1627:. 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.
1619:) 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.
1109:
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?
495:
269:
1756:
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.
666:
641:
368:
1863:. 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).
846:
856:
825:
559:
964:
946:
733:
712:
1728:
1038:
239:
1205:, 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.
549:
743:
528:
428:
486:
1055:
1707:
974:
1660:
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
1622:
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
1578:
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
1213:
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.
1139:
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.
1926:
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
1755:
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,
1566:
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
1293:
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
1298:
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
1785:
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
1558:
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
1345:
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
1664:
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
1108:
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
1346:
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.
1270:
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
1418:
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.
1623:
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
1392:
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
1594:
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
1450:
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.
1349:
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.
1644:
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
153:
1614:
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
1525:
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
190:
1043:
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
1567:
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.
1340:
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
1548:
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.
1491:
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.
351:
1252:
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.
147:
1960:
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.
2024:
1562:
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
1436:
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
1337:, 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.
623:
613:
2029:
2009:
1927:
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.
1183:
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.
1653:
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
1551:
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 @
2019:
280:
1165:
585:
230:
44:
1999:
1070:
1891:
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.
438:: 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.
2054:
918:
79:
2014:
1994:
1641:
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.
928:
882:
581:
572:
533:
1830:
It goes into extreme specifics about mundane, ordinary details and it reproduces the narrative style of the sources it relies on in many instances.
1299:
adherents of a minority religious group are more representative of Wikipidia's majority readership given Knowledge's clear position on this matter (
1248:. 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)
2069:
2004:
992:
499:
1833:
This article reads like it is based on primary, not secondary, sources and fails to adopt a consistent, neutral, and obective tone throughout.
2059:
2039:
1892:
807:
797:
85:
996:
890:
168:
1860:
1854:
1136:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
1089:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
135:
2064:
295:
2049:
2044:
1000:
765:
290:
1661:
of consistency in how such cases are approached; anything else would call into question the supposed NPOV of the Knowledge project.
991:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
1555:
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.
1280:
1276:
886:
406:
380:
1989:
1984:
1590:. Having a painting or drawing of either of them as the lead image of their respective articles is not the same as including a
987:
951:
769:
402:
398:
394:
390:
286:
99:
30:
1574:
is the central prophet of one of the world's predominant religions, just like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Zoroaster. However,
129:
2034:
894:
870:
830:
386:
104:
20:
468:
464:
1943:
1776:
1441:
773:
74:
125:
672:
646:
508:
332:
1329:. Hiding content seems to be generally discouraged, though this image doesn't fall under any of the cases under which
65:
175:
1932:
1607:
756:
717:
238:
185:
1579:
is also a part of Baháʼu'lláh's historical record, in addition to being historically significant in its own right.
1161:
article, where the lead image is (currently) of calligraphy, with depictions of the prophet further down the page.
268:
1559:
this context such that differential treatment afforded to one of their articles should be percieved as arbitrary.
1505:
I fail to see the particular importance of that difference. Every prophet I can think of off the top of my head (
1066:
450:
1761:
249:
1896:
1772:
1437:
1240:
article because I had (perhaps wrongly?) assumed that a primary factor in the consensus there was to minimize
1135:
The older consensus from 2005-ish is in a variety of old archives that are hard to search. The latest RfC was
1734:
1616:
109:
1928:
1757:
285:, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
1965:
1906:
If you'd rather not see the image, there are instructions at the top of the page explaining how to do so.
1771:
I agree, honestly, but standing precedent means the best we can hope for is an option to hide the image.
1470:
1219:
1125:
589:
141:
1942:
If you would like to hide the image (for yourself), there are instructions at the top of the page or at
1342:
1300:
514:
443:
1571:
1473:? I am neither Bahá'í nor Muslim, but the current state of both articles seems like a double standard.
1180:
1086:
577:
24:
367:
1677:
1535:
1478:
1257:
1188:
1173:
1169:
677:
651:
454:
to modify your personal CSS stylesheet (if no page is there already, just go ahead and create a page)
485:
1875:
1807:
1792:
1457:
1210:
1166:
Knowledge:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images#Question_2:_What_image_should_appear_in_the_infobox?
1147:
161:
55:
1839:
1628:
1492:
1325:
I'm wondering other editors' thoughts on making the lead image collapsible. We could do this with
1307:
1951:
1936:
1911:
1599:
I am arguing that it is significant enough that the double standard you mentioned does not exist.
1379:
1227:
254:
70:
1669:
concerns were not given much consideration, or at least not as much as in the Muhammad article.
1286:
a "typical Knowledge reader" is defined by the cultural beliefs of the majority of the website
1961:
1843:
1632:
1496:
1311:
1121:
1082:
51:
979:
251:
1969:
1955:
1915:
1900:
1880:
1868:
So yes, I agree, and I have a huge stack of sources to work with, but it would take days.
1847:
1812:
1795:
1780:
1765:
1681:
1636:
1539:
1500:
1482:
1460:
1445:
1427:
1405:
1383:
1367:
1358:
1326:
1315:
1261:
1231:
1192:
1152:
1129:
861:
564:
580:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the
1869:
1801:
1787:
1624:
1452:
1420:
1398:
1351:
1215:
1141:
1176:
but looking at the RFC I am personally not convinced consensus actually existed there.
576:, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the
1978:
1947:
1907:
1552:
1375:
1272:
1245:
1223:
1113:
1334:
1330:
1487:
Not that there would be any problem with replacing the current lead image for the
1827:
Is it just me, or does this article read differently from others on Knowledge?
1706:
760:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to
748:
963:
945:
855:
665:
640:
558:
1673:
1531:
1474:
1253:
1184:
1179:
Regardless, my firm opinion (as a non-religious person, mind you) is that the
969:
851:
738:
554:
1517:, …) has a depiction of them as the lead image for their article, except for
1666:
1650:
1506:
1333:
forbids making images collapsible so I think it's worth considering. As per
1249:
1241:
845:
824:
374:
1800:
I agree, removing or collapsing the image is not an option for Knowledge.
881:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
732:
711:
1611:
1583:
1545:
1522:
1518:
1488:
1466:
1374:
it should be used—but I was curious and tried it. It didn't work for me.
1237:
1198:
1158:
877:
1582:
To approach this from another direction, we can compare the articles of
1116:, lead images should be selected "with care", and we are encouraged to "
1602:
I would also go as far as to argue that the current lead image for the
548:
527:
253:
1157:
I don't see how this case is particularly different from that of the
1201:
wasn't closed correctly, there's nothing that can be done about it
999:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
1603:
1587:
1514:
1510:
1465:
Are you then in favor of replacing the current lead image for the
1218:, articles are going to differ based on how each discussion goes,
1290:(not active editors) that are literate in an article's language.
761:
1722:
1049:
1032:
479:
422:
255:
15:
1370:
be used in this way? I'm on the fence (and leaning against)
1118:
avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there
289:. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
584:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
1521:. It does not seem to me that the lack of a depiction of
1859:
This article was re-written in December 2021, discussed
1094:
1090:
1061:
764:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please
344:
325:
1786:
that with neutrality would rapidly become impossible.
160:
1120:, which could in turn, be applied to this situation.
373:
Facts from this article were featured on Knowledge's
1281:
Knowledge:Manual_of_Style/Images#cite_note-typical-1
1244:
and to follow the "selected with care" criterion in
1172:
allude that the calligraphy image was the result of
299:
of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
1610:is more analagous to the current lead image of the
1544:As I stated earlier, I'm not opposed to seeing the
457:Click the edit button, and add the following line:
1164:The RFC for the Muhammad article lead image is at
1294:emphasis because its readers (but again, not the
1277:Knowledge:Manual_of_Style/Images#Offensive_images
675:, a project which is currently considered to be
588:. If you are new to editing Knowledge visit the
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
875:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on
1719:Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2023
1672:PS: Woodroar's comment was posted after mine.
1197:Respectfully, if you believe that the RFC at
174:
8:
2010:Knowledge level-4 vital articles in People
1696:
940:
819:
706:
635:
522:
304:
263:
1321:Thoughts on making the image collapsible?
1170:Talk:Muhammad/images#Portrait_of_Mohammed
1710:An example caption for an example image.
1705:
1209:Instead, there was a rich tradition of
942:
821:
708:
637:
592:to become familiar with the guidelines.
524:
483:
1858:
459:.page-Baháʼu_lláh img {display: none;}
1657:analogous to a depiction of Muhammad.
281:Philosophy and religion good articles
7:
2025:Top-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
985:This article is within the scope of
867:This article is within the scope of
754:This article is within the scope of
671:This article is within the scope of
570:This article is within the scope of
513:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
2000:Knowledge vital articles in People
1649:, I was under the assumption that
598:Knowledge:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith
14:
2055:High-importance Religion articles
2030:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
601:Template:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith
2015:C-Class vital articles in People
1995:Knowledge level-4 vital articles
1726:
1053:
1036:
972:
962:
944:
854:
844:
823:
768:where you can contribute to the
741:
731:
710:
664:
639:
557:
547:
526:
493:
484:
426:
366:
267:
237:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1646:
1608:The Christ Pantocrator of Sinai
1527:
1009:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
923:This article has been rated as
802:This article has been rated as
618:This article has been rated as
2070:WikiProject Biography articles
2005:C-Class level-4 vital articles
1836:I'd say it needs an overhaul.
1406:20:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
1384:19:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
1359:18:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
1012:Template:WikiProject Biography
903:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion
1:
2060:WikiProject Religion articles
2020:C-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
1944:Help:Options to hide an image
1916:16:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
1901:13:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
1540:14:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
1501:16:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
1483:06:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
1469:article with one of the many
1262:16:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
1232:22:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
1193:14:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
1153:21:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
1130:21:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
906:Template:WikiProject Religion
42:Put new text under old text.
2040:Mid-importance Iran articles
1813:21:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
1796:17:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
1781:02:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1766:01:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1682:09:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
1461:17:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
1446:02:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1428:17:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
1316:05:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
997:contribute to the discussion
687:Knowledge:WikiProject Babism
1881:19:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
1848:04:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
1749:to reactivate your request.
1737:has been answered. Set the
1647:Talk:Baháʼu'lláh#Lead_image
1637:04:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
1528:Talk:Baháʼu'lláh#Lead_image
690:Template:WikiProject Babism
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2086:
2065:C-Class biography articles
1956:15:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
1937:07:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
1853:Reposting my comment from
1397:question is a moot point.
929:project's importance scale
808:project's importance scale
782:Knowledge:WikiProject Iran
624:project's importance scale
293:. Editors may also seek a
2050:C-Class Religion articles
2045:WikiProject Iran articles
1970:14:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
1214:Because of policies like
1093:; for its talk page, see
957:
922:
839:
801:
785:Template:WikiProject Iran
726:
659:
617:
542:
521:
413:
352:Good article reassessment
307:
303:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
893:standards, or visit the
573:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith
1990:C-Class vital articles
1985:Delisted good articles
1922:Picture of Baha'u'llah
1887:Picture of Baha’u’llah
1711:
1471:Depictions of Muhammad
1236:I only brought up the
471:to save the preference
75:avoid personal attacks
2035:C-Class Iran articles
1709:
988:WikiProject Biography
604:Bahá'í Faith articles
500:level-4 vital article
416:Delisted good article
287:good article criteria
231:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1921:
1617:Christ, the Redeemer
1081:. Its contents were
1077:with a consensus to
871:WikiProject Religion
333:Good article nominee
105:No original research
1823:Tone and Neutrality
1773:Education-over-easy
1438:Education-over-easy
1211:Islamic calligraphy
1712:
1700:An example image.
1570:As you mentioned,
1065:was nominated for
1015:biography articles
883:assess and improve
772:and help with our
673:WikiProject Babism
509:content assessment
308:Article milestones
86:dispute resolution
47:
1793:talk and coffee ☕
1753:
1752:
1716:
1715:
1458:talk and coffee ☕
1101:
1100:
1048:
1047:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1022:
939:
938:
935:
934:
909:Religion articles
897:for more details.
818:
817:
814:
813:
705:
704:
701:
700:
634:
633:
630:
629:
478:
477:
444:create an account
421:
420:
387:November 12, 2005
361:
360:
262:
261:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2077:
1929:Dariush.farrokhi
1878:
1810:
1758:Napoleondehuette
1744:
1740:
1730:
1729:
1723:
1697:
1424:
1402:
1355:
1150:
1075:12 February 2021
1057:
1056:
1050:
1040:
1039:
1033:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1010:
1007:
993:join the project
982:
980:Biography portal
977:
976:
975:
966:
959:
958:
948:
941:
911:
910:
907:
904:
901:
895:wikiproject page
864:
859:
858:
848:
841:
840:
835:
827:
820:
790:
789:
786:
783:
780:
766:join the project
757:WikiProject Iran
751:
746:
745:
744:
735:
728:
727:
722:
714:
707:
695:
694:
691:
688:
685:
668:
661:
660:
655:
643:
636:
606:
605:
602:
599:
596:
567:
562:
561:
551:
544:
543:
538:
530:
523:
506:
497:
496:
489:
488:
480:
460:
436:Important notice
430:
429:
423:
414:Current status:
370:
347:
328:
305:
271:
264:
256:
242:
241:
232:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2085:
2084:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2076:
2075:
2074:
1975:
1974:
1924:
1893:104.247.231.251
1889:
1876:
1825:
1808:
1742:
1738:
1727:
1721:
1422:
1400:
1368:Template:Hidden
1353:
1327:Template:Hidden
1323:
1220:and that's okay
1148:
1106:
1054:
1037:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1005:
1004:
978:
973:
971:
925:High-importance
908:
905:
902:
899:
898:
862:Religion portal
860:
853:
834:High‑importance
833:
787:
784:
781:
778:
777:
747:
742:
740:
720:
693:Babism articles
692:
689:
686:
683:
682:
649:
603:
600:
597:
594:
593:
565:Religion portal
563:
556:
536:
507:on Knowledge's
504:
494:
474:
470:
466:
465:Publish changes
458:
427:
343:
324:
277:was one of the
258:
257:
252:
229:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2083:
2081:
2073:
2072:
2067:
2062:
2057:
2052:
2047:
2042:
2037:
2032:
2027:
2022:
2017:
2012:
2007:
2002:
1997:
1992:
1987:
1977:
1976:
1973:
1972:
1958:
1923:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1888:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1866:
1824:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1790:
1751:
1750:
1731:
1720:
1717:
1714:
1713:
1702:
1701:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1670:
1662:
1658:
1642:
1625:Sun Myung Moon
1620:
1600:
1580:
1568:
1560:
1556:
1549:
1455:
1448:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1387:
1386:
1343:WP:NOTCENSORED
1322:
1319:
1305:
1304:
1301:WP:NOTCENSORED
1291:
1284:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1177:
1168:. Comments in
1162:
1155:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1073:was closed on
1071:The discussion
1058:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1029:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1018:
984:
983:
967:
955:
954:
949:
937:
936:
933:
932:
921:
915:
914:
912:
866:
865:
849:
837:
836:
828:
816:
815:
812:
811:
804:Mid-importance
800:
794:
793:
791:
753:
752:
736:
724:
723:
721:Mid‑importance
715:
703:
702:
699:
698:
696:
669:
657:
656:
644:
632:
631:
628:
627:
620:Top-importance
616:
610:
609:
607:
569:
568:
552:
540:
539:
537:Top‑importance
531:
519:
518:
512:
490:
476:
475:
473:
472:
461:
455:
446:
433:
431:
419:
418:
411:
410:
407:April 21, 2021
403:April 21, 2017
399:April 21, 2016
395:April 21, 2013
391:April 21, 2011
381:On this day...
371:
363:
362:
359:
358:
355:
348:
345:March 17, 2023
340:
339:
336:
329:
321:
320:
317:
314:
310:
309:
301:
300:
272:
260:
259:
250:
248:
247:
244:
243:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2082:
2071:
2068:
2066:
2063:
2061:
2058:
2056:
2053:
2051:
2048:
2046:
2043:
2041:
2038:
2036:
2033:
2031:
2028:
2026:
2023:
2021:
2018:
2016:
2013:
2011:
2008:
2006:
2003:
2001:
1998:
1996:
1993:
1991:
1988:
1986:
1983:
1982:
1980:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1886:
1882:
1879:
1873:
1872:
1867:
1864:
1862:
1856:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1834:
1831:
1828:
1822:
1814:
1811:
1805:
1804:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1794:
1791:
1788:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1748:
1745:parameter to
1736:
1732:
1725:
1724:
1718:
1708:
1704:
1703:
1699:
1698:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1668:
1663:
1659:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1643:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1621:
1618:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1598:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1554:
1550:
1547:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1459:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1429:
1426:
1425:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1407:
1404:
1403:
1396:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1357:
1356:
1347:
1344:
1338:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1320:
1318:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1302:
1297:
1292:
1289:
1285:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1273:MOS:LEADIMAGE
1269:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1246:MOS:LEADIMAGE
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1175:
1174:WP:CONACHIEVE
1171:
1167:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1145:
1144:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:MOS:LEADIMAGE
1112:According to
1110:
1103:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1052:
1051:
1042:
1035:
1034:
1019:
1002:
1001:documentation
998:
994:
990:
989:
981:
970:
968:
965:
961:
960:
956:
953:
950:
947:
943:
930:
926:
920:
917:
916:
913:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
879:
874:
873:
872:
863:
857:
852:
850:
847:
843:
842:
838:
832:
829:
826:
822:
809:
805:
799:
796:
795:
792:
788:Iran articles
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
758:
750:
739:
737:
734:
730:
729:
725:
719:
716:
713:
709:
697:
680:
679:
674:
670:
667:
663:
662:
658:
653:
648:
645:
642:
638:
625:
621:
615:
612:
611:
608:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
574:
566:
560:
555:
553:
550:
546:
545:
541:
535:
532:
529:
525:
520:
516:
510:
502:
501:
491:
487:
482:
481:
462:
456:
453:
452:
447:
445:
441:
440:
439:
437:
432:
425:
424:
417:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
382:
376:
372:
369:
365:
364:
356:
354:
353:
349:
346:
342:
341:
337:
335:
334:
330:
327:
323:
322:
318:
315:
312:
311:
306:
302:
298:
297:
292:
288:
284:
283:
282:
276:
273:
270:
266:
265:
246:
245:
240:
236:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1962:Unpicked6291
1925:
1890:
1870:
1838:
1835:
1832:
1829:
1826:
1802:
1754:
1746:
1735:edit request
1654:
1596:
1591:
1575:
1563:
1421:
1399:
1394:
1371:
1364:
1352:
1348:
1339:
1335:MOS:DONTHIDE
1331:MOS:DONTHIDE
1324:
1306:
1295:
1287:
1206:
1202:
1142:
1122:Bettydaisies
1117:
1111:
1107:
1078:
1074:
1060:
986:
924:
885:articles to
876:
869:
868:
803:
755:
676:
619:
595:Bahá'í Faith
590:welcome page
582:project page
578:Baháʼí Faith
571:
534:Bahá'í Faith
515:WikiProjects
498:
469:Publish page
449:
435:
434:
415:
378:
350:
331:
326:June 6, 2012
296:reassessment
294:
279:
278:
274:
234:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1855:August 2023
1572:Baháʼu'lláh
1279:, which in
1181:Baháʼu'lláh
1091:its history
1087:Baháʼu'lláh
1062:Lawh-i-Tibb
770:discussions
749:Iran portal
442:Sign in or
291:renominated
275:Baháʼu'lláh
148:free images
31:not a forum
25:Baháʼu'lláh
1979:Categories
1946:. Cheers!
1739:|answered=
1592:photograph
1283:clarifies:
1207:650 years!
1104:Lead image
774:open tasks
586:discussion
385:column on
1667:MOS:SHOCK
1651:MOS:SHOCK
1606:article,
1507:Zoroaster
1423:Gazelle55
1401:Gazelle55
1354:Gazelle55
1296:website's
1275:links to
1250:MOS:SHOCK
1242:MOS:SHOCK
1006:Biography
952:Biography
503:is rated
451:this link
448:Click on
375:Main Page
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1948:Woodroar
1908:Woodroar
1612:Muhammad
1584:Muhammad
1553:Woodroar
1546:Muhammad
1523:Muhammad
1519:Muhammad
1489:Muhammad
1467:Muhammad
1376:Woodroar
1238:Muhammad
1224:Woodroar
1199:Muhammad
1159:Muhammad
1067:deletion
900:Religion
878:Religion
831:Religion
678:inactive
652:inactive
357:Delisted
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1840:Image24
1629:Image24
1493:Image24
1308:Image24
1288:readers
1216:WP:CONS
927:on the
806:on the
622:on the
505:C-class
377:in the
316:Process
235:90 days
154:WP refs
142:scholar
1871:Cuñado
1803:Cuñado
1789:Maxx-♥
1576:unlike
1454:Maxx-♥
1143:Cuñado
1083:merged
1044:first.
684:Babism
647:Babism
511:scale.
463:Click
405:, and
338:Listed
319:Result
126:Google
1743:|ans=
1733:This
1674:Imyxh
1604:Jesus
1588:Jesus
1532:Imyxh
1515:Jesus
1511:Moses
1475:Imyxh
1254:Imyxh
1185:Imyxh
1085:into
1079:merge
492:This
191:Index
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1966:talk
1952:talk
1933:talk
1912:talk
1897:talk
1877:Talk
1874:☼ -
1861:here
1844:talk
1809:Talk
1806:☼ -
1777:talk
1762:talk
1678:talk
1655:very
1633:talk
1586:and
1536:talk
1497:talk
1479:talk
1442:talk
1380:talk
1312:talk
1258:talk
1228:talk
1203:here
1189:talk
1149:Talk
1146:☼ -
1137:here
1126:talk
1095:here
995:and
919:High
889:and
887:good
779:Iran
762:Iran
718:Iran
313:Date
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1857:: "
1741:or
1597:and
1564:and
1365:Can
1069:.
891:1.0
798:Mid
614:Top
467:or
176:TWL
1981::
1968:)
1954:)
1935:)
1914:)
1899:)
1846:)
1779:)
1764:)
1747:no
1680:)
1635:)
1538:)
1530:.
1513:,
1509:,
1499:)
1481:)
1444:)
1395:if
1382:)
1372:if
1314:)
1303:).
1260:)
1230:)
1222:.
1191:)
1128:)
401:,
397:,
393:,
389:,
233::
225:,
221:,
217:,
213:,
209:,
205:,
201:,
197:,
193:,
156:)
54:;
1964:(
1950:(
1931:(
1910:(
1895:(
1865:"
1842:(
1775:(
1760:(
1676:(
1631:(
1534:(
1495:(
1477:(
1440:(
1378:(
1310:(
1256:(
1226:(
1187:(
1124:(
1097:.
1003:.
931:.
810:.
776:.
681:.
654:)
650:(
626:.
517::
409:.
383:"
379:"
227:9
223:8
219:7
215:6
211:5
207:4
203:3
199:2
195:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.