerning
Muhammad and Baháʼu'lláh seeming like a double standard. My point was that it is not a double standard because these two prophets are not completely similar in the aspects relevant to
1356:
while still allowing readers who don't want to view the image to hide it after seeing it for a short time. There have been a lot of talk page complaints which, while not strong from the perspective of our encyclopedic policies and guidelines, do show the demand for an option to stop viewing the
1675:
Lastly, I know I have made it seem like I am an outsider playing white knight on this issue for no reason. Perhaps that is true to some extent, but I only opened this talk page because I used to be Bahá’í and seeing the lead image did indeed shock me. I was then bothered because it seemed that
1119:
Was there ever a proper RfC/consensus on changing the lead image to a picture of Baháʼu'lláh? Obviously
Knowledge policies of lead images should be incorporated into this, but I'd like to stress that it makes it incredibly difficult for Baha'is to edit/view the page - of which they most likely
1357:
images. I'm aware that users can create an account and add code to block images on their CSS page, or configure to block images on Knowledge, etc., but those options are all cumbersome and it's doubtful that most readers even know how to do these things or will take the time to find out.
1281:
It's hard to see how the typical Knowledge reader would not expect to see an image of the subject of an article on a person in the lead. That is typically where such images go on the majority of articles where images are available. The phrase you cite— "selected with care" in
1429:
This is the best syntax I can find (see the result on the right). It works (at least on my computer), but I can't get it to display properly within an infobox. Unless another editor has an idea for how this might work on the technical side, I think my proposal is irrelevant.
1634:
a reason to include the photograph as a lead image. The only reason this is even a debate is because certain religious dictates militate that there should be one. That is why we are having this discussion here, instead of also over on the talk page for
1403:
Hmm, it doesn't seem to work - you're right. I also looked at some other related templates and I can't find any that would collapse an image or a gallery. I can look a bit further for syntax options another day soon, but if it isn't possible then the
1605:
of Baháʼu'lláh. We do not have pictures of those prophets and, unlike Baháʼu'lláh, we do not know what they actually look like. I am arguing that this is significant enough to warrant the inclusion of this photograph as the lead image of the article
1461:
I am opposed, as this, no matter how well-meaning, is against the spirit of Knowledge not being censored. This is merely censorship in velvet. Knowledge offers a solution to people who do not wish to view images. They can either take it or leave it.
1360:
There have been a lot of editors and individuals from outside the site's editor base who have talked about this issue on the talk page, so I won't ping any specific editors, but I'm interested to know whether others think this would be a good idea.
1655:
Regardless, I think we're focusing on different metrics when arguing about whether this is a double standard. I agree that at face value a photograph of Baháʼu'lláh is very different from a depiction of Muhammad. However, as I mentioned under
164:
1625:
article than it is to the current lead image of this one. This is because the Christ Pantocrator is an icon, not just a painting; the decision to write Jesus in this manner (as contrasted with, for example, writing him as
1536:
as the lead image for his article is because there are no photographs taken of him while he was living. Regardless, I apologize for bringing up this point in the section about collapsability; I'll move this to
201:
1054:
Following extensive discussion in 2022 there is a consensus to including the given name in the lead and the photograph at the top of the article. Please do not remove either without generating a new consensus
1578:
the likeness of any prophet that came before Baháʼu'lláh from the lead image of their Knowledge article than I would remove the image of Baháʼu'lláh or any religious figures that came after him from theirs.
1351:
I wasn't a part of the extensive recent discussion that led to the consensus to include the image at the top but I generally agree with what was decided. What I'm proposing here is a way that we can uphold
1559:
article altered to bring it in line with the editorial conventions of other articles on Prophets, but that is not relevant; this talk page is not the forum for a discussion about another article.
1502:
article, but you've failed to take into account the difference between a depiction of a prophet created created after they have died and a photograph of a prophet taken while they were livng.
362:
1263:
somehow does not apply to cases like these, or (2) there is no suitable alternative for a lead image with less shock value. In these possibilities I accept that the lead image should remain.
158:
1971:
Having a photo of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá as the main image for an article about Baháʼu'lláh doesn't really make much sense. You can just do what Woodroar said and hide the image for yourself.
2035:
1573:
From what I understand, you were saying that it does not seem fair that only one of the Knowledge articles accords to the preferences of a religious minority when both Muslims
1447:
I am in favor of this idea. This, combined with maybe making the depiction of Baha'u'llah the second image on the article, would serve to almost entirely solve the controversy
1348:, the image would still be displayed by default and readers would have to click "Hide" for it to disappear, after which they could click "Show" to make it reappear if desired.
634:
624:
2040:
2020:
1938:
with extreme reverence. It is for this reason we could replacing the picture of Baha’u’llah with Abd'u'lbaha. It maybe a picture of Abdul Baha would be better than a blank.
1194:
and Muhammad articles should be consistent with one another in terms of depictions as the lead image. Baháʼu'lláh is even mentioned in discussions on the Muhammad article.
1664:
was the primary factor in the consensus regarding the lead image for the Muhammad article. And in terms of potential shock value, I think a photograph of Baháʼu'lláh is
1562:
The distinction I pointed out is relevant and important. Frankly, I'm struggling to understand how you "fail to see the particular importance of that difference" when @
2030:
291:
1176:
596:
241:
55:
2010:
1081:
1902:
It was my understanding that to view a picture of Baha’u’llah, one needed to make a pilgrimage to Haifa. Only pictures of Abdul’Baha were shown publicly.
449:: If you do not wish to view images of Bahá'u'lláh, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Knowledge settings not to display them.
2065:
929:
90:
2025:
2005:
1652:
I can't tell if you are angry at me or just being candid. I apologize for the tone in my previous comments being a little blunt—that was not intended.
939:
893:
592:
583:
544:
1841:
It goes into extreme specifics about mundane, ordinary details and it reproduces the narrative style of the sources it relies on in many instances.
1310:
adherents of a minority religious group are more representative of Wikipidia's majority readership given Knowledge's clear position on this matter (
1259:. In that respect the two articles are perfectly similar and that's why I believed the precedent to be relevant. Of course, it is possible that (1)
2080:
2015:
1003:
510:
1844:
This article reads like it is based on primary, not secondary, sources and fails to adopt a consistent, neutral, and obective tone throughout.
2070:
2050:
1903:
818:
808:
96:
1007:
901:
179:
1871:
1865:
1147:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
1100:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
146:
2075:
306:
2060:
2055:
1011:
776:
301:
1672:
of consistency in how such cases are approached; anything else would call into question the supposed NPOV of the Knowledge project.
1002:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
1566:
explained it to you so clearly and cogently, but I'll try my best to explain it again because maybe my position was not so clear.
1291:
1287:
897:
417:
391:
2000:
1995:
1601:. Having a painting or drawing of either of them as the lead image of their respective articles is not the same as including a
998:
962:
780:
413:
409:
405:
401:
297:
110:
41:
1585:
is the central prophet of one of the world's predominant religions, just like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Zoroaster. However,
140:
2045:
905:
881:
841:
397:
115:
31:
479:
475:
1954:
1787:
1452:
784:
85:
136:
683:
657:
519:
343:
1340:. Hiding content seems to be generally discouraged, though this image doesn't fall under any of the cases under which
76:
186:
1943:
1618:
767:
728:
249:
196:
1590:
is also a part of Baháʼu'lláh's historical record, in addition to being historically significant in its own right.
1172:
article, where the lead image is (currently) of calligraphy, with depictions of the prophet further down the page.
279:
1570:
this context such that differential treatment afforded to one of their articles should be percieved as arbitrary.
1516:
I fail to see the particular importance of that difference. Every prophet I can think of off the top of my head (
1077:
461:
1772:
260:
1907:
1783:
1448:
1251:
article because I had (perhaps wrongly?) assumed that a primary factor in the consensus there was to minimize
1146:
The older consensus from 2005-ish is in a variety of old archives that are hard to search. The latest RfC was
1745:
1627:
120:
1939:
1768:
296:, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
1976:
1917:
If you'd rather not see the image, there are instructions at the top of the page explaining how to do so.
1782:
I agree, honestly, but standing precedent means the best we can hope for is an option to hide the image.
1481:
1230:
1136:
600:
152:
1953:
If you would like to hide the image (for yourself), there are instructions at the top of the page or at
1353:
1311:
525:
454:
1582:
1484:? I am neither Bahá'í nor Muslim, but the current state of both articles seems like a double standard.
1191:
1097:
588:
35:
378:
1688:
1546:
1489:
1268:
1199:
1184:
1180:
688:
662:
465:
to modify your personal CSS stylesheet (if no page is there already, just go ahead and create a page)
496:
1886:
1818:
1803:
1468:
1221:
1177:
Knowledge:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images#Question_2:_What_image_should_appear_in_the_infobox?
1158:
172:
66:
1850:
1639:
1503:
1336:
I'm wondering other editors' thoughts on making the lead image collapsible. We could do this with
1318:
1962:
1947:
1922:
1610:
I am arguing that it is significant enough that the double standard you mentioned does not exist.
1390:
1238:
265:
81:
1680:
concerns were not given much consideration, or at least not as much as in the Muhammad article.
1297:
a "typical Knowledge reader" is defined by the cultural beliefs of the majority of the website
1972:
1854:
1643:
1507:
1322:
1132:
1093:
62:
990:
262:
1980:
1966:
1926:
1911:
1891:
1879:
So yes, I agree, and I have a huge stack of sources to work with, but it would take days.
1858:
1823:
1806:
1791:
1776:
1692:
1647:
1550:
1511:
1493:
1471:
1456:
1438:
1416:
1394:
1378:
1369:
1337:
1326:
1272:
1242:
1203:
1163:
1140:
872:
575:
17:
591:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the
1880:
1812:
1798:
1635:
1463:
1431:
1409:
1362:
1226:
1152:
1187:
but looking at the RFC I am personally not convinced consensus actually existed there.
587:, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the
1989:
1958:
1918:
1563:
1386:
1283:
1256:
1234:
1124:
1345:
1341:
1498:
Not that there would be any problem with replacing the current lead image for the
1838:
Is it just me, or does this article read differently from others on Knowledge?
1717:
771:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to
759:
974:
956:
866:
676:
651:
569:
1684:
1542:
1485:
1264:
1195:
1190:
Regardless, my firm opinion (as a non-religious person, mind you) is that the
980:
862:
749:
565:
1528:, …) has a depiction of them as the lead image for their article, except for
1677:
1661:
1517:
1344:
forbids making images collapsible so I think it's worth considering. As per
1260:
1252:
856:
835:
385:
1811:
I agree, removing or collapsing the image is not an option for Knowledge.
892:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
743:
722:
1622:
1594:
1556:
1533:
1529:
1499:
1477:
1385:
it should be used—but I was curious and tried it. It didn't work for me.
1248:
1209:
1169:
888:
1593:
To approach this from another direction, we can compare the articles of
1127:, lead images should be selected "with care", and we are encouraged to "
1613:
I would also go as far as to argue that the current lead image for the
559:
538:
264:
1168:
I don't see how this case is particularly different from that of the
1212:
wasn't closed correctly, there's nothing that can be done about it
1010:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
1614:
1598:
1525:
1521:
1476:
Are you then in favor of replacing the current lead image for the
1229:, articles are going to differ based on how each discussion goes,
1301:(not active editors) that are literate in an article's language.
772:
1733:
1060:
1043:
490:
433:
266:
26:
1381:
be used in this way? I'm on the fence (and leaning against)
1129:
avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there
300:. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
595:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
1532:. It does not seem to me that the lack of a depiction of
1870:
This article was re-written in December 2021, discussed
1105:
1101:
1072:
775:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please
355:
336:
1797:
that with neutrality would rapidly become impossible.
171:
1131:, which could in turn, be applied to this situation.
384:
Facts from this article were featured on Knowledge's
1292:
Knowledge:Manual_of_Style/Images#cite_note-typical-1
1255:
and to follow the "selected with care" criterion in
1183:
allude that the calligraphy image was the result of
310:
of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
1621:is more analagous to the current lead image of the
1555:As I stated earlier, I'm not opposed to seeing the
468:Click the edit button, and add the following line:
1175:The RFC for the Muhammad article lead image is at
1305:emphasis because its readers (but again, not the
1288:Knowledge:Manual_of_Style/Images#Offensive_images
686:, a project which is currently considered to be
599:. If you are new to editing Knowledge visit the
44:for general discussion of the article's subject.
886:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on
1730:Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2023
1683:PS: Woodroar's comment was posted after mine.
1208:Respectfully, if you believe that the RFC at
185:
8:
2021:Knowledge level-4 vital articles in People
1707:
951:
830:
717:
646:
533:
315:
274:
1332:Thoughts on making the image collapsible?
1181:Talk:Muhammad/images#Portrait_of_Mohammed
1721:An example caption for an example image.
1716:
1220:Instead, there was a rich tradition of
953:
832:
719:
648:
603:to become familiar with the guidelines.
535:
494:
1869:
470:.page-Baháʼu_lláh img {display: none;}
1668:analogous to a depiction of Muhammad.
292:Philosophy and religion good articles
7:
2036:Top-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
996:This article is within the scope of
878:This article is within the scope of
765:This article is within the scope of
682:This article is within the scope of
581:This article is within the scope of
524:It is of interest to the following
34:for discussing improvements to the
2011:Knowledge vital articles in People
1660:, I was under the assumption that
609:Knowledge:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith
25:
2066:High-importance Religion articles
2041:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
612:Template:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith
2026:C-Class vital articles in People
2006:Knowledge level-4 vital articles
1737:
1064:
1047:
983:
973:
955:
865:
855:
834:
779:where you can contribute to the
752:
742:
721:
675:
650:
568:
558:
537:
504:
495:
437:
377:
278:
248:
56:Click here to start a new topic.
1657:
1619:The Christ Pantocrator of Sinai
1538:
1020:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
934:This article has been rated as
813:This article has been rated as
629:This article has been rated as
2081:WikiProject Biography articles
2016:C-Class level-4 vital articles
1847:I'd say it needs an overhaul.
1417:20:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
1395:19:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
1370:18:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
1023:Template:WikiProject Biography
914:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion
1:
2071:WikiProject Religion articles
2031:C-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
1955:Help:Options to hide an image
1927:16:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
1912:13:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
1551:14:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
1512:16:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
1494:06:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
1480:article with one of the many
1273:16:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
1243:22:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
1204:14:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
1164:21:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
1141:21:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
917:Template:WikiProject Religion
53:Put new text under old text.
2051:Mid-importance Iran articles
1824:21:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
1807:17:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
1792:02:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1777:01:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1693:09:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
1472:17:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
1457:02:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1439:17:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
1327:05:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
1008:contribute to the discussion
698:Knowledge:WikiProject Babism
1892:19:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
1859:04:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
1760:to reactivate your request.
1748:has been answered. Set the
1658:Talk:Baháʼu'lláh#Lead_image
1648:04:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
1539:Talk:Baháʼu'lláh#Lead_image
701:Template:WikiProject Babism
61:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2097:
2076:C-Class biography articles
1967:15:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
1948:07:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
1864:Reposting my comment from
1408:question is a moot point.
940:project's importance scale
819:project's importance scale
793:Knowledge:WikiProject Iran
635:project's importance scale
304:. Editors may also seek a
18:Talk:Bahá'u'lláh
2061:C-Class Religion articles
2056:WikiProject Iran articles
1981:14:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
1225:Because of policies like
1104:; for its talk page, see
968:
933:
850:
812:
796:Template:WikiProject Iran
737:
670:
628:
553:
532:
424:
363:Good article reassessment
318:
314:
91:Be welcoming to newcomers
904:standards, or visit the
584:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith
2001:C-Class vital articles
1996:Delisted good articles
1933:Picture of Baha'u'llah
1898:Picture of Baha’u’llah
1722:
1482:Depictions of Muhammad
1247:I only brought up the
482:to save the preference
86:avoid personal attacks
2046:C-Class Iran articles
1720:
999:WikiProject Biography
615:Bahá'í Faith articles
511:level-4 vital article
427:Delisted good article
298:good article criteria
242:Auto-archiving period
111:Neutral point of view
1932:
1628:Christ, the Redeemer
1092:. Its contents were
1088:with a consensus to
882:WikiProject Religion
344:Good article nominee
116:No original research
1834:Tone and Neutrality
1784:Education-over-easy
1449:Education-over-easy
1222:Islamic calligraphy
1723:
1711:An example image.
1581:As you mentioned,
1076:was nominated for
1026:biography articles
894:assess and improve
783:and help with our
684:WikiProject Babism
520:content assessment
319:Article milestones
97:dispute resolution
58:
1804:talk and coffee ☕
1764:
1763:
1727:
1726:
1469:talk and coffee ☕
1112:
1111:
1059:
1058:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1033:
950:
949:
946:
945:
920:Religion articles
908:for more details.
829:
828:
825:
824:
716:
715:
712:
711:
645:
644:
641:
640:
489:
488:
455:create an account
432:
431:
398:November 12, 2005
372:
371:
273:
272:
77:Assume good faith
54:
16:(Redirected from
2088:
1940:Dariush.farrokhi
1889:
1821:
1769:Napoleondehuette
1755:
1751:
1741:
1740:
1734:
1708:
1435:
1413:
1366:
1161:
1086:12 February 2021
1068:
1067:
1061:
1051:
1050:
1044:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1021:
1018:
1004:join the project
993:
991:Biography portal
988:
987:
986:
977:
970:
969:
959:
952:
922:
921:
918:
915:
912:
906:wikiproject page
875:
870:
869:
859:
852:
851:
846:
838:
831:
801:
800:
797:
794:
791:
777:join the project
768:WikiProject Iran
762:
757:
756:
755:
746:
739:
738:
733:
725:
718:
706:
705:
702:
699:
696:
679:
672:
671:
666:
654:
647:
617:
616:
613:
610:
607:
578:
573:
572:
562:
555:
554:
549:
541:
534:
517:
508:
507:
500:
499:
491:
471:
447:Important notice
441:
440:
434:
425:Current status:
381:
358:
339:
316:
282:
275:
267:
253:
252:
243:
190:
189:
175:
106:Article policies
27:
21:
2096:
2095:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2087:
2086:
2085:
1986:
1985:
1935:
1904:104.247.231.251
1900:
1887:
1836:
1819:
1753:
1749:
1738:
1732:
1433:
1411:
1379:Template:Hidden
1364:
1338:Template:Hidden
1334:
1231:and that's okay
1159:
1117:
1065:
1048:
1025:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1015:
989:
984:
982:
936:High-importance
919:
916:
913:
910:
909:
873:Religion portal
871:
864:
845:High‑importance
844:
798:
795:
792:
789:
788:
758:
753:
751:
731:
704:Babism articles
703:
700:
697:
694:
693:
660:
614:
611:
608:
605:
604:
576:Religion portal
574:
567:
547:
518:on Knowledge's
515:
505:
485:
481:
477:
476:Publish changes
469:
438:
354:
335:
288:was one of the
269:
268:
263:
240:
132:
127:
126:
125:
102:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2094:
2092:
2084:
2083:
2078:
2073:
2068:
2063:
2058:
2053:
2048:
2043:
2038:
2033:
2028:
2023:
2018:
2013:
2008:
2003:
1998:
1988:
1987:
1984:
1983:
1969:
1934:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1899:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1877:
1835:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1801:
1762:
1761:
1742:
1731:
1728:
1725:
1724:
1713:
1712:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1681:
1673:
1669:
1653:
1636:Sun Myung Moon
1631:
1611:
1591:
1579:
1571:
1567:
1560:
1466:
1459:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1398:
1397:
1354:WP:NOTCENSORED
1333:
1330:
1316:
1315:
1312:WP:NOTCENSORED
1302:
1295:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1188:
1179:. Comments in
1173:
1166:
1116:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1084:was closed on
1082:The discussion
1069:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1040:
1039:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1029:
995:
994:
978:
966:
965:
960:
948:
947:
944:
943:
932:
926:
925:
923:
877:
876:
860:
848:
847:
839:
827:
826:
823:
822:
815:Mid-importance
811:
805:
804:
802:
764:
763:
747:
735:
734:
732:Mid‑importance
726:
714:
713:
710:
709:
707:
680:
668:
667:
655:
643:
642:
639:
638:
631:Top-importance
627:
621:
620:
618:
580:
579:
563:
551:
550:
548:Top‑importance
542:
530:
529:
523:
501:
487:
486:
484:
483:
472:
466:
457:
444:
442:
430:
429:
422:
421:
418:April 21, 2021
414:April 21, 2017
410:April 21, 2016
406:April 21, 2013
402:April 21, 2011
392:On this day...
382:
374:
373:
370:
369:
366:
359:
356:March 17, 2023
351:
350:
347:
340:
332:
331:
328:
325:
321:
320:
312:
311:
283:
271:
270:
261:
259:
258:
255:
254:
192:
191:
129:
128:
124:
123:
118:
113:
104:
103:
101:
100:
93:
88:
79:
73:
71:
70:
59:
50:
49:
46:
45:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2093:
2082:
2079:
2077:
2074:
2072:
2069:
2067:
2064:
2062:
2059:
2057:
2054:
2052:
2049:
2047:
2044:
2042:
2039:
2037:
2034:
2032:
2029:
2027:
2024:
2022:
2019:
2017:
2014:
2012:
2009:
2007:
2004:
2002:
1999:
1997:
1994:
1993:
1991:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1897:
1893:
1890:
1884:
1883:
1878:
1875:
1873:
1867:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1845:
1842:
1839:
1833:
1825:
1822:
1816:
1815:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1805:
1802:
1799:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1759:
1756:parameter to
1747:
1743:
1736:
1735:
1729:
1719:
1715:
1714:
1710:
1709:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1679:
1674:
1670:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1654:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1632:
1629:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1609:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1470:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1407:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1358:
1355:
1349:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1331:
1329:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1313:
1308:
1303:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1284:MOS:LEADIMAGE
1280:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1257:MOS:LEADIMAGE
1254:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1186:
1185:WP:CONACHIEVE
1182:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1165:
1162:
1156:
1155:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1125:MOS:LEADIMAGE
1123:According to
1121:
1114:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1063:
1062:
1053:
1046:
1045:
1030:
1013:
1012:documentation
1009:
1005:
1001:
1000:
992:
981:
979:
976:
972:
971:
967:
964:
961:
958:
954:
941:
937:
931:
928:
927:
924:
907:
903:
899:
895:
891:
890:
885:
884:
883:
874:
868:
863:
861:
858:
854:
853:
849:
843:
840:
837:
833:
820:
816:
810:
807:
806:
803:
799:Iran articles
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
769:
761:
750:
748:
745:
741:
740:
736:
730:
727:
724:
720:
708:
691:
690:
685:
681:
678:
674:
673:
669:
664:
659:
656:
653:
649:
636:
632:
626:
623:
622:
619:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
585:
577:
571:
566:
564:
561:
557:
556:
552:
546:
543:
540:
536:
531:
527:
521:
513:
512:
502:
498:
493:
492:
473:
467:
464:
463:
458:
456:
452:
451:
450:
448:
443:
436:
435:
428:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
393:
387:
383:
380:
376:
375:
367:
365:
364:
360:
357:
353:
352:
348:
346:
345:
341:
338:
334:
333:
329:
326:
323:
322:
317:
313:
309:
308:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
287:
284:
281:
277:
276:
257:
256:
251:
247:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
198:
194:
193:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
131:
130:
122:
121:Verifiability
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
68:
64:
63:Learn to edit
60:
57:
52:
51:
48:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1973:Unpicked6291
1936:
1901:
1881:
1849:
1846:
1843:
1840:
1837:
1813:
1765:
1757:
1746:edit request
1665:
1607:
1602:
1586:
1574:
1432:
1410:
1405:
1382:
1375:
1363:
1359:
1350:
1346:MOS:DONTHIDE
1342:MOS:DONTHIDE
1335:
1317:
1306:
1298:
1217:
1213:
1153:
1133:Bettydaisies
1128:
1122:
1118:
1089:
1085:
1071:
997:
935:
896:articles to
887:
880:
879:
814:
766:
687:
630:
606:Bahá'í Faith
601:welcome page
593:project page
589:Baháʼí Faith
582:
545:Bahá'í Faith
526:WikiProjects
509:
480:Publish page
460:
446:
445:
426:
389:
361:
342:
337:June 6, 2012
307:reassessment
305:
290:
289:
285:
245:
195:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
105:
30:This is the
1866:August 2023
1583:Baháʼu'lláh
1290:, which in
1192:Baháʼu'lláh
1102:its history
1098:Baháʼu'lláh
1073:Lawh-i-Tibb
781:discussions
760:Iran portal
453:Sign in or
302:renominated
286:Baháʼu'lláh
159:free images
42:not a forum
36:Baháʼu'lláh
1990:Categories
1957:. Cheers!
1750:|answered=
1603:photograph
1294:clarifies:
1218:650 years!
1115:Lead image
785:open tasks
597:discussion
396:column on
1678:MOS:SHOCK
1662:MOS:SHOCK
1617:article,
1518:Zoroaster
1434:Gazelle55
1412:Gazelle55
1365:Gazelle55
1307:website's
1286:links to
1261:MOS:SHOCK
1253:MOS:SHOCK
1017:Biography
963:Biography
514:is rated
462:this link
459:Click on
386:Main Page
99:if needed
82:Be polite
32:talk page
1959:Woodroar
1919:Woodroar
1623:Muhammad
1595:Muhammad
1564:Woodroar
1557:Muhammad
1534:Muhammad
1530:Muhammad
1500:Muhammad
1478:Muhammad
1387:Woodroar
1249:Muhammad
1235:Woodroar
1210:Muhammad
1170:Muhammad
1078:deletion
911:Religion
889:Religion
842:Religion
689:inactive
663:inactive
368:Delisted
197:Archives
67:get help
40:This is
38:article.
1851:Image24
1640:Image24
1504:Image24
1319:Image24
1299:readers
1227:WP:CONS
938:on the
817:on the
633:on the
516:C-class
388:in the
327:Process
246:90 days
165:WP refs
153:scholar
1882:Cuñado
1814:Cuñado
1800:Maxx-♥
1587:unlike
1465:Maxx-♥
1154:Cuñado
1094:merged
1055:first.
695:Babism
658:Babism
522:scale.
474:Click
416:, and
349:Listed
330:Result
137:Google
1754:|ans=
1744:This
1685:Imyxh
1615:Jesus
1599:Jesus
1543:Imyxh
1526:Jesus
1522:Moses
1486:Imyxh
1265:Imyxh
1196:Imyxh
1096:into
1090:merge
503:This
202:Index
180:JSTOR
141:books
95:Seek
1977:talk
1963:talk
1944:talk
1923:talk
1908:talk
1888:Talk
1885:☼ -
1872:here
1855:talk
1820:Talk
1817:☼ -
1788:talk
1773:talk
1689:talk
1666:very
1644:talk
1597:and
1547:talk
1508:talk
1490:talk
1453:talk
1391:talk
1323:talk
1269:talk
1239:talk
1214:here
1200:talk
1160:Talk
1157:☼ -
1148:here
1137:talk
1106:here
1006:and
930:High
900:and
898:good
790:Iran
773:Iran
729:Iran
324:Date
173:FENS
147:news
84:and
1868:: "
1752:or
1608:and
1575:and
1376:Can
1080:.
902:1.0
809:Mid
625:Top
478:or
187:TWL
1992::
1979:)
1965:)
1946:)
1925:)
1910:)
1857:)
1790:)
1775:)
1758:no
1691:)
1646:)
1549:)
1541:.
1524:,
1520:,
1510:)
1492:)
1455:)
1406:if
1393:)
1383:if
1325:)
1314:).
1271:)
1241:)
1233:.
1202:)
1139:)
412:,
408:,
404:,
400:,
244::
236:,
232:,
228:,
224:,
220:,
216:,
212:,
208:,
204:,
167:)
65:;
1975:(
1961:(
1942:(
1921:(
1906:(
1876:"
1853:(
1786:(
1771:(
1687:(
1642:(
1545:(
1506:(
1488:(
1451:(
1389:(
1321:(
1267:(
1237:(
1198:(
1135:(
1108:.
1014:.
942:.
821:.
787:.
692:.
665:)
661:(
637:.
528::
420:.
394:"
390:"
238:9
234:8
230:7
226:6
222:5
218:4
214:3
210:2
206:1
199::
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
69:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.