Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive Picture

92:

offinsive to those of that Faith, unless we want to say Knowledge 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.

2416:

odd troll, my suggestion would be for those who want the picture off the upper corner of page to accept that such consensus is - at the moment - impossible to achieve - even when one discounts the trolling of one particular contributor, who might well end up being banned for good if his career continues in his usual disruptive ways. So my suggestion to those offended by the picture is to leave the picture where it is, in the upper corner, continue to build the article itself and not to sink into the abysses of a real edit war. The alternative is to call for comments via the RfC page and possibly even ask for an arbitration i.e. go down a more formal route - but be aware that such a route can usually be gone only once and a result would be binding - with little hope to convince people gradually and achieving a better result slowly and with time. This is easy for me to aks from you as I obviously am not offended by teh presence of the picture, but I still think it is sound advice

2501:

others because we are either oppressed by our Government that censors everything, or forcing the view that I need that information because it is vital to knowledge. I agree with the second thought, it is important for our knowledge, but must everything be available for the sake of Human Knowledge? Should we post the guidelines in Making Bombs and Dynamites "for the sake of improving the world" by giving in Information? Let us forget about bombs now. How would you like if the portrait of your dear one be portrayed badly? Although it is hard to understand why Baha'is really do not accept the portait to be posted within Knowledge, but the sensation of how Baha'is feel is similar to the feeling of having a portrait of your loved one be portrayed in a very poor manner. The only way we can solve this is to understand one another.

1043:

actually do dream of such day and they call it "the golden age" of their movement). Folks, wake up and smell the fresh coffee, this is year 2005 and we are well into the iformation age. The Internet was not invented by the Bahais, nor is it being sponsored by your Universal House of Justice (or lack thereof). Please do not abuse the open nature of the Internet, and in this particular case, the Knowledge project. If a place like Knowledge can be so "offensive" to you then simply limit yourselves to bahai sites. Using a metaphor, if a part of town is "bad" and "rough", and you are such a goody-goody, simply stay away from that neighbourhood. Don't go there and whine about why they don't live conformant with your rules and standards. --

1607:

there is a public domain photo of this man, and there is nothing wrong with that photo (other than the fact that the owner of the photo looks like Rasputin) and it is an authentic photo from the man's own passport. The bahais around here are saying that we don't want this photo in this article because our religious organization has told us that we must only view it with "reverence" !!! this is such a stupid argument it is actually entertaining. What if next, some religious muslim says my religion tells me unveiled female picutures are illicit and should be removed or at lease, for our sake, moved to the bottom of their respective articles? --

726:, just as you suggested. Fine. But this is a growing project and it is used by many more people than just those who debate on this page - or are even aware of an ongoing debate. So I do continue to support to linkify the picture - simply out of respect - not for Bahaullah, for whom I feel little, but for the readers and the not-yet-editors. And with regard to the spiritual benefit for Baha'is by being constantly vigilant, I really was not aware that Knowledge had such high aims....I do think we should probably settle on the rather lower ground to allow everyone in whatever spiritual state to contribute and enjoy this encycplopedia 2438:

And I did not make any veiled threats but simply made a prediction. Prophetic speech, so to say... He got himself banned yesterday due to his abusive behaviour, but appeared to continue to edit via open proxies - so I assume he has little or no respect for the commuunity and will continue to walk on a path which leads into wilderness. Unelss of course he changes tack dramatically. Unfortuantely he will see this particular episode as a victory for him and not as a normal and common process on Knowledge, hence my pessimism wrt him. The proof really from my point of view is the edit summaries

1034:, giving an outsider's neutral point of view. I made the explicit point of saying that this article should include the picture, because (a) This is not a Bahai encyclopedia, and the image is not patently offensive (even if it were, then *maybe* you could argue that it shouldn't be included, but that argument is going on elsewhere and this does not come anywhere near qualifying) ; furthermore, (b) biography articles such as this follow a standard format, and the standard fof formatting is to include to include a picture (if at least one exists) at the top of the text; not at the bottom. 199:

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?

670:

mind in which people look at Knowledge. Baha'is wishing to avoid engaging in irreverent behavior towards their prophet can easily make their own personal arrangements. The compromise will not help because the vast majority of people who look at it will not be Bahai's and will still not look at it reverently even if they do have to click on a link. Those who are Baha'is will gain spiritually by learning to be constantly vigilant, for an encounter with the sacred can be found around every corner. --

2425:

side, both representing Knowledge ideals. Religious accommodation is not a Knowledge obligation, but then there is also no absolute standard about where and how pictures are placed in articles, and so there seems reasonable flexibility to attempt to format the article in a way that would satisfy readers from various perspectives. Negative labeling of or veiled threats to editors won't help build consensus, however, and I've seen it coming from both sides on this article. --

686:

preference though, I really don't want to look at the image of him without really being in the right mood and state of reverence. Think of it as a personal choice. I don't drink but am well aware that a great many people do, but it doesn't impose on me so fine. At the moment you cannot view this page without seeing the picture so it is imposed on me. I can see your point that you can't accomodate everybody's concern which is why we're having a debate now. --

31: 428:

authorities are so concerned about this photo is because bahaullah does not look ... hmm ... very "marketable" and frankly, he looks bad. You might notice that they plaster the pictures of Abdul-Baha, his son, all over the place. They are simply not honest enough to admit the real reason behind this stupid demand. At any rate, it is too late for them now, as we are already well into the information age and the era of the Internet. --

208:

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.

164:

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. --

1483:

motivate people to take their sweet time to go around the Internet and plaster this picture in as many sites (in multple languages) as they can. Just accept the fact, as the bahai Universal House of Justice has realized per their official communique, that there isn't anything the Bahais can do to stop the natural, open and uncensored expansion of the Internet. --

1090:

against linked images: "either they are appropriate or they aren't". But the situation here is somewhat unique, involving Baha'is' reverence of Baha'u'llah while the image is not otherwise offensive to non-Baha'i users. Use of a link for the image is therefore the best compromise. This would be an unconventional solution to an unconventional situation. --

702:(and because my phobia doesn't overcome my scientific curiosity, I may want to) I would be able to turn off image downloads on my browser, visit the page without having to see caterpillar pictures, and then edit it. Afterwards I could turn on image downloads on my browser. It's only a couple of mouseclicks to do this. -- 2308:

Okay, Amir. If you are going to use this kind of language to support your campaign, then I strongly suspect that Martin2000 is your sock puppet. Some of the higher-level admins can find out for sure, so if you're going to open this as a topic for debate here, you'd better be damn sure you won't end

1606:

Hello MPerel. What you seem to be unaware of, is that this issue has already been discussed a nubmer of times, but the bahais keep trying and trying and they basically want to force their preferred "version" of bahai articles here. The issue is actually quite simple: this is an article about a man,

1251:

Every case should be judged on its own merits and according to the generality of the visitors of this site. This is a clear and unique case: of reverence of all Baha'is towards Baha'u'llah and that they would be shocked to be obliged to view his image immediately on opening the Baha'u'llah article on

1210:

Becuase it makes the slightly wierd assumption that this should not be decided on an artilce by article basis. Now it is quite clear we cannot conform to a certian rather extream interpitation of the quran without messing up large areas of the wikipedia however the current case affects one artice. We

1069:

go on) regardless of what is decided in the next few days here, surely one can put aside standards in formatting. And we all know this encyclopaedia is not a Baha'i one (I suggested adding a bit about the Baha'i review and how it restricts freedom of speech to the Baha'i pages), but that doesn't mean

697:

I understand that aspect of it. There is a page on Knowledge with pictures that I really don't like to look at because the pictures are very upsetting to me. I have a phobia of caterpillars which is triggered by photographs of them. But this doesn't stop me reading about them on Knowledge. My web

255:

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

2437:

a troll - not for his opposition in this particular matter, which is fine by all standards and defended with using a miture of valid argument and other not so valid ones, but for his behaviour across a whole section of the site. Indeed I have so far not seen much constructive at all coming from him.

2424:

I agree with your suggestion about avoiding edit wars and taking more time to achieve consensus. However, I think it unfair of you to characterize an editor with a dissenting opinion as being a troll. I certainly don't view the dissenter as a troll. I see valid argument for perspectives on either

2322:

You can suspect that Martin2000 is me all you want. As if I need to hide my ID to speak the truth about Bahism. heh. I insist that you to go to your high-level admin friends and ask them to determine if I have any fake ID's ... I DO NOT. But it is obvious that you guys (the few weaky sneaky cheaty

1171:

I use Amir's argument. If we must move Bahaullah's picture to the bottom of this article to accomodate Bahais, should we also move the pictures of every unveiled woman in all wikipedia articles to the bottom of those articles to accomodate strict muslims who get offended if they open those articles

752:

I have just been involved in a discussion about generally allowing the removal of images from being in-line. I am strongly against linked images - either they are appropriate or they aren't, and if they aren't then don't link to them. I would like to suggest an option that hasn't yet been mentioned.

267:

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

207:

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,

198:

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

163:

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

1626:

I understand your perspective, and as you see I too initially protested what I thought was censorship and imposing religion on Knowledge. However, putting the picture at the bottom seems an easy and reasonable accommodation. And in the case of unveiled female pictures, it would also be reasonable

903:

Would it be cheeky to ask if it could be RIGHT at the bottom though? As in below references, weblogs etc, then a line-break and a title such as "photo of Baha'u'llah". I guess if someone (who isn't just being unreasonable) should say no to this I won't push for it further, but just as a preference.

2500:

I understand your need of "Freedom of Expression", for the progress of the world "depends" on such value. However, if we do not respect each other and freely express our views among one another, nothing can be solved. We have to learn to respect each others views, and not to impose our views among

2415:

This was not a binding vote, neither publically announced, nor running for any major lengthg of time. but it seemed to encompass everyone who was active on this page over the last few days and a few beyond. As major changes really need consensus particularly if they need to be enforced against the

2297:

Voting doesn't work in this case. First of all, as we all know there are a number of bahai sockpuppets here. Secondly, wikipedia articles must follow a set of standards and they should be in conformity and consistency. Besides, taking votes in a religious article where naturally the majority of

1884:

I didn't know about this other option when people were talking about putting a ] type link in here. This sounds better if it's easy to do. AIUI, the article would first load with a blank picture box, and then anyone who wants to load the picture to go with the article can click again to download

1662:

198.165.90.75 reverts to the image at the top arguing that there is a standard format. 198.165.90.75 should read the extensive discussion connected with this article, which shows that these is no standard formatting for situations such as this; concern about the offence caused to a large number of

1105:

think the objections made in the above comments by contributing Bahais are perfectly understandable and should be respected. The aesthetic loss by using a link or an unusual design of the page would be minimal. The benefit though would be clear and has been discussed ad extenso. So I remain of the

145:

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 Knowledge is

127:

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

1443:

linked out mentions (and it is from the Bahai Universal House of Justice) it clearly says that on non-Bahai sites there is not anything they can do, and therefore, it is clearly implying to stop harrassing non-Bahais about this issue. Anyway, if the picture is going to move to the bottom, I will

1146:

Because we are not required to follow the editing rules (which don't state that a picture is required anyway), if the presence of this picture offends those of the Baha'i Faith, what possible reason is there not to just put it at the bottom of the article, where those who wish to view it may, and

999:

article, and then after finding your ongoing campaign, have made suggestions for compromise to avoid offending Baha'is. Do not presume to tell me how I can and cannot edit. This is Knowledge, and people don't do what you say around here EVEN IF YOU TELL THEM SO IN CAPITAL LETTERS. And get your

669:

It seems to me that it isn't the photograph that Baha'is object to, but specifically the act of looking at it irreverently, and in general the display of the picture in a location or context where people will look at it irreverently. There is nothing Knowledge can or should do about the state of

159:

Knowledge 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,

1482:

Geni, give it up. As mentioned in the comments by someone else, many people, including a number of admins have already expressed their opinion that this article is not going to be an exception in the whole of wikipedia. The picture is going to stay where it belongs, and your behaviour will only

1380:

and I grasp the issue better now. It does seem an easy accommodation then to do as you suggest and put the picture at the bottom. Another option I've seen done on Knowledge regarding potentially offensive pictures is a special template that filters the picture from displaying unless the reader

955:

Nice try. Don't waste your time (and other people's time), Bahaullah's picture belongs DIRECTLY to this article and IT WILL STAY. Even if you manage to stop that foto from being included in this Knowledge article, what are you going to do about the whole of the Internet? Give it up, enough is

873:

And yeah, you can block images but from a whole site. At the moment I can't see any images from the wikipedia upload site for this reason. Not really a solution though and doesn't address the issue. Just an opinion but Knowledge really shouldn't offend someone to the level they have to block all

1521:

If you hold admin "power" then you obviously do not deserve it, since you are clearly incapable of keeping a level head in the interest of the project. Knowledge should not have to conform to the demands and requirements of any religious or ideological organizations. You are clearly trying to

1089:

I am new to Knowledge, but I understand its purpose is to make NPOV information easily accessible to users. Editors of this article on Baha'u'llah should therefore not hide important information about him, but neither should they use it to introduce or support their own POV. SGBaily is strongly

625:

I agree with Tomhab's third option: inserting a link to the photograph is a reasonable compromise. I am a Baha'i and was shocked by seeing the photo...not by the image, but by the fact that it was there. Anyone--including Baha'is--who wants to follow the link to the image would be free to do so

91:

From teh Orthodox Baha'i Perspective, the picutre also should be removed, not because it is a Baha'i site, but for the same reason on the section of Islam no one puts up the print of Muhammad that might be available (there is a sketch) but no one would think of putting it up sicne this would be

1042:

I couldn't agree more. For some reason it seems bahai mentality and culture is that the rest of the world should conform to what their authorities say (and this is when they are nearly a non-entity in terms of quantity, can you imagine what they would be like if they ruled the world?! -- they

981:

It has to do with the fact that he first replaced the passport foto of bahaullah in the article with a picture of the house which was bahaullah's last residence (or Bahaullah Shrine as they call it) and then added this subsection in the discussion area asking his question trying to divert the

685:

Yeah I think you're right. The image won't ever get removed from the net and thats why I'm not endorsing the idea of removing it here (because what difference does it make?). People will happily enough look at the image everyday and I don't think it really makes much difference. As a personal

934:

Concerning the photograph of Baha'u'llah, I re-emphasize the offence that Baha'is feel about being presented at the top of the article with an image of the reverenced founder of their faith. It should be accessible via a link or--failing that--placed at the very bottom of the article with an

590:

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

449:

Slightly inaccurate. Baha'is see Baha'u'llah as a Messenger of God so deserving of reverence, whereas Abdul-Baha was just a nice guy, so thats why we have little problem with Abdul-Baha's picture. I think we can generally accept that belief has more in it that merely someone looking good. --

427:

Rick, as you know photography was not invented at the time Muhammad, so there is no authentic picture of him around. If there was one around, it most certainly belonged to an article about Muhammad and also to an article about Islam. The same is true about Jesus. The main reason the bahai

1255:

In constructively resolving this matter of the location of Baha'u'llah's image, how should we address the issue of the deep offence caused to Baha'is when the image is placed on this article? The suggestions so far are (1) a link and (2) placing it at the very bottom with a forewarning.

863:

Hmmm. I think you can accidentally stumble across the image though so still prefer a link, but its better than being at the top. As long as the warning is clear I guess it could work... Just watch though, call me cynacle but Amir or Martin will put it straight back up to the top. --

1202:-- They are all unveiled females who do not conform to Islamic "hijab" dress code, and any "observant muslim" (to borrow your "observant bahai" term) will be offended to open those articles and "unintentionally see" those pictures, and risk going to hell in the judgement day. -- 1326:

Ah...is the offense to Bahai with photographs in general, or just with photographs of the Bahaullah? If the latter is the case, then I do see merit in making accomodation to not offend. Perhaps I misunderstood thinking Bahai were prohibited from seeing any photographs.

1073:

I don't mind the idea of a consensus reaching the decision that we need a picture at the top, but the fact that we had several people talking about it above attempting to come up with a compromise which you ignored and not even responded to directly I find as a wikipedian

108:

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

1809:

But you can read the text while the image is appearing and if it is at the bottom it will probably be up by the time you get to there. With the click through option you have; click wait a couple of minutes view page, click wait anouther couple of minutes to view image.

489:

Baha'is belieave that Baha'u'llah was a prophet within their religion and should be treated with reverence and respect and his picture should only be seen when those situations are present. They feel the internet is not such a place, and find his picture being their

1189:

Hello Geni. Can you tell us how is my comparison a logical fallacy? Sounds very straightforward to me. If you want to move Bahaullah's picture to the bottom of this article, I suggest you first do it to these articles for starters (there is a lot more of course):

96:

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. Knowledge is not censorered or bowdlerized.

1143:"Writers are NOT expected or required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required. Copy-editing wikipedians will be referring to these pages and pages will be gradually made to conform with this guide." 216:

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

1222:

I doubt anyone proscribed from viewing photos for religious reasons would be carelessly browsing the internet without some mechanism to block images. It's seems unreasonable to expect Knowledge to accomodate readers who don't want to see pictures.

734:

I guess its weighing up how necessary something is compared to how much it'll offend. Anyway, the important bit is that we all understand the situation enough to make a consensus. I think we're getting somewhere (although I'm always optimistic). --

2331:

is a fake ID of someone who is a regular here -- and there is more than just one bahai sockpuppet here. I have to prepare for some exams these days, but afterwards, I will balance these bahai articles out more with facts. Stay tuned kiddo.

1287:

MPerel, that is a picture of Abdu'l Baha. There is no Baha'i taboo against displaying his picture, because he isn't thought of as the equivalent of Jesus. Indeed, Baha'is commonly display a prominent photo of Abdu'l Baha in their homes. -

982:

attention to the new picture. I put bahaullah's foto back into the article and wrote "nice try". You may want to browse the history and discussion areas to find out what the issue at hand has been in this article, for some time now. --

1566:. My guess is that most editors not emotionally entangled in this dispute would likely support going the respectful route of placing the picture at the bottom, but whatever the outcome, it would be good to get outside feedback. -- 785:

Hmm. I'm kind of wondering how my suggested wording of a non-displying link from 3 days ago ended up at the top of this page without comment, but I'll leave it here and add a couple of lines to where my comment appears below. -

1522:"help" this article conform to bahai demands. If you continue this, I will not hesitate to not only bring this issue more openly on the admins board, but also I will question your qualifications to be an admin around here. -- 291:

No I agree, the link is clearly the best place, reading the explanations and Knowledge policy. Further, Martin2000, you are seriously out of order, using personal attack and editwarring against a developing consensus to push

172:

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? --

1100:

Similarly to Raul above I did not consider myself exactly party to the conflict(though it seems I have become one), as I am not Bahai, am not offended by the picture, and would personally prefer it to be at the top. But I

1166:

The picture is still in tha article and is still on wikipedia. Extra info is added because of the picutes position. Btw why are you editing from an open proxy? Knowledge disscourages this behaviour07:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2408:'straw poll' - this is exactly what I was looking for. A number of people came onto the page and changed their opinion half way through (myself included) on the matter of the picture. So this is what I want to clarify. 2347:

has no mention of photos so there are no standards here. Third this article has recived quite a bit of publicty lately for example I'm pretty sure that neither of the admins who claim support you are follows of the

496:

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

238:

2446:

he had tried to put into the top of the Bahai article about the pictures used. Finnally you may have a look at some of the personal attacks he made on this page in the section on language ( a bit up from here)

2473:

then support the position. Provide a decent set of logical answers to support it the last lot have been slightly shot down. At the moment your comments suggest you are supporting a cause rather than a position

1696:

linking does not work to well since clicking through can take quite some time when the wikipedia is going through one of it's peroidic slow patches. That is why I prefer putting the image at the bottom of the

2355:

Amir, you are free to contact all the contributors to the discussion pages to solicit their votes. Sockpuppets? As you do, Baha'is feel deeply about the subject and will intervene through their own volition.

2078:. This is a case of hiding images from view so that only those who CHOOSE to view it will. Censorship would be to remove the image all together from wikipedia, and you may notice no-ones voted for that. -- 403:

The point was we discussed it in the discussion page and decided due to the policy linked above, a link to the image was appropriate and enough as a midpoint. I guess we needed more discussion about it. --

2493:

In the Baha'i faith, it mentions that the picture must not be portrayed in an environment that does not respect the portrait of Baha'u'llah. In other words, this is a belief that all Baha'is agree upon.

1117:

Put the image at the bottom of the page and create an internal link to it in a one line warning at the end of of the first paragraph (ie somethine along the lines of His photograph can be found at the ]

1238:

Why? I have no blocks in place to prevent me seening stuff like tubgirl. It costs us effort to accomodate these reads does not destory any information and in fact gives a neat way to add information.

1502:

Many? at the moment the numbers are slightly in favor of the put the thing at the bottem. The talk page seems to be even further in this direction As for admins remeber I hold adimin powers as well

469:

I'm going to try and summarise the three views here. Feel free to edit it if I'm wrong or if I miss something out, but it would be nice if you also add what you changed at the bottom if you could.

281:

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 --

1252:

this, the world's largest on-line encyclopaedia. Taking Amir's example, people who view articles--here or elsewhere--would not be shocked to see images of Clinton, Thatcher or Graf without veils.

1147:

those who don't do not need to. Considering that this is a religious issue, for a man affiliated with this religion, I see no reason that we should not just move the picture to the bottom...

558:

Knowledge is not a Baha'i project. Many of the Baha'i articles are copied straight from leaflets and not written in the NPOV spirit of wikipedia that should include accurate details and facts.

637:

I am most certainly not a Bahai, nor have the slightest sympathies for that faith or its organisation. I do though believe mutual respect is A Good Thing and hence support the third option.

608:

Just to state my biases in writing this summary. I'm a Baha'i but I'm endorsing the third option. I have tried to keep this neutral, but if you feel I've failed there please write it below.

2309:

up with egg on your face for making such accusations. btw, I presume we can count your comment here as two votes for "leave it at the top where it causes maximum offence to my enemies"? -

1412:

I'd rather not use the template (because clickthrough when wikipedia is slow is a pain in the neck) If you look at the page history you could see the verison with the picture at the bottom

221:

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 :). --

2126:

Whoops, I think I misread it. Nonetheless, I think I'll keep my vote here, because if we move this image, it'll be opening up a whole can of worms that we really shouldn't get into. -

890:

I really like this idea. Be aware that on some large browser pages the pictures will still be visible immediately, although it may only be in the peripheral vision of the reader. --

1723:

I'm not worried about traffic (the amount would not be significant) it is just much less time to wait for one page to load than two when wikipedia is slow (we are talking minutes)

1350:

They are not even prohibited from see thing photo it is just they are only meant to see it under conditions of respect and reverence which are a bit difficult to meet on wikipedia

2327:

which was created almost immediately after I introduced some new facts in the articles) to "refute" it or to fight me out. Ask your high level admins if I have a fake ID or if

775:

to see how this solution looks there -, and after more than 40 users have weighed in on the matter this seems to become the compromise which most people can agree on. regards,

186:

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.

519:

policy allows us to mention that the point of view exists, and to explain who holds the point of view, but does not allow us to behave as if the point of view is correct. —

1444:

also request that all unveiled female pictures of various articles also be moved to the bottoms of those articles. I have already given a few example page links above. --

1211:

lose nothing by putting the image at the bottom of the page and it gives a nice way to put the information about how pictures like this are viewed within the Bahá'í Faith

373:

It's a matter of disagreement as to whether Knowledge should or should not kowtow to a particular group or religion when it comes to knowledge, but I just went to

567:

Quite a few biographical articles don't include images (even though they could), but that doesn't mean we have to hold this particular one back from being better.

768:

I agree with SGBailey and the proposed solution. All modern browser allow users to disable images, so every Baha'i will be able to avoid looking at the photo.

714:

Tony, the point is obviously increasingly less a matter of concern for guys like Tomhab, Cyprus or the other Bahais actively contributing here because they

2455:"other wikipedia users may come in defense of the troll" - this is exactly what is happening here with all those votes on number 3) . very unfortunate - -- 1768:

at the moment when you load the article page the picture is also loaded (where ever it is in the article). If you only link to the picture you lose this.

882:

Another good compromise. Slightly odd to start with a picture of the grave and end with a picture of the man himself, but if it allows us to move on...

698:

browser (and all web browsers I've ever encountered) has controls that permit me to stop it downloading and displaying pictures. So if I wanted to edit

1106:

opinion the picture should be moved in one way or another. And if Amir would stop being so gratuitously offensive to everyone around - this would be a

2298:

the "regulars" are the follower of that religion and they all have this page and its related pages in their watchlist, is anything but democratic. --

229:

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.

2344: 1137: 1125: 1969:

I would suggest a vote to clarify who stands whree. A lot of people have changed their views in light of the arguments given (well except some).

1015:

Some input in the debate above (about the posibility of putting the image at the bottom of the page rather than the top) would be nice Amir. --

1917:

assuming the vote for deltion failed it exists but it is just a fancy form of a click though (Ie the template just contians a link to the image

1708:

hum... this doesnt seem to make much sense to me. since not everybody would click on the photo this would mean less traffic for wikipedia. - --

2119: 947:

Anyone who knows how - is there any way to fiddle the image of Baha'u'llah's shrine so that it doesn't cover the "l" in the word burial? -

377:

and there's no image of him there, either, so I'm not going to fight for the picture to be here, but calling it policy is still incorrect.

2590: 1270:? His photo is all over the internet. It's highly doubtful anyone will be shocked to find it in a Knowledge biographical article. -- 2323:

bahais here) have sockpuppets. Every time I have introduced a fact in these articles, a new Bahai ID was created (the last one was

322:, the discussion about the photo has/is been discussed in different sections and talks(see ], so its a little bit confusing :\ - -- 2577: 190:

is his entire list of contributions to Knowledge. I think Baha'u'llah's image ought to be removed from the Knowledge database.

2106:

I would also like to add that this situation is a perfect example of using a poll to substitute for good editorial judgement.

532:

Yeah - I know. This isn't really an option, but it was worth including and explains why random people sometimes remove it. --

2370: 1563: 829: 477:

The picture of Baha'u'llah has been repeatedly added and removed for a while now. There are various arguments for each side.

1052:

My opinion has always been that "if it offends people, is it really all that necessary" which I might add is wikipedia's

926:

I'll change it now and see what people think. My money is on it being less than three hours before it gets reverted. --

17: 597:

It is a compromise. Baha'is who don't want to see it don't have to. People who are interested can see the image freely.

2393: 2124:

Informing people should be our first priority. Ensuring that we don't offend anybody should not contravene this goal.

2054:

image at bottom. This vote layout is severely flawed because it doesn't discern between these two solutions. regards,

1909:

didnt someone said there was a template that allowed the photo be shown when clicked? doesnt such template exist? - --

1381:

clicks a link to see the picture. I don't recall the name of the special template, though, I'd have to investigate. --

828:

Bahá'ís find casual display of Bahá'u'lláh's image offensive, but a passport photograph of Bahá'u'lláh may be viewed

1927: 47: 38: 112:) may be considered. Its really just something I do not want to see. Thats not censorship as its freely there. -- 2389: 1562:

Hello Amir, rather than threats and revert wars, I suggest the involved editors here put the picture question to

2595: 2563: 2272:

just a thing, by "removing picture from page completely" i assume you mean deleting from wikipedia. right? - --

1684: 2545:"One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts." 1031: 1675:

What are the objections for linking the photo? its seems to be the most acceptable solution to everypart - --

1267:

Then how shocked are Bahai followers when they see his photo prominently displayed on Bahai sites like this:

1154:

What are the objections for linking the photo? its seems to be the most acceptable solution to everypart - --

333:

That's not policy, that's unresolved discussion. To call it policy is not only incorrect, it's misleading.

626:

without giving offence to many people visiting the article. Thanks Tomhab for your common sense proposal. --

1124:

FVW has also used "normal formatting" as the reason dor putting the picture at the top of the page however

1926:

I mentioned the template, but I can't seem to find the example I had in mind. Meanwhile here are ways to

1778:

with a (direct) link to the photo, the seccond GET would happen only if the user clicked on the link. - --

1307:

his photo does not appear on the page you linked to. The only photo of a person there is of his eldest son

1191: 918: 895: 707: 675: 2573: 1663:

users should be paramount. How does 198.165.90.75 propose to address the offence deliberately caused? --

843: 652:

Of course, I agree with Tomhab's compromise option. I suggested the following format four days ago at

355:. I'd be interested to hear your views on the matter. I'll write up a conflict summary in a minute. -- 2529:"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". 485:

Generally seems to be done by Baha'i (or at least pro-Baha'i) wikipedians. Their reasons seem to be:

146:

natural, and there are numerous other projects that are similar to this one, in multiple languages.

2539:"Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE) 2238:, our goal is providing information, even if some groups believe this is wrong in certain cases. -- 2131: 2055: 814: 776: 2586: 2159: 2145: 956:

enough. The rest of the world does not need to be subject to Bahai organizational censorship. --

653: 1587:

Feel free to bring this issue to the admins board I have no objection to my edits being reviewed

2205: 611:

Lets try and keep from flaming each other. First time and neutral readers of this conflict are

502:(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 6, 1939) 244:(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 6, 1939) 1195: 914: 891: 703: 671: 2513:"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" 75:

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

2310: 2173: 2032: 1886: 1541:

Amir, you say the same thing to everybody who doesnt seem to agree with your viewpoints - --

1289: 1001: 948: 787: 772: 657: 564:

Other biographical articles have images of the person and it does contribute to the article.

520: 191: 165: 68: 1775:

when you (down)load the article page, the browser phrases the html and then GETs the photo.

1648:

please see the aboves dicussions, on what are the reasons. (no time to copypaste them) - --

1627:

to not post them in articles on Islam, out of respect for Muslim readers, do you agree? --

856: 818: 381: 337: 312: 200: 147: 2257:

But for the n time we don't lose any information. Put the photo at the bottom and it is

913:

I think that would be fine. It's unconventional layout, but layout is not paramount. --

2467: 2456: 2273: 2216: 2195: 2127: 1986: 1910: 1846: 1779: 1743: 1709: 1676: 1649: 1542: 1155: 516: 323: 129: 351:

Its cuz Baha'is find a picture of their holy personage offensive. Policy can be found

2581: 2396:

may also be of interest (if anyone was wondering I was treating this as a straw poll)

2242: 2155: 2141: 996: 837: 758: 1378: 2560: 2521:"None of you believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." 2183: 2107: 2100: 1035: 98: 1268: 547:

Generally seems to be done by just about everyone else. Their reasons seem to be:

2576:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

2448: 2426: 2417: 2409: 2374: 2357: 2328: 2324: 2284: 2169: 2079: 2041: 2023: 2014: 1996: 1946: 1931: 1664: 1628: 1567: 1440: 1382: 1328: 1271: 1257: 1224: 1199: 1148: 1140:

does it state that a picture is at all required, and even states the following:

1111: 1091: 1079: 1016: 936: 927: 905: 883: 875: 865: 736: 727: 699: 687: 638: 627: 618: 600:

Although Baha'is wouldn't like the image of Baha'u'llah on the internet at all,

581: 533: 451: 405: 356: 352: 297: 282: 269: 257: 230: 222: 218: 209: 174: 113: 110: 65: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2434: 2333: 2299: 2093: 2071: 1688: 1608: 1523: 1484: 1445: 1203: 1044: 983: 957: 429: 378: 334: 319: 309: 61: 1463:

Well you can request it article by article and see if you can get a consensus

2474: 2463: 2397: 2349: 2262: 2223: 2191: 2005: 1918: 1811: 1769: 1724: 1698: 1588: 1503: 1464: 1415: 1351: 1308: 1239: 1212: 1180: 1129: 1118: 971: 852: 2549:"The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form" 2239: 2118:, but I would be for a seperate censored/nopics article like the one for 771:

The same discussion is going on in the German wikipedia - have a look at

374: 1958:{{linkimage|Bahaullah from miller.jpg|Passport Photograph of Bahaullah}} 1943:{{linkimage|Bahaullah from miller.jpg|Passport Photograph of Bahaullah}} 1683:

Do you even take a cursory look at the discussion page before posting?

806: 755:

Put the photo at the bottom of the main page - after a spoiler warning.

604:

so asking it to be removed from wikipedia doesn't solve their problems.

128:

should be deleted, but at least put a wikilink to it instead.. " - --

2187: 1136:

In order to avoid a Revert war, I'd like to express that nowhere in

1057: 848: 576:

Offered as a compromise approach after edit wars. Reasons for it:

308:

What Knowledge policy says that the image can't be on the page?

995:

Amir, no I didn't. I removed Baha'u'llah's photo from the main

802: 798: 561:

The image does seem to be under the correct and legal copyright.

1885:

it? That's much better than a link to just the photo, IMO. --

970:

Errr Amir what does your response have to do with the question

822: 656:. So far, no response from Martin2000 has been forthcoming. 25: 835:

Bahá'u'lláh authored serveral religious works, including the

2443:

he left on several recent page changes and the small caption

2122:. However, the main article itself shouldn't be censored. 551:

Knowledge policy (link?) is that factual information should

515:

The belief described above is a point of view. Knowledge's

2343:

First can you support you acusation of sock pupets? Second

2505:"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." 2222:

We are getting caught up in the wider conflict over images

2168:. Trying to have a vote on this is nonsense on stilts. -- 817:. He was also known as Bahá'u'lláh ("The Glory of God" in 2578:

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page

2462:

We're coming in defense of a position, not a person. --

2444: 2441: 2439: 1687:

your new topic, this very issue has been discussed. --

1413: 187: 747:

Compromise: picture at page bottom, warning at the top

1065:

If we're talking about settling an arguement (which

813:(میرزا حسینعلی)) was the founder and prophet of the 2070:a case of censorship. I'd like to remind all about 1172:

and suddenly see the pictures of an unveiled woman?

1742:then the link could be directly to the photo - -- 821:), as "He Whom God will make manifest" (from the 1941:Ah, here is the template I was thinking about, 160:discuss it on the relevant article talk page." 2524:Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 718:that the picture is here, and they can either 8: 1978:2)Hide it somehwhat from view (link/bottom) 1179:This is the slipperly slope logical fallicy 1070:you cannot take in other people's concerns. 2182:, and the same for other images including 507:(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 539) 249:(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 539) 1972:I suggest a vote acc following lay-out. 1928:link to pictures without displaying them 1377:I just came across this relevant letter 825:writings), and as "Father of the Poor". 465:Conflict summary: Image, link or nothing 2345:Knowledge:Manual of Style (biographies) 2099:Support. This censorship is nonesense. 1138:Knowledge:Manual of Style (biographies) 1126:Knowledge:Manual of Style (biographies) 2433:As it is I have no problems labelling 1975:1)Remove picture from page completely 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2120:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse 7: 2569:TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage 1945:, which looks like the following. -- 24: 2373:to get an outside perspective. -- 2076:restricting freedom of expression 580:When an image might be offensive 847:(Book of Certitude). He died in 572:Reasons for converting to a link 29: 2369:I suggest the vote be taken at 2086:3)leave it in the upper corner 2371:Knowledge:Requests for comment 1564:Knowledge:Requests_for_comment 617:to contribute their views. -- 584:rule of thumb point 11 states: 1: 543:Reasons for it being included 64:, moved from the article by 2394:Knowledge:Survey guidelines 2392:would be standard practice 2215:for this article only? - -- 1030:I had earlier commented on 2611: 2470:) 23:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1961: 1955: 1845:that´s a fair critique. -- 582:Knowledge Image use policy 256:be replaced by a link. -- 219:wikipedia image use policy 194:21:24, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC) 168:03:17, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC) 2596:23:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 2564:10:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 2486:To Understand One Another 2390:Knowledge:Current_surveys 2204:. For this article only. 2198:) 03:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2103:16:34, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1038:03:31, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC) 951:19:16, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) 935:appropriate forewarning. 874:images from its site. -- 841:(Most Holy Book) and the 790:00:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC) 555:be removed from articles. 315:09:48, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) 212:17:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) 101:04:19, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC) 71:21:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC): 2459:11:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2451:00:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2429:23:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 2420:22:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2412:10:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2377:10:42, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 2352:10:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2313:16:20, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 2302:10:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2276:10:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2219:17:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2110:03:50, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC) 2035:16:22, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1999:10:22, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1949:22:41, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1934:12:17, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1913:11:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1889:16:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1772:10:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1679:09:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1667:08:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1631:10:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1570:10:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1526:09:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)~ 1385:09:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1331:08:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1292:16:26, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1274:08:30, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1227:07:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1206:07:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1158:09:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1151:07:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1132:22:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1121:22:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1114:11:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1004:16:32, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 943:Tidying up image on page 939:20:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) 886:00:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 730:00:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 660:16:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) 621:12:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 384:19:30, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) 340:10:04, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) 300:09:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 233:10:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) 225:23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) 203:23:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) 177:13:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) 150:17:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) 132:19:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) 116:17:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) 60:Below is a comment from 2477:23:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2400:10:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2360:10:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2336:11:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2287:10:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2265:19:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2249:05:53, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC) 2226:17:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2208:05:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2176:03:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2162:01:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2148:01:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2140:leaving it in place. — 2134:17:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2096:16:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2082:17:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2058:01:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2044:18:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2026:10:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2017:10:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2008:10:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1989:10:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1921:12:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1849:11:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1814:10:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1782:10:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1746:10:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1727:10:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1712:09:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1701:09:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1691:09:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1652:10:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1611:10:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1591:10:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1545:10:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1506:09:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1487:09:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1467:09:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1448:09:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1418:09:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1354:08:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1311:08:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1260:08:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1242:08:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1215:07:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1183:07:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1094:10:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1082:10:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1047:04:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1019:01:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 986:00:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 974:00:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 960:19:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 930:01:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 921:01:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 908:01:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 898:00:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 878:21:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 868:21:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 779:20:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 761:20:22, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC) 739:01:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 710:23:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 690:21:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 678:19:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 641:16:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 630:16:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 536:23:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 523:19:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 454:00:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 432:00:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 408:00:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 326:10:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 285:02:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) 272:13:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) 260:13:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2556:With warmest regards, 2516:Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 1062:Standard formatting??? 2532:Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5 1128:does not mention this 722:themselves or simply 42:of past discussions. 18:Talk:Baháʼu'lláh 2050:link only solution, 1439:As the letter that 1000:facts straight. - 614:strongly encouraged 602:it is already there 481:Reasons for removal 2574:Template:Linkimage 2543:Yoruba: (Nigeria): 2580:. Thank you. — 2247: 1685:Immediately above 1671:linking the photo 1196:Margaret Thatcher 1032:talk:Bahá'í Faith 811:Mírzá Husayn-'Alí 724:press the buttons 654:Talk:Baha'i Faith 304:Knowledge policy? 79:End of moved text 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2602: 2594: 2246: 2243: 1960: 1959: 855:(outside 'Akká, 473:Conflict summary 33: 32: 26: 2610: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2584: 2571: 2488: 2244: 1967: 1957: 1956: 1673: 1192:Hillary clinton 1164: 1028: 1026:Picture, part 2 945: 749: 574: 545: 483: 475: 467: 306: 268:do follow). -- 184: 182:User Martin2000 89: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2608: 2606: 2570: 2567: 2490:Dear readers, 2487: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2431: 2430: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2388:Listing it at 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2261:in the article 2252: 2251: 2250: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2210: 2209: 2199: 2177: 2163: 2149: 2135: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2097: 2084: 2083: 2059: 2056:High on a tree 2045: 2036: 2027: 2018: 2009: 2000: 1990: 1966: 1963: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1936: 1935: 1923: 1922: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1776: 1756: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1703: 1702: 1693: 1692: 1672: 1669: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1262: 1261: 1253: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1217: 1216: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1174: 1173: 1163: 1160: 1135: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1084: 1083: 1071: 1049: 1048: 1027: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 988: 987: 978: 977: 976: 975: 964: 962: 961: 944: 941: 932: 931: 923: 922: 910: 909: 900: 899: 880: 879: 870: 869: 783: 782: 781: 780: 777:High on a tree 769: 763: 762: 748: 745: 743: 741: 740: 712: 711: 694: 693: 692: 691: 680: 679: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 645: 644: 643: 642: 632: 631: 606: 605: 598: 594: 593: 586: 585: 573: 570: 569: 568: 565: 562: 559: 556: 544: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 527: 526: 525: 524: 510: 509: 504: 499: 492: 491: 482: 479: 474: 471: 466: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 344: 343: 342: 341: 328: 327: 305: 302: 289: 288: 287: 286: 276: 275: 274: 273: 262: 261: 252: 251: 246: 241: 227: 226: 205: 204: 183: 180: 179: 178: 158: 156: 155: 154: 153: 152: 151: 138: 137: 136: 135: 134: 133: 120: 119: 118: 117: 103: 102: 88: 85: 83: 56: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2607: 2598: 2597: 2592: 2588: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2568: 2566: 2565: 2562: 2557: 2554: 2553: 2550: 2546: 2544: 2540: 2538: 2534: 2533: 2530: 2526: 2525: 2522: 2518: 2517: 2514: 2510: 2509: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2495: 2491: 2485: 2476: 2472: 2471: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2460: 2458: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2450: 2445: 2442: 2440: 2436: 2428: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2419: 2413: 2411: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2359: 2354: 2353: 2351: 2346: 2342: 2341: 2335: 2330: 2326: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2312: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2301: 2286: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2275: 2271: 2270: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2248: 2241: 2237: 2234: 2233: 2225: 2221: 2220: 2218: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2200: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2164: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2150: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2136: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2114: 2109: 2105: 2104: 2102: 2098: 2095: 2092: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2068: 2063: 2060: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2046: 2043: 2040: 2037: 2034: 2031: 2028: 2025: 2022: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2010: 2007: 2004: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1988: 1984: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1970: 1964: 1962: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1912: 1888: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1813: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1781: 1777: 1774: 1773: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1745: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1700: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1678: 1670: 1668: 1666: 1651: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1630: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1610: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1590: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1544: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1525: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1486: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1466: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1447: 1442: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1417: 1414: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1384: 1379: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1353: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1330: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1291: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1273: 1269: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1259: 1254: 1250: 1249: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1226: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1162:198.165.90.75 1161: 1159: 1157: 1152: 1150: 1144: 1141: 1139: 1133: 1131: 1127: 1122: 1120: 1115: 1113: 1110:improvement. 1109: 1104: 1093: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1058: 1055: 1051: 1050: 1046: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1037: 1033: 1025: 1018: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1003: 998: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 985: 980: 979: 973: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 959: 954: 953: 952: 950: 942: 940: 938: 929: 925: 924: 920: 916: 912: 911: 907: 902: 901: 897: 893: 889: 888: 887: 885: 877: 872: 871: 867: 862: 861: 860: 858: 854: 850: 846: 845: 840: 839: 838:Kitáb-i-Aqdas 833: 831: 826: 824: 820: 816: 812: 808: 804: 800: 796: 791: 789: 778: 774: 770: 767: 766: 765: 764: 760: 756: 751: 750: 746: 744: 738: 733: 732: 731: 729: 725: 721: 717: 709: 705: 701: 696: 695: 689: 684: 683: 682: 681: 677: 673: 668: 667: 659: 655: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 640: 636: 635: 634: 633: 629: 624: 623: 622: 620: 616: 615: 609: 603: 599: 596: 595: 592: 588: 587: 583: 579: 578: 577: 571: 566: 563: 560: 557: 554: 550: 549: 548: 542: 535: 531: 530: 529: 528: 522: 518: 514: 513: 512: 511: 508: 505: 503: 500: 498: 494: 493: 488: 487: 486: 480: 478: 472: 470: 464: 453: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 431: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 407: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 383: 380: 376: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 358: 354: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 339: 336: 332: 331: 330: 329: 325: 321: 318: 317: 316: 314: 311: 303: 301: 299: 295: 284: 280: 279: 278: 277: 271: 266: 265: 264: 263: 259: 254: 253: 250: 247: 245: 242: 240: 236: 235: 234: 232: 224: 220: 215: 214: 213: 211: 202: 197: 196: 195: 193: 189: 181: 176: 171: 170: 169: 167: 161: 149: 144: 143: 142: 141: 140: 139: 131: 126: 125: 124: 123: 122: 121: 115: 111: 107: 106: 105: 104: 100: 95: 94: 93: 87:photo or link 86: 84: 81: 80: 76: 73: 72: 70: 67: 63: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2572: 2558: 2555: 2551: 2548: 2547: 2542: 2541: 2536: 2535: 2531: 2528: 2527: 2523: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2512: 2511: 2507: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2497:To friends, 2496: 2492: 2489: 2432: 2414: 2407: 2296: 2258: 2235: 2201: 2184:autofellatio 2179: 2165: 2151: 2137: 2123: 2115: 2090: 2085: 2075: 2066: 2065: 2061: 2051: 2047: 2038: 2029: 2020: 2011: 2002: 1992: 1982: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1968: 1954: 1942: 1908: 1755: 1674: 1661: 1188: 1165: 1153: 1145: 1142: 1134: 1123: 1116: 1107: 1102: 1099: 1075: 1066: 1061: 1060: 1053: 1029: 997:Baha'i Faith 963: 946: 933: 915:Tony Sidaway 892:Tony Sidaway 881: 844:Kitáb-i-Íqán 842: 836: 834: 827: 815:Bahá'í Faith 810: 794: 792: 784: 773:this version 754: 742: 723: 719: 715: 713: 704:Tony Sidaway 672:Tony Sidaway 613: 612: 610: 607: 601: 589: 575: 552: 546: 506: 501: 495: 484: 476: 468: 307: 293: 290: 248: 243: 237: 228: 206: 185: 162: 157: 90: 82: 78: 77: 74: 59: 58: 55: 43: 37: 2508:Baha'u'llah 2325:User:Occamy 2311:PaulHammond 2033:PaulHammond 1887:PaulHammond 1290:PaulHammond 1200:Steffi Graf 1076:infuriating 1002:PaulHammond 949:PaulHammond 795:Bahá'u'lláh 788:PaulHammond 700:caterpillar 658:PaulHammond 521:AlanBarrett 192:PaulHammond 166:PaulHammond 36:This is an 2435:user:Amir1 2072:censorship 490:offensive. 201:Martin2000 148:Martin2000 62:User:Foant 2537:Socrates: 2457:Cyprus2k1 2274:Cyprus2k1 2217:Cyprus2k1 2128:Frazzydee 1987:Cyprus2k1 1911:Cyprus2k1 1847:Cyprus2k1 1780:Cyprus2k1 1744:Cyprus2k1 1710:Cyprus2k1 1677:Cyprus2k1 1650:Cyprus2k1 1543:Cyprus2k1 1156:Cyprus2k1 853:Palestine 324:Cyprus2k1 130:Cyprus2k1 2591:contribs 2156:Nadavspi 2108:→Raul654 2101:→Raul654 2064:This is 1054:explicit 1036:→Raul654 759:SGBailey 375:Muhammad 320:see this 99:→Raul654 2582:Jeff G. 2561:ABehjat 2348:relgion 2236:Support 2202:Support 2180:Support 2166:Support 2152:Support 2138:Support 2116:Support 2091:Support 2062:Support 2052:support 2039:Support 2030:Support 2021:Support 2012:Support 2003:Support 1993:Support 1983:Support 1697:article 1056:policy 807:Persian 720:prepare 39:archive 2552:Shinto 2449:Refdoc 2427:MPerel 2418:Refdoc 2410:Refdoc 2375:MPerel 2358:Occamy 2329:Occamy 2285:Refdoc 2188:goatse 2170:Cyrius 2080:Tomhab 2074:being 2048:oppose 2042:Cabhan 2024:Refdoc 2015:Occamy 1997:MPerel 1947:MPerel 1932:MPerel 1665:Occamy 1629:MPerel 1568:MPerel 1441:MPerel 1383:MPerel 1329:MPerel 1272:MPerel 1258:Occamy 1225:MPerel 1149:Cabhan 1112:Refdoc 1092:Occamy 1080:Tomhab 1017:Tomhab 937:Occamy 928:Tomhab 906:Tomhab 884:Refdoc 876:Tomhab 866:Tomhab 819:Arabic 737:Tomhab 728:Refdoc 688:Tomhab 639:Refdoc 628:Occamy 619:Tomhab 534:Tomhab 497:homes. 452:Tomhab 406:Tomhab 357:Tomhab 298:Refdoc 283:Tomhab 270:Tomhab 258:Tomhab 239:homes. 231:Refdoc 223:Tomhab 210:Refdoc 175:Tomhab 114:Tomhab 69:(talk) 66:sannse 2283:Aye, 2259:still 2094:Ausir 1078:. -- 849:Bahji 823:Báb's 591:page. 296:way. 16:< 2587:talk 2475:Geni 2468:talk 2464:SPUI 2398:Geni 2350:Geni 2334:Amir 2300:Amir 2263:Geni 2224:Geni 2206:Ambi 2196:talk 2192:SPUI 2190:. -- 2186:and 2160:talk 2146:Talk 2006:Geni 1995:. -- 1985:- -- 1965:Vote 1919:Geni 1812:Geni 1770:Geni 1725:Geni 1699:Geni 1689:Amir 1609:Amir 1589:Geni 1524:Amir 1504:Geni 1485:Amir 1465:Geni 1446:Amir 1416:Geni 1352:Geni 1309:Geni 1240:Geni 1213:Geni 1204:Amir 1181:Geni 1130:Geni 1119:Geni 1108:huge 1067:will 1045:Amir 984:Amir 972:Geni 958:Amir 919:Talk 896:Talk 859:)." 857:Acre 830:here 803:1892 799:1817 716:know 708:Talk 676:Talk 517:NPOV 430:Amir 379:Rick 353:here 335:Rick 310:Rick 294:your 188:here 2240:fvw 2142:Dan 2067:not 1198:-- 1194:-- 904:-- 805:) ( 757:-- 553:not 2559:-- 2356:-- 2332:-- 2158:| 2154:. 2144:| 1930:-- 1327:-- 1256:-- 1223:-- 1103:do 1059:. 851:, 832:. 809:- 801:- 753:- 2593:) 2589:| 2585:( 2466:( 2245:* 2194:( 2174:✎ 2172:| 2132:✍ 2130:| 917:| 894:| 797:( 793:" 706:| 674:| 382:K 338:K 313:K 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index