95:
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.
202:
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?
31:
211:
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.
167:
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. --
258:
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
270:
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
210:
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,
201:
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
166:
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
326:
dear martin, Knowledge is not a platform for religious promotionalism of any religion, i agree with you , everybody here agrees with you on that. no need to keep saying the same thing over and over, instead, give CONSTRUCTIVE arguments, in order to improve wikipedia, keep in mind however that your
148:
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
130:
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
306:
martin, Tomhab based on the talk page putted a link to the photo AND asked "If you have problem with this please use discussion page first" which you havent and thats the reason i reverted again. if you really are interested in improving wikipedia please see ], and please do NOT flame others. -
162:
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,
94:
From the
Orthodox Baha'i Perspective, the picture also should be removed, not because it is a Baha'i site, but for the same reason on the section of Islam no one puts up the print of Muhammad that might be available (there is a sketch) but no one would think of putting it up sicne this would be
111:
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
99:
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.
351:
I've been looking into Babism and limits to the amount of wives you can have. Anyone got anything off wikipedia about it being reduced to two by the Bab? I know this isn't about Babism but the wives of Baha'u'llah is in this article so makes it relevant. --
371:
I've just completed a reasonably thorough search through an up-to-date Ocean and found nothing on the matter (on either the authoritive or other Baha'i books). I will continue looking, but if someone could find a reference that would be very handy. --
219:
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
294:
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
175:
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? --
241:
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
408:. Do a search for "two wives" and it has a short passage on it. I'm still looking for something authoritive as the Miller book isn't known for lending much respect to the Baha'is. Is this the one you read Jeff? --
360:
I know the Bab did this, but I don't know where. Looking on Jonah Winter's site seems impossible unless you already know where to find something. Someone with Ocean ought to be able to find it. --
284:
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 --
224:
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 :). --
189:
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.
338:
Moved this section up here as its relevant. Sorry guys - thought the idea might suit everyone. Didn't mean for it just to bring up another argument. --
232:
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.
315:
Your history speaks for itself. Knowledge is not a platform for religious promotionalism (any religion). Don't like it? Tough. Thank you. --
81:
76:
71:
59:
193:
is his entire list of contributions to
Knowledge. I think Baha'u'llah's image ought to be removed from the Knowledge database.
17:
327:
personal opinion on a topic may not the best or the correct one. be reasonable. (and no personal attacks please) - --
47:
38:
115:) may be considered. Its really just something I do not want to see. Thats not censorship as its freely there. --
427:
Wasn't that reference. I did some quick searching, and I can't find it. Once I do I'll post it here. --
149:
natural, and there are numerous other projects that are similar to this one, in multiple languages.
405:
247:(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 6, 1939)
361:
194:
168:
316:
203:
150:
328:
308:
132:
428:
388:
101:
409:
373:
353:
339:
300:
285:
272:
260:
233:
225:
221:
212:
177:
116:
113:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
131:
should be deleted, but at least put a wikilink to it instead.. " - --
25:
387:
I've seen it somewhere. I'll try to find it again. --
190:
163:discuss it on the relevant article talk page."
8:
252:(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 539)
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
24:
29:
1:
452:
259:be replaced by a link. --
222:wikipedia image use policy
197:21:24, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
171:03:17, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
364:03:35, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
356:00:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
215:17:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
104:04:19, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
431:23:41, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
391:17:06, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
311:09:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
303:09:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
236:10:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
228:23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
206:23:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
180:13:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
153:17:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
135:19:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
119:17:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
412:21:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
376:16:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
342:12:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
331:10:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
319:09:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
288:02:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
275:13:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
263:13:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42:of past discussions.
18:Talk:Baháʼu'lláh
347:wives times three
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
443:
404:Just found this
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
451:
450:
446:
445:
444:
442:
441:
440:
349:
271:do follow). --
187:
185:User Martin2000
92:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
449:
447:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
380:
379:
378:
377:
366:
365:
348:
345:
344:
343:
335:
334:
333:
332:
321:
320:
292:
291:
290:
289:
279:
278:
277:
276:
265:
264:
255:
254:
249:
244:
230:
229:
208:
207:
186:
183:
182:
181:
161:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
141:
140:
139:
138:
137:
136:
123:
122:
121:
120:
106:
105:
91:
88:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
448:
430:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
411:
407:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
390:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
375:
370:
369:
368:
367:
363:
359:
358:
357:
355:
346:
341:
337:
336:
330:
325:
324:
323:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
310:
304:
302:
298:
287:
283:
282:
281:
280:
274:
269:
268:
267:
266:
262:
257:
256:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
239:
238:
237:
235:
227:
223:
218:
217:
216:
214:
205:
200:
199:
198:
196:
192:
184:
179:
174:
173:
172:
170:
164:
152:
147:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
134:
129:
128:
127:
126:
125:
124:
118:
114:
110:
109:
108:
107:
103:
98:
97:
96:
90:photo or link
89:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
406:Miller boook
350:
305:
296:
293:
251:
246:
240:
231:
209:
188:
165:
160:
93:
65:
43:
37:
362:PaulHammond
195:PaulHammond
169:PaulHammond
36:This is an
317:Martin2000
204:Martin2000
151:Martin2000
329:Cyprus2k1
309:Cyprus2k1
133:Cyprus2k1
82:Archive 5
77:Archive 4
72:Archive 3
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
429:Jeff3000
389:Jeff3000
102:→Raul654
39:archive
410:Tomhab
374:Tomhab
354:Tomhab
340:Tomhab
301:Refdoc
286:Tomhab
273:Tomhab
261:Tomhab
242:homes.
234:Refdoc
226:Tomhab
213:Refdoc
178:Tomhab
117:Tomhab
299:way.
16:<
297:your
191:here
307:--
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.