Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 9

1267:

claimed they were following of Ḥusayn (the grandson of the Prophet Muḥammad who was ruthlessly murdered by Shimr on the orders of Yazīd) they summoned a group of Shimr-like people around themselves. The breath of any soul who uttered anything but what they were satisfied with was suffocated. They beat any head which made the slightest sound other than accepting their guardianship. They cut every throat which showed other than humbleness towards them. They pierced every heart which had love towards other than them. The first group whose names we previously mentioned fled to Karbala, Najaf and elsewhere fearing those bloodthirsty headsmen. They beheaded Sayyid Ismā'īl Iṣfahānī, they ripped Mīrzā Aḥmad Kāshī’s guts, they killed Āghā Abul-Qāsim Kāshi and threw his body in the Tigris river, they finished Sayyid Aḥmad with a gun, they scattered Mīrzā Ridhā’s brain with rocks, they cut Mīrzā 'Alī’s body from the sides and pushed him unto the path of demise. Other than these, they killed others in the darkness of night and threw their bodies in the Tigris river; yet others were killed in the Bazaar in daylight and cut to pieces with daggers and machetes."

1327:"On my entrance they greeted me with an outburst of raillery, induced, as it appeared, by their belief that I was disposed to prefer the claims of Subh-i-Azal to those of Baha, and that I had been influenced in this by the Sheykh of Kum and his friends. I was at first utterly taken aback and somewhat alarmed at their vehemence, but anger at the unjust and intolerant attitude towards the Azalis which they took up presently came to my aid, and I reminded them that such violence and unfairness, so far from proving their case, could only make it appear the weaker. I assure you that this fact has done more to incline me from Baha to Azal than anything which the Sheykh of Kum or his friends have said to me. It would be more to the point if, instead of talking in this violent and unreasonable manner, you would produce the Bayan (of which, ever since I came to Kirman, and indeed, to Persia, I have been vainly endeavouring to obtain a copy), and show me what the Bab has said about his successor." 1227:, whose article includes artistic depictions of Muhammad by Muslim artists. Including the image of Baha'u'llah is not analogous to "clearly anti-Semitic propaganda" (your words), since we are not stirring up antipathy towards Baha'is or spreading falsehoods about them. Criticism of a religion (a body of ideas) is different from criticism of its adherents (a group of people), and a website not following a religion's practices does not infringe upon the freedom of others to practice that religion. That gets at your next point, which is comparing including an image to denigrating various racial/ethnic groups – again, we are not attacking Baha'is as people and so the comparison doesn't hold. Unfortunately, we cannot stop people from interpreting it as a personal attack, even though this isn't the intent. I sympathize very much with Baha'is undergoing persecution and I've personally expanded the article 797:

here and now because quarrelling over him is going to be counterproductive. May I remind you that I take no side in the photo of Bahá'u'lláh dispute. Instead, I'm loyal to the consensus. So if there is a consensus regarding this topic that you would like me to be aware of, would you mind bringing it to my attention, please? The way you worded your edit summary made it came across to me that you were disputing an established consensus. From my observation, you have been acting rather defensively in this discussion, and I feel that you are failing to take responsibility for yourself. I'll also clarify that I'm trying to have a productive discussion with Silver as well, which means resolving the accusation I made against him.

639:. My edit summary said that it was WP:CENSORSHIP. Even if I somehow misinterpreted it (I don't think I did), I don't see how seeing calling people making edits out of religious feelings (which is why I felt it was censorship) is "Personal opinion and NPOV". If users can't be neutral, then they shouldn't be editing Knowledge. So I don't know why you're saying my edit misinterpreted the consenusus. And as for taking the Muhammad comment seriously, I was just trying to be cooperative and say how it won't work there. Also if you really think there's no consenus, then why does this line exist in the closing note by 1220:, thanks for posting here and voicing your concerns. While I understand the sensitivities involved and the value of creating an atmosphere of reverence and awe, Knowledge is strictly uncensored, because if we started making exceptions to our encyclopedic mission, it would send us down a slippery slope with various groups and individuals clamouring for things to be removed. This is not decided on a case-by-case basis and editing disputes on Knowledge are not resolved by editors voting, but rather by the strength of the arguments editors put forward based on Knowledge's policies and guidelines. 827:. I don't see how that means I have a personal opinion which you accused me of. And I don't see you resolving your accusation against Silver anywhere btw. You say you had a productive discussion, while sarcastically replying to Silver about Jesus and demanded they respond to you. And you are taking sides in this dispute, with the Bahai editors. As far as being defensive goes, I'm just stating the obvious and answering your questions and accusations. Didn't know replying to others truthfully, especially after they're hostile and accuse you of being biased, was defensive. 845:. If there is an established consensus, in other words if most people have found something to agree on, then I am loyal to that above all else. Your wording of your edit summary implies that you were disputing something that most people agreed on, so I am going to bring you into question for it. The reason I sided with Smkolins has nothing to do with his religion; instead, his edit summary read "consensus matters." In other words, Knowledge is a community effort, so make sure you discuss before you upset the status quo. 1280:"At the age of 33, during a governmental attempt to exterminate the movement, Baháʼu'lláh narrowly escaped death, his properties were confiscated, and he was banished from Iran. ". Again, it's well recorded in the Baha'i book 'Nabil's Narrative' that Baha'u'llah was inspecting and approving a fortification at Tabarsi, Iran where religious fanatics engaged in a lengthy battle and act of sedition and rebellion against the government army, resulting in more than 600 deaths. 1385:, I do agree that the page needs serious work and currently reads like a hagiography in some parts. This version was a substantial rewrite completed in 2021, and I was concerned at the time but gave my support as long as the neutrality would be improved after. I've done some of that and so have others but it still needs a lot of work to be properly neutral... looking back, I should have opposed this version until it was improved. So basically, I agree with you overall. 612:

by the photo in any way, just prefer to avoid it to avoid the image-worship that has crept into other religions. Since it is free of copyright, it should be in the article, but moving it down from the infobox was a way to reduce its prominence and help people avoid it who want to avoid it. I think there is a perfectly good argument to move it to the first section in the article (it was previously the last section) so it is easily accessed by people who want to see it.

1689:

your expertise in the subject area is greater than mine, and my issue isn't with the content matter. The majority of my contributions on Knowledge have to do with fixing factual or citation errors and editing for tone / voice; that's where my concerns lie. I do enough substantive / original writing in my day-to-day and I'm not interested in taking on that role here, so please do not think this is a matter of intellectual or ideological disagreement for me.

31: 1427:

Google, where his image becomes prominently visible. For Baha'is, viewing Bahá'u'lláh's image holds great significance, often as part of a pilgrimage experience. Thus, stumbling upon it online can be distressing. Additionally, it deprives Baha'is of control over their own spiritual experience, as they are presented with the image without consent when searching for information related to 'Bahá'u'lláh.'

1360:. 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). So far you're invoking the opposite non-neutral tone that reflects the way Iranian propaganda describes Baha'u'llah, but I agree with the basic idea that the lack of mention of the murders in Akka is part of the overall neutrality problem. 1214:, seeing as this is coming up repeatedly. I think it would also be great if there was a "Hide this image" button under the image so that readers could avoid viewing the image without having to first create an account and insert code on a user sub-page. That would probably reduce the number of complaints without denying anyone access to the image. But I'm not aware of syntax that could do this. 1168:

does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene, or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

576:

to avoid catering to religious feelings of users, I don't see how that's a "personal opinion". A consensus was already reached, if you are not happy with it no body is supposed to do anything about it, although you're free to open a new discussion for a new consensus. Also please be civil next time and avoid accusing me, that too without evidence. Otherwise you would be complained at

595:

authority of consensus on Knowledge as you've described. I also clarify that I do not wish to dispute any consensus myself; no consensus regarding photos of Bahá'u'lláh has been brought to my attention, and I was working with the information I had received. Additionally, the Muhammad comment was an act of sarcasm and attempt to draw analogy, don't take that too seriously!

557:; yes, he observes the religion in question, but from my observation he is an established contributor, so I believe that said assumption is unfair. From my perspective, we should review the present consensus and/or attempt to reach a new one before making our own decisions to alter the status quo, and I hope that a consensus will be reached on this issue. 1443:

are possible, it can and was argued in the past that any such depiction would be misrepresentative, particularly due to the religious usage of the non-image to represent him. None of that is the case in this article, where a photograph of the subject is available. Hence why the photograph is used and this was determined quite definitively in past RfCs.

1005:, "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." There's no doubt about it that this image is seen as more representative of Bahaullah than his shrine, although I'd prefer a more popular image. 757:

in existence. With this information, I find strong ground to apply your arguement of "misrepresentative" here. As with Fanboy, I believe that you've taken my throwaway Muhammad comment far too seriously. I drew the analogy because Muslims and Baha'is share this practice in common. Are you going to respond to my accusation of arbitrary assumption?

969:, you seem to think you're cracking some kind of conspiracy here, and there is nothing. Virtually no independent reliable sources use the image of Baha'u'llah. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single example, and my proposal was not to delete or hide the photo. Meanwhile Knowledge censors the former names of trangender individuals ( 1356:. 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 proposal to use primary sources is a common error for new editors, see 1598:). Similar to the name Chastity in English. So to avoid confusion with his later claim to divinity, I tried to reword it as "a reference to God's attribute of glory", but I'm not stuck on that wording. He also went by both Baha and Baha'u'llah, just as Faizi could be shorthand for Faizullah. Here's another attempt: 733:

that any such depiction would be misrepresentative, particularly due to the religious usage of the non-image to represent him. None of that is the case in this article, where a photograph of the subject is available. Hence why the photograph is used and this was determined quite definitively in past RfCs.

1235:

spend reverting the vandalism that results from this), and the anonymous accounts mean nobody has to reveal their identity or background. Hopefully with time the editor body will become more diverse. Regardless, all editors must follow Knowledge policies and one of those is that Knowledge is uncensored.

1688:

My final edit, where I went back to the original was meant to be a concession in the spirit of avoiding contention. I do apologize for that last reversion, though I'd like to point out that I'd tried an alternative wording following the reversion of my original edit. That being said, I recognize that

1266:

His own sister wrote: "They gathered a group of hooligans from different provinces of Iran and from the same places fugitives who had never believed in any religion and had no faith in any prophet and had no work but manslaughter and had no occupation but stealing peoples’ property. Even though they

1124:

To better explain one point: This article displays something so sacred, Bahais only can view it on a 9-day Pilgrimage to our world center. There, during one visit to our Archives, small groups can view it in a prayerful attitude. Viewing it, you can see, is considered a highly sacred rite. The public

796:

You know what? We could quarrel about Abrahamic religious figures all week if you'd like. It genuinely has stunned me that people who are supposed to be productive could focus heavily on one sensational part of what I said, so with that, I would like to request that all parties drop the Muhammad talk

115:

This is a biographical article in an encyclopedia. It is entirely normal and expected that we feature a photograph of the subject. If Muhammad had lived in the age of photography, I'm sure we'd have a photograph of him at the top of his article. Note that our article on Muhammad does include multiple

1426:

The use of Bahá'u'lláh's image in this article raises ethical concerns, particularly in light of the practice observed in the article about Muhammad, which refrains from including depictions of him. Including Bahá'u'lláh's image results in unintended exposure when individuals search 'Bahá'u'lláh' on

1091:

For over 6 million people in all the nations on earth, speaking hundreds of languages, many without means to speak here, etc, the image of Baha'u'llah is Sacred and the display of it for anyone to is offensive. Your well considered decision, while neutral on face, is biased by your own biases not to

1068:

This is a biographical article on an encyclopedia with a diverse, worldwide readership. It's entirely appropriate and expected that we show a photograph of the subject, should one exist, at the top of the article. There are no copyright concerns, BLP concerns, or any other policy/guideline reason to

611:

I agree that the change was a poor example of an RFI and confused by the Fanboy insisting that the previous consensus was catering to "religious sensibilities" and citing censorship. It was also confused by the nominator combining it with the question of what his name was. Baha'is are not "offended"

594:

I apologise for any unfounded accusations made. May I clarify that the way you worded your edit summary from the edit in question came across as an invocation of personal opinion; you described the photo thing as "religious censorship," which, granted, is a founded claim, but does not undermine the

95:

I know that the biggest opponent against the Baha'i faith is Islam and I'm afraid that such an obvious presence of Baha Ullah's photograph on Knowledge will compel the Islamists to misuse the photograph in a lewd and derogatory manner. This picture has to be shifted back to "Photographs and Imagery"

1770:

Given the complexities here, maybe we need a somewhat longer sentence? Something like "Baha'u'llah is a titling meaning "Glory of God", following a common practice in Arabic names of XYZ." We would need a source that explains all that but I suspect one exists. Maybe Smith's 2000 encyclopedia or his

1323:

The murders of 3 Azalis and the subsequent sentencing of 23 of Baha'u'llah's followers in Akka in relation to the triple homicide is widely known and beyond dispute. The culture of violence that permeated Baha'u'llah's closest followers in Akka was even observed by Professor Edward Granville Browne

756:

If that's really your arguement, can we not say the same about Jesus? There are no photographic representations of him available. Muslims who abstain from visual depictions of Muhammad are likely to also abstain from visual depictions of Jesus, and there may even be some Christian iconoclasts still

575:

Please read this line in the closing note for the consensus above:"Broad consensus for inclusion of the photograph at the top of the article following..." As far as Muhammad goes, sure if you wish but I doubt the consensus will be reached there for a visual depiction. I felt Knowledge articles need

179:

Note that this page's editnotice includes the line "Through extensive and repeated consultations a decision has been made to include the picture at the bottom of the article." but this is no longer accurate, as there is an image at the very top. I removed this line, but that was in contravention of

1442:

As has already been discussed in sections above, there are no photographs of Muhammad that exist, since he lived before photography. If that wasn't the case, then there would be a stronger argument for inclusion of a photo of Muhammad in his article. As it stands, since only artistic images of him

1234:

Your last point was about the diversity of editors. Yes, it is well known that Knowledge editors are not a cross-section of the global population and it's an area for improvement. With that said, we do allow anyone to edit without even creating a free account (despite how much time editors have to

1167:

A cornerstone of Knowledge policy is that the project is not censored. Knowledge editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Knowledge should include material simply because it is offensive, nor

1692:

I admit that I did not at all consider that translating "glory of God" from the original could be misunderstood in the manner you explained. I'm a native speaker so the naming convention is familiar to me and I found the meaning of the translated phrase uncontroversial. Now that you've pointed it

1465:

Stop pushing on this @Cuñado . You will really have your hands full when further edits are made to improve neutrality and to properly document Baha'u'llah's involvement in 20+ homicides, his extensive criminal resume including rebellion and sedition in Iran, and his lifelong plagiarism of various

1392:

for more on why we want secondary sources instead). In the end, if we let primary sources have the same weight as scholarly secondary sources, everyone would be arguing over which primary sources to include and we'd basically have to become historians in our own right to decide -- which we aren't

927:

He also talks about hiding the image for those who don't want to see it. What about those who do want to and don't care about Bahai rules? Many also won't realize the image is located in the article body because there's no notice for it. We also aren't supposed to cater to minority groups, unless

732:

There are no photographs of Muhammad that exist, since he lived before photography. If that wasn't the case, then there would be a stronger argument for inclusion of a photo of Muhammad in his article. As it stands, since only artistic images of him are possible, it can and was argued in the past

1046:

The real objectionable thing was that you were able to bring in your religious feelings and make up ridiculous reasons like you're doing it for others. Your arguments aren't convincing any rational editor. Try to blame me of bias isn't going to work, the only bias I have is making sure Knowledge

868:

of this talk page has a consensus about it where I did discuss. So I don't see how you talk about community effort when you're ignoring a consensus. And can you please stop falsely accusing me of not discussing? I'l also note you didn't answer about your uncivil and demanding behavior to Silver

863:

nor anyone's supposed to respond to you, if you have problem with my behaviour you can feel free to complain me at ANI. I only respond to you because I know you're questioning me because you have a problem with Bahaullah's photo in the infobox. You are pretending that a consensus doesn't exist

774:

Silver Seren is drawing analogy with Bahaullah's case. Photoghraphs of Jesus don't exist but paintings representing and regarded as a representation of him do. Christian iconclasm isn't a major phenomenon even if it might exist, so I don't see the point of your comment. Do you see a consensus

1792:

I feel like in the west it is commonly misunderstood that way due to not knowing the original context. Like I said, I don't have a strong preference here. I checked several books, including Smith, and I didn't see this particular thing explained. It is too much in the weeds to be covered in a

1095:

If you recall the offense to the Muslim world at cartoons offensive to the Person of Muhammed, or offense to the Jewish community of clearly anti-Semitic propaganda, you may understand the insensitivity to which others may view your "consensus decision." You who hold power should consider the

709:

accused me of NPOV. You accuser me of cracking conspiracies. So it's definitely worth taking at ANI as that's actionable. I really wonder why you don't do it. I would have taken you to ANI again to have you blocked already were the admins more serious, because this isn't just a dispute.

1156:

Knowledge may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an

1103:

The fact I'm a user, not a frequent contributor in no way invalidates this statement; in fact, it underlines the deep hurt and pain caused by your consensus. Again, it is OFFENSIVE and the fact 6 million people and their friends haven't voted in your fora does not invalidate the

1028:"we all know" and "stating the obvious" are objectionable lines of argument. I don't like the aspersions against assuming good faith. It is arguable that the editing history here is in your own words suffered another kind of bias being stoked. I favor at least the type of thing 823:, with JeffUK's closing comment in a box about a consensus being reached. Either you're As far as disputing an established consensus, I did do that because it was censorship. Knowledge editors should follow its policies no matter how many support otherwise, in this case 545:. On this basis, may I argue that we have a visual depiction of the prophet Muhammad in the infobox in his article? It appears to me that the edit made by Fanboy was based on personal opinion rather than discussion and review of consensus. Well, may I remind you that 1172:

The image of Baha'u'llah is not copyrighted and has never been censored from the page, only moved on the page. Please read over various Knowledge policies and guidelines that may influence the decision on where it should go on the page. A good place to start is

478:

The entire article reads like it was copied from a bibliography. The "good article" status was given in 2012 and obviously many edits have been made since then that I think makes this not be a "good article" anymore. There is a talk discussion about it too.

1011:

allows use of the dead name in relevant context if reliable sources use it. You should have read the policy first and it's ridiculous how you're comparing Bahaullah to transgender people who go through mental challenges and even commit suicide.

1273:

Similarly, the multiple homicides by the followers of Baha'u'llah in Akka are reliably documented. The authorities issued severe jail sentences for 7 of his followers for the murders, and additional jail sentences for a further 16 accomplices.

1099:

Therefore, please show the good sense of respecting others' religions. What you judge as "taboo" many are, in modern times persecuted for—literally dying for. Would you display something obviously offensive to Jews or Roma or First Nations or

180:

an editing restriction placed on me in 2019 that I had forgotten about. I have reverted myself and am seeking consensus to remove this line again. Thanks for your feedback and sorry for creating this overhead through my inappropriate edits. ―

818:

It wasn't me or Silver Seren who brought up the Muhammad example or other Abrahamic religious figures, that was you. So if you want others to drop it, maybe not bring it up yourself? Also the consensus is right here on top of this page,

1696:

In fact, it's actually a bit difficult to unsee now. Do you think it would be likely that readers may interpret "he took the title Baháʼ (بهاء), Arabic for "glory" or "splendour", or Baháʼu'lláh" as a claim regarding his own glory or

1506:

Exactly. The pro-Baha'i agenda of these articles must be addressed to improve on neutrality and to bring in content from sources beyond the Baha'i-administration-certified censorship-review-passed references that currently dominate.

923:

won't admit. Bahais don't want the image because their religion prohibits it out of idol worship. He talks of Bahais not wanting promotion of idol worship. Why do they care who gets involved in it? It's a free society.

1588:

in wikivoice. My main concern was to not simply translate the Arabic to "glory of God" because the title is commonly misunderstood as a claim to divinity. There is a naming convention in Arabic to use <virtue:

775:

against Jesus' representation on Knowledge? Also no one's supposed to respond to you, tone down the hostility. It's not that others have taken your comment seriously, you've taken this discussion too seriously.

1125:

availability of this image itself is problematic. Why not allow us Bahais to maintain the sacredness of the image of our own Founder? I respectfully ask the Editors to demonstrate greater sensitivity.

662:

and it wasn't just me who had that view. You can feel free to take this to ANI if you want. Btw can you answer me why an Bahais would have a problem with idol-worship? That sounds like being offended.

494:

None of this seems explicitly non-neutral so long as those statements can be verified. That being said, there is a significant amount of uncited text that should be verified before GA status is kept.

1263:

The article doesn't clearly explain the reasons for Baha'u'llah's exile, i.e. his involvement, during a period of ~40 years, in criminal acts including rebellion, sedition, and multiple homicides.

1092:

respect the deeply held religious feelings of people who are (it cannot be left unsaid) far more diverse than yourselves. Of what value is consensus when there's little diversity of background?

339: 942:

the image from the infobox for their personal feelings. And if they want to say it's not because they're just hiding it, hiding or changing something also qualifies as censorship

1073:

articles, not this one. Now I'm sympathetic to the view that some readers may not want to view the photo, but there are multiple ways for them to hide or avoid the image.

1277:"Baháʼu'lláh was raised with no formal education but was well-read and devoutly religious. " Again, he received private tuition from the most educated people in Iran. 1466:

sources including erroneous histories of Greece, and much more. And let's not get started on the geopolitical ambitions of the Bab and his endorsement of bloodshed.

1047:

editors follow NPOV which you aren't. There's a point where one has to say the obvious. Why both of you haven't been blocked is beyond me, because you're obviously

887:

Btw here's the consensus summary by JeffUK who closed the discussion regarding whether to include the photo and name at the top if you somehow still can't find it.

228: 1283:

The entire article is so frustratingly dishonest and biased that the task of rectifying its lack of neutriality will require a significant, collaborative effort.

392: 994:, you can stop going on with the "hiding it for those who don't want to see it" when we all know it's been due to you wanting to follow Bahai religion's tenets. 388: 1001:, even if it's inauthentic it can be used: "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." Also 373: 1436: 1405:

by Denis MacEoin. It's badly organized but it would give you secondary analysis to substantiate this kind of point and balance out the article.

365: 1543:

Do you have any evidence (not from states or organizations with anti-Baha'i doctrine, such as the Iranian government) to support your claims?

997:

As far as "reliable independent sources" go, we don't require any reliable independent sources but the most common recognizable image. See

96:

section. (I don't want it removed altogether), or else efforts should be made to insert a portrait of Muhammad in the Knowledge article of

1353: 72: 67: 59: 100:

so as to ensure fair treatment. After all, Knowledge does not cater to religious taboos and should not cater to Islamic taboos either.

1486: 1174: 1228: 549:

is central to Knowledge's decision making process, and disputing the consensus based on personal opinion does not represent a

1388:

I also appreciate that you're providing sources, but like Cuñado has said, the ones you gave are mainly primary sources (see

1525:, please suggest specific content changes to the article here, accompanied with citations to reliable, secondary sources—or 413: 351:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1548: 1298: 1056: 1017: 956: 895: 878: 832: 780: 715: 667: 585: 520:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

505: 434: 681: 580:. If you think my edits are truly non-NPOV and the consensus needs to be re-opened then you should discuss this at ANI. 248: 17: 312: 280: 198: 865: 842: 820: 381: 47: 38: 869:

Seren. As far as me disputing an established consensus goes, one can dispute a consensus and start a new one. See

1475: 1544: 1052: 1013: 966: 952: 891: 874: 828: 791: 776: 711: 663: 581: 532: 1082: 960: 566: 488: 439: 316: 284: 202: 142: 105: 1482: 1449: 1069:

exclude or move the image. Discussions about deadnames or other articles are irrelevant, as they apply to

739: 484: 1618: 1151: 1805: 1779: 1761: 1700:

I think the original working works if you replace "referencing" with "connoting" or "signifying" i.e.:

1682: 1552: 1538: 1516: 1501: 1454: 1413: 1372: 1343: 1318: 1302: 1246: 1193: 1134: 1130: 1119: 1115: 1060: 1041: 1021: 985: 899: 882: 854: 836: 806: 784: 766: 744: 719: 696: 671: 624: 604: 589: 510: 358: 321: 289: 252: 222: 213:

I agree with removing it, or perhaps changing "bottom" to "top". The more notices the better, I'd say.

207: 164: 146: 125: 109: 1398: 1286: 1162: 651: 1800: 1677: 1496: 1367: 1188: 1029: 980: 850: 802: 762: 691: 619: 600: 562: 546: 1753: 1567: 1522: 1508: 1467: 1382: 1335: 1290: 1217: 1147: 1126: 1111: 422:: Numerous unresolved issues; no objection to closing, and no current work to improve the article. 1534: 1314: 1078: 1037: 1008: 970: 258:

I can after consensus. I figure having this open for a week or so wouldn't hurt anything. Again,

218: 160: 138: 121: 101: 1428: 920: 455:"...a governmental attempt to exterminate the movement, Baha'u'llah narrowly escaped dealth..." 1757: 1512: 1471: 1444: 1339: 1294: 1211: 1048: 751: 734: 540: 500: 480: 429: 1397:). The last source you gave is a scholarly secondary source, but it is well out of date (see 1706: 1624: 701:

Since you forgot you've accused me of falsely accusing you of censorship to get a consensus

242: 1742: 1693:

out, I can see where the difficulty may potentially lie for many of the article's readers.

1660: 1432: 308: 276: 194: 935:

when they see the image, or simply put they're "offended". No matter how much they deny.

137:

article itself, one of the portraits used in the article is established as a lead image.

1223:

I also think the analogies you added are flawed. This is not different form the case of

1794: 1772: 1671: 1526: 1490: 1406: 1389: 1361: 1239: 1182: 991: 974: 948: 860: 846: 824: 813: 798: 771: 758: 706: 702: 685: 659: 655: 631: 613: 596: 572: 558: 550: 873:. In this case I raised the obvious issue of religious censorship and NPOV violation. 1621:, he took the title Baháʼ (بهاء), Arabic for "glory" or "splendour", or Baháʼu'lláh ( 1608: 1530: 1357: 1310: 1178: 1074: 1033: 1002: 932: 870: 577: 554: 214: 156: 152: 130: 117: 1394: 945: 645:

Broad consensus for inclusion of the photograph at the top of the article following

495: 424: 658:, even if it might not qualify as such, the previous consensus certainly violated 227:

If someone has the permissions to do so, please make the necessary changes here:

1309:

Diatribes don't help. Published verifiable sources count. Not … what you posted.

640: 234: 46:

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

998: 943: 295: 263: 181: 1595: 1591: 1570:

the edit summaries are getting crowded so I'm adding some discussion here.

864:

regarding including the Bahaullah photo at top, when the very first section

553:. Additionally, I reprimand Silver for his apparent arbitrary assumption of 678:

discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems

1614: 1224: 938:

This is obvious censorship no matter how much he contradicts it, they're

931:

The reason behind all this simply is many users here, especially Bahais,

529:

I would like to dispute the recent edits from 29 and 30 November 2022 by

134: 97: 474:"...imprison both Baba'u'llah and Mirza Yahya in far-flung outposts..." 1606:, and as the son of a nobleman in the province of Núr, he was known as 1238:

Sorry for being long-winded -- happy to discuss further if you wish.

1422:

Request to Remove Baháʼu'lláh Images: Consistency and User Consent

133:

Thanks for the clarification. But I'd be more satisfied if in the

1401:). For non-Baha'i perspectives on the early history, I recommend 1270:(Izziyyih Khānum (Khānum Buzurg), Tanbīh al-nā’imīn, pp. 11–12 ) 446:

Violates #4 Neutral language. Examples just in the introduction:

1590:-Allah, and it's meant to call the virtue to remembrance (e.g. 859:

You're not an admin who's going to bring anyone into question

25: 1210:

We may eventually want an FAQ for this talk page, similar to

452:"...and donating considerable time and money to charities." 92:

I'm not a Baha'i. But I'm its sympathiser and I'm a Hindu.

841:

The rules are there for us to keep in mind no doubt, but

465:"...the execution of the Bab were tumultuous for Babis." 1352:

This article was re-written in December 2021, discussed

1578: 1574: 1421: 888: 637: 408: 400: 369: 928:

most Knowledge readers have a problem with the image.

973:) and it is upheld in the name of avoiding offense. 1715: 1633: 1529:and add them to the article and see if they stick. 1749:) is a title connoting God's attribute of "Glory". 1724: 1642: 1333:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 578. 471:"...encourage and revive flagging spirits..." 462:There are other parts of the article as well: 458:"...attracted the ire of Iranian authorities" 1733: 1721: 1651: 1639: 684:. This was pointed out to you several times. 468:"...seeking to curry favor with the king..." 8: 1712: 1630: 262:messed up by not getting consensus first. ― 116:depictions of him that were created later. 1727: 1645: 1284: 1617:: میرزا حسین‌علی نوری‎). In 1848, at the 919:Let me also make something obvious which 449:"His family was considerably wealthy..." 151:You're welcome to suggest that change at 1577:edit, you reverted, I reverted, I tried 1601: 1166: 1155: 677: 644: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1259:Rewrite entire article for neutrality 680:, and content disputes should follow 229:Template:Editnotices/Page/Baháʼu'lláh 7: 1730: 1709: 1648: 1627: 866:Talk:Baháʼu'lláh#Full name and photo 821:Talk:Baháʼu'lláh#Full name and photo 347:The following discussion is closed. 1746: 1718: 1664: 1636: 175:Editnotice should likely be changed 1581:, you went back to the original. 24: 1584:Your main concern was to not say 1329:Browne, Edward Granville (1926). 1110:Ali Manning Thomas, Seattle, USA 1705: 1623: 1231:, but that is a separate matter. 947:. And it's obvious violation of 636:I assume you talk of this edit. 516:The discussion above is closed. 294:Note that it has been changed. ― 29: 1487:Knowledge:Core content policies 409:Watch article reassessment page 1455:00:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC) 1437:23:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC) 1: 1602:Baháʼu'lláh's given name was 1107:Therefore, please reconsider. 1096:feelings of those who do not. 990:I'm just stating the obvious 290:00:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC) 253:22:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC) 223:18:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC) 208:18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC) 165:13:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC) 147:04:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC) 126:15:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC) 110:12:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC) 1806:15:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 1780:14:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 1762:00:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 1683:17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 1553:02:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC) 890:I hope you will respect it. 1414:03:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC) 1373:01:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 1344:20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC) 1319:20:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC) 1303:20:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC) 1826: 1586:God's attribute of "Glory" 1539:21:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) 1517:07:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC) 1502:05:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC) 1481:I recommend you read over 1476:22:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 511:01:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC) 440:03:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC) 322:14:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC) 1331:A Year Among the Persians 1247:00:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC) 1194:21:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC) 1135:15:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC) 1120:15:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC) 489:21:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 1324:during his visits there: 1175:WP:Core content policies 1083:15:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 1061:01:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC) 1042:10:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 1022:16:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 986:15:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 961:01:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 900:10:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 883:10:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 855:09:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 843:they're not set in stone 837:08:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 807:08:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 785:02:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 767:15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 745:23:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 720:02:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 697:15:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 672:17:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 625:17:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 605:17:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 590:16:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 567:15:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 547:establishing a consensus 518:Please do not modify it. 349:Please do not modify it. 1460: 1088:Dear Knowledge Editors, 88:Relocate the lead image 1483:Knowledge:Five pillars 1393:(you've probably seen 1229:Persecution of Baháʼís 1150:, please take note of 1619:Conference of Badasht 1403:The Messiah of Shiraz 682:WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION 551:neutral point of view 42:of past discussions. 18:Talk:Baháʼu'lláh 525:Photo of Bahá'u'lláh 524: 232: 1752:What do you think? 1545:Education-over-easy 1053:Roman Reigns Fanboy 1014:Roman Reigns Fanboy 967:Roman Reigns Fanboy 953:Roman Reigns Fanboy 892:Roman Reigns Fanboy 875:Roman Reigns Fanboy 829:Roman Reigns Fanboy 792:Roman Reigns Fanboy 777:Roman Reigns Fanboy 712:Roman Reigns Fanboy 664:Roman Reigns Fanboy 582:Roman Reigns Fanboy 533:Roman Reigns Fanboy 1100:African-Americans? 414:Most recent review 350: 338: 1461:Drcombo's comment 1305: 1289:comment added by 1212:Talk:Muhammad/FAQ 348: 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1817: 1803: 1776: 1748: 1740: 1739: 1736: 1735: 1732: 1729: 1726: 1723: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1711: 1680: 1666: 1658: 1657: 1654: 1653: 1650: 1647: 1644: 1641: 1638: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1611:Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí 1499: 1452: 1447: 1410: 1370: 1334: 1243: 1191: 1030:User talk:Cuñado 983: 817: 795: 755: 742: 737: 694: 635: 622: 544: 536: 508: 503: 498: 437: 432: 427: 423: 411: 405: 396: 377: 320: 303: 288: 271: 255: 239: 206: 189: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1801: 1774: 1708: 1704: 1678: 1626: 1622: 1579:another wording 1565: 1497: 1463: 1450: 1445: 1424: 1408: 1368: 1328: 1261: 1241: 1189: 1032:is suggesting. 981: 811: 789: 749: 740: 735: 692: 629: 620: 538: 530: 527: 522: 521: 506: 501: 496: 435: 430: 425: 418: 407: 386: 363: 357: 353: 343: 336: 334:GA Reassessment 306: 297: 274: 265: 235: 192: 183: 177: 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1823: 1821: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1765: 1764: 1750: 1701: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1564: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1541: 1462: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1423: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1386: 1376: 1375: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1325: 1260: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1236: 1232: 1221: 1215: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1170: 1159: 1152:WP:NOTCENSORED 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1006: 995: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 861:User:GOLDIEM J 772:User:GOLDIEM J 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 707:User:GOLDIEM J 676:WP:ANI is for 648: 609: 608: 607: 526: 523: 515: 514: 513: 477: 461: 444: 443: 442: 416: 354: 345: 344: 342: 337: 335: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 176: 173: 172: 171: 170: 169: 168: 167: 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1822: 1807: 1804: 1798: 1797: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1781: 1778: 1777: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1744: 1738: 1703:Baháʼu'lláh ( 1702: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1675: 1674: 1669: 1668: 1662: 1656: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1610: 1605: 1599: 1597: 1593: 1587: 1582: 1580: 1576: 1571: 1569: 1562: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1500: 1494: 1493: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1456: 1453: 1448: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1415: 1412: 1411: 1404: 1400: 1399:WP:AGEMATTERS 1396: 1391: 1387: 1384: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1365: 1364: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1332: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1271: 1268: 1264: 1258: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1237: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1195: 1192: 1186: 1185: 1180: 1179:MOS:BIOGRAPHY 1176: 1171: 1169: 1164: 1163:WP:GRATUITOUS 1160: 1158: 1157:encyclopedia. 1153: 1149: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1010: 1007: 1004: 1003:MOS:LEADIMAGE 1000: 996: 993: 989: 988: 987: 984: 978: 977: 972: 968: 965: 964: 963: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 944: 941: 936: 934: 933:don't like it 929: 925: 922: 901: 897: 893: 889: 886: 885: 884: 880: 876: 872: 867: 862: 858: 857: 856: 852: 848: 844: 840: 839: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 815: 810: 809: 808: 804: 800: 793: 788: 787: 786: 782: 778: 773: 770: 769: 768: 764: 760: 753: 748: 747: 746: 743: 738: 731: 730: 721: 717: 713: 708: 704: 700: 699: 698: 695: 689: 688: 683: 679: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 652:WP:CENSORSHIP 649: 646: 642: 638: 633: 628: 627: 626: 623: 617: 616: 610: 606: 602: 598: 593: 592: 591: 587: 583: 579: 574: 571: 570: 569: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 542: 534: 519: 512: 509: 504: 499: 493: 492: 491: 490: 486: 482: 475: 472: 469: 466: 463: 459: 456: 453: 450: 447: 441: 438: 433: 428: 421: 417: 415: 410: 404: 403: 399: 394: 390: 385: 384: 380: 375: 371: 367: 362: 361: 356: 355: 352: 341: 333: 323: 318: 314: 310: 305: 301: 293: 292: 291: 286: 282: 278: 273: 269: 261: 257: 256: 254: 250: 247: 244: 240: 238: 230: 226: 225: 224: 220: 216: 212: 211: 210: 209: 204: 200: 196: 191: 187: 174: 166: 162: 158: 154: 153:Talk:Muhammad 150: 149: 148: 144: 140: 139:Anirudh131819 136: 132: 129: 128: 127: 123: 119: 114: 113: 112: 111: 107: 103: 102:Anirudh131819 99: 93: 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1795: 1773: 1672: 1670: 1607: 1603: 1600: 1585: 1583: 1572: 1566: 1491: 1464: 1425: 1407: 1402: 1362: 1330: 1285:— Preceding 1282: 1279: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1240: 1183: 1070: 1067: 975: 939: 937: 930: 926: 918: 752:Silver seren 686: 614: 541:Silver seren 528: 517: 481:Unpicked6291 476: 473: 470: 467: 464: 460: 457: 454: 451: 448: 445: 419: 401: 397: 383:Article talk 382: 378: 359: 346: 299: 267: 259: 245: 236: 185: 178: 94: 91: 78: 43: 37: 1771:2008 book? 1604:Ḥusayn-ʻAlí 1009:WP:DEADNAME 971:WP:DEADNAME 703:User:Cuñado 656:User:Cuñado 641:User:JeffUK 502:Consermonor 431:Consermonor 370:visual edit 340:Baháʼu'lláh 36:This is an 1747:بَهاءُالله 1697:splendour? 1665:بَهاءُالله 1049:WP:NOTHERE 999:MOS:IRELEV 921:User:Cuñao 650:As far as 1793:summary. 1775:Gazelle55 1596:Faizullah 1592:Lutfullah 1573:You made 1409:Gazelle55 1242:Gazelle55 847:GOLDIEM J 814:GOLDIEM J 799:GOLDIEM J 759:GOLDIEM J 632:GOLDIEM J 597:GOLDIEM J 573:GOLDIEM J 559:GOLDIEM J 507:Opus meum 436:Opus meum 131:@Woodroar 79:Archive 9 73:Archive 8 68:Archive 7 60:Archive 5 1531:Woodroar 1311:Smkolins 1299:contribs 1287:unsigned 1225:Muhammad 1104:offense. 1075:Woodroar 1034:Smkolins 940:removing 555:Smkolins 296:Justin ( 264:Justin ( 215:Woodroar 182:Justin ( 157:Woodroar 135:Muhammad 118:Woodroar 98:Muhammad 1754:Image24 1615:Persian 1568:Image24 1527:be bold 1523:Drcombo 1509:Drcombo 1468:Drcombo 1390:WP:PSTS 1383:Drcombo 1336:Drcombo 1291:Drcombo 1218:Alimt19 1148:Alimt19 1127:Alimt19 1112:Alimt19 949:WP:NPOV 825:WP:NPOV 660:WP:NPOV 497:Iazyges 426:Iazyges 393:history 374:history 360:Article 39:archive 1796:Cuñado 1743:Arabic 1673:Cuñado 1661:Arabic 1492:Cuñado 1446:Silver 1363:Cuñado 1358:WP:NOR 1184:Cuñado 992:Cuñado 976:Cuñado 871:WP:CCC 736:Silver 687:Cuñado 615:Cuñado 578:WP:ANI 420:Result 237:Nythar 1609:Mírzá 1563:Title 1451:seren 1429:Injaa 1395:WP:OR 1071:other 741:seren 654:goes 402:Watch 16:< 1802:Talk 1799:☼ - 1758:talk 1679:Talk 1676:☼ - 1575:this 1549:talk 1535:talk 1513:talk 1498:Talk 1495:☼ - 1485:and 1472:talk 1433:talk 1369:Talk 1366:☼ - 1354:here 1340:talk 1315:talk 1295:talk 1190:Talk 1187:☼ - 1131:talk 1116:talk 1079:talk 1057:talk 1038:talk 1018:talk 982:Talk 979:☼ - 957:talk 896:talk 879:talk 851:talk 833:talk 803:talk 781:talk 763:talk 716:talk 693:Talk 690:☼ - 668:talk 621:Talk 618:☼ - 601:talk 586:talk 563:talk 537:and 485:talk 389:edit 366:edit 219:talk 161:talk 143:talk 122:talk 106:talk 1589:--> 1381:Hi 1177:or 1161:Or 1760:) 1745:: 1741:, 1734:ɑː 1722:ɑː 1667:). 1663:: 1659:, 1652:ɑː 1640:ɑː 1594:, 1551:) 1537:) 1515:) 1489:. 1474:) 1435:) 1342:) 1317:) 1301:) 1297:• 1181:. 1165:: 1154:: 1133:) 1118:) 1081:) 1059:) 1051:. 1040:) 1020:) 959:) 951:. 898:) 881:) 853:) 835:) 805:) 783:) 765:) 718:) 705:. 670:) 643:: 603:) 588:) 565:) 487:) 412:• 406:• 391:| 372:| 368:| 302:vf 298:ko 270:vf 266:ko 251:) 249:❄️ 243:💬 233:— 221:) 188:vf 184:ko 163:) 155:. 145:) 124:) 108:) 64:← 1756:( 1737:/ 1731:l 1728:ʊ 1725:ʔ 1719:h 1716:ˈ 1713:ə 1710:b 1707:/ 1655:/ 1649:l 1646:ʊ 1643:ʔ 1637:h 1634:ˈ 1631:ə 1628:b 1625:/ 1613:( 1547:( 1533:( 1521:@ 1511:( 1470:( 1431:( 1338:( 1313:( 1293:( 1129:( 1114:( 1077:( 1055:( 1036:( 1016:( 955:( 894:( 877:( 849:( 831:( 816:: 812:@ 801:( 794:: 790:@ 779:( 761:( 754:: 750:@ 714:( 666:( 647:? 634:: 630:@ 599:( 584:( 561:( 543:: 539:@ 535:: 531:@ 483:( 398:· 395:) 387:( 379:· 376:) 364:( 319:☯ 317:M 315:☺ 313:C 311:☮ 309:T 307:❤ 304:) 300:a 287:☯ 285:M 283:☺ 281:C 279:☮ 277:T 275:❤ 272:) 268:a 260:I 246:- 241:( 231:. 217:( 205:☯ 203:M 201:☺ 199:C 197:☮ 195:T 193:❤ 190:) 186:a 159:( 141:( 120:( 104:( 50:.

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

Index