Talk:Baháʼu'lláh

Lead image

Was there ever a proper RfC/consensus on changing the lead image to a picture of Baháʼu'lláh? Obviously Wikipedia policies of lead images should be incorporated into this, but I'd like to stress that it makes it incredibly difficult for Baha'is to edit/view the page - of which they most likely constitute a large audience - since Baha'is (like me, lol), by strict religious custom, are only meant to view Baháʼu'lláh's photograph in Haifa (this is based on my general knowledge and obviously the knowledge of the propagators of the previous consensus, I'm funnily enough having trouble finding sources for this because the same photograph keeps popping up alongside the google results.) Since Wikipedia is meant as an informative, encyclopedic source, isn't it oxymoronic to alienate a population of readers as a result of its lead image?

According to MOS:LEADIMAGE, lead images should be selected "with care", and we are encouraged to "avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there, which could in turn, be applied to this situation. Bettydaisies (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The older consensus from 2005-ish is in a variety of old archives that are hard to search. The latest RfC was here from December 2022. It was confused by a particular editor thinking that Baha'is were trying to impose censorship. I think there's a good argument to move the photo to the first section instead of infobox, but that would have to be another RfC, and the article needs an overhaul to improve NPOV first. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this case is particularly different from that of the Muhammad article, where the lead image is (currently) of calligraphy, with depictions of the prophet further down the page.

The RFC for the Muhammad article lead image is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images#Question_2:_What_image_should_appear_in_the_infobox?. Comments in Talk:Muhammad/images#Portrait_of_Mohammed allude that the calligraphy image was the result of WP:CONACHIEVE but looking at the RFC I am personally not convinced consensus actually existed there.

Regardless, my firm opinion (as a non-religious person, mind you) is that the Baháʼu'lláh and Muhammad articles should be consistent with one another in terms of depictions as the lead image. Baháʼu'lláh is even mentioned in discussions on the Muhammad article. Imyxh (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, if you believe that the RFC at Muhammad wasn't closed correctly, there's nothing that can be done about it here, on this Talk page. If you're looking for consistency by removing the image in this article instead, well, I don't know what else anyone can say. Yes, the prohibitions against imagery is somewhat similar, but a biographical subject whose photo was taken within their lifetime is, to me, different from a biographical subject with no extant images for at least 650 years after their death. 650 years! Instead, there was a rich tradition of Islamic calligraphy tied with the Qur'an. You could also consider the case of Jesus, where we have images from "only" 200 years after his death, plus there's a rich tradition of pumping out portraits of all kinds. You can draw parallels between all of them, but the reality is that there's no apples-to-apples comparison. Because of policies like WP:CONS, articles are going to differ based on how each discussion goes, and that's okay. Woodroar (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I only brought up the Muhammad article because I had (perhaps wrongly?) assumed that a primary factor in the consensus there was to minimize MOS:SHOCK and to follow the "selected with care" criterion in MOS:LEADIMAGE. In that respect the two articles are perfectly similar and that's why I believed the precedent to be relevant. Of course, it is possible that (1) MOS:SHOCK somehow does not apply to cases like these, or (2) there is no suitable alternative for a lead image with less shock value. In these possibilities I accept that the lead image should remain. Imyxh (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to see how the typical Wikipedia reader would not expect to see an image of the subject of an article on a person in the lead. That is typically where such images go on the majority of articles where images are available. The phrase you cite— "selected with care" in MOS:LEADIMAGE links to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Offensive_images, which in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#cite_note-typical-1 clarifies:

a "typical Wikipedia reader" is defined by the cultural beliefs of the majority of the website readers (not active editors) that are literate in an article's language.

Again, it's hard to see how the majority of the English-speaking readers of a website devoted to the dissemination of free information would share the cultural beliefs of a minority religious group that drive them to call for its censorship. What is more likely is that this issue has received undue emphasis because its readers (but again, not the website's readers, as it has been defined) and editors are more likely to belong to a minority group whose cultural beliefs diverge from the majority's, thus biasing the discussion and giving the illusion that this is a balanced debate. It's frankly absurd to think that the censorship preferences of certain adherents of a minority religious group are more representative of Wikipidia's majority readership given Wikipedia's clear position on this matter (WP:NOTCENSORED).

Image24 (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on making the image collapsible?

I'm wondering other editors' thoughts on making the lead image collapsible. We could do this with Template:Hidden. Hiding content seems to be generally discouraged, though this image doesn't fall under any of the cases under which MOS:DONTHIDE forbids making images collapsible so I think it's worth considering. As per MOS:DONTHIDE, the image would still be displayed by default and readers would have to click "Hide" for it to disappear, after which they could click "Show" to make it reappear if desired.

I wasn't a part of the extensive recent discussion that led to the consensus to include the image at the top but I generally agree with what was decided. What I'm proposing here is a way that we can uphold WP:NOTCENSORED while still allowing readers who don't want to view the image to hide it after seeing it for a short time. There have been a lot of talk page complaints which, while not strong from the perspective of our encyclopedic policies and guidelines, do show the demand for an option to stop viewing the images. I'm aware that users can create an account and add code to block images on their CSS page, or configure to block images on Wikipedia, etc., but those options are all cumbersome and it's doubtful that most readers even know how to do these things or will take the time to find out.

There have been a lot of editors and individuals from outside the site's editor base who have talked about this issue on the talk page, so I won't ping any specific editors, but I'm interested to know whether others think this would be a good idea. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 18:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Can Template:Hidden be used in this way? I'm on the fence (and leaning against) if it should be used—but I was curious and tried it. It didn't work for me. Woodroar (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't seem to work - you're right. I also looked at some other related templates and I can't find any that would collapse an image or a gallery. I can look a bit further for syntax options another day soon, but if it isn't possible then the if question is a moot point. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 20:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the best syntax I can find (see the result on the right). It works (at least on my computer), but I can't get it to display properly within an infobox. Unless another editor has an idea for how this might work on the technical side, I think my proposal is irrelevant. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 17:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of this idea. This, combined with maybe making the depiction of Baha'u'llah the second image on the article, would serve to almost entirely solve the controversy Education-over-easy (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I am opposed, as this, no matter how well-meaning, is against the spirit of Wikipedia not being censored. This is merely censorship in velvet. Wikipedia offers a solution to people who do not wish to view images. They can either take it or leave it. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you then in favor of replacing the current lead image for the Muhammad article with one of the many Depictions of Muhammad? I am neither Bahá'í nor Muslim, but the current state of both articles seems like a double standard. Imyxh (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Not that there would be any problem with replacing the current lead image for the Muhammad article, but you've failed to take into account the difference between a depiction of a prophet created created after they have died and a photograph of a prophet taken while they were livng. Image24 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see the particular importance of that difference. Every prophet I can think of off the top of my head (Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, …) has a depiction of them as the lead image for their article, except for Muhammad. It does not seem to me that the lack of a depiction of Muhammad as the lead image for his article is because there are no photographs taken of him while he was living. Regardless, I apologize for bringing up this point in the section about collapsability; I'll move this to Talk:Baháʼu'lláh#Lead_image. Imyxh (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I'm not opposed to seeing the Muhammad article altered to bring it in line with the editorial conventions of other articles on Prophets, but that is not relevant; this talk page is not the forum for a discussion about another article.

The distinction I pointed out is relevant and important. Frankly, I'm struggling to understand how you "fail to see the particular importance of that difference" when @Woodroar explained it to you so clearly and cogently, but I'll try my best to explain it again because maybe my position was not so clear.

I was responding, very specifically, to the statement you made about the current state of the articles concerning Muhammad and Baháʼu'lláh seeming like a double standard. My point was that it is not a double standard because these two prophets are not completely similar in the aspects relevant to this context such that differential treatment afforded to one of their articles should be percieved as arbitrary.

From what I understand, you were saying that it does not seem fair that only one of the Wikipedia articles accords to the preferences of a religious minority when both Muslims and Bahá'ís object to depictions of their prophet. Even if I accepted that this discrepancy was unfair, and to be clear, I don't, I would still think that the solution to this double standard would be to add a lead image of Muhammad to his Wikipedia article instead of change this one. I'd sooner remove the likeness of any prophet that came before Baháʼu'lláh from the lead image of their Wikipedia article than I would remove the image of Baháʼu'lláh or any religious figures that came after him from theirs.

As you mentioned, Baháʼu'lláh is the central prophet of one of the world's predominant religions, just like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Zoroaster. However, unlike these prophets, Baháʼu'lláh lived close enough to our time that we have extant photographs of him. This cannot be said to be a depiction of a prophet in the same way that any of the lead images, or any of their proposed alternatives, in any of the articles you mentioned can be because it is more — it is also a part of Baháʼu'lláh's historical record, in addition to being historically significant in its own right.

To approach this from another direction, we can compare the articles of Muhammad and Jesus. Having a painting or drawing of either of them as the lead image of their respective articles is not the same as including a photograph of Baháʼu'lláh. We do not have pictures of those prophets and, unlike Baháʼu'lláh, we do not know what they actually look like. I am arguing that this is significant enough to warrant the inclusion of this photograph as the lead image of the article and I am arguing that it is significant enough that the double standard you mentioned does not exist.

I would also go as far as to argue that the current lead image for the Jesus article, The Christ Pantocrator of Sinai is more analagous to the current lead image of the Muhammad article than it is to the current lead image of this one. This is because the Christ Pantocrator is an icon, not just a painting; the decision to write Jesus in this manner (as contrasted with, for example, writing him as Christ, the Redeemer) says just as much, if not more, about Christians as it does about their prophet as he existed historically. The same goes for the decision to depict Muhammad through a calligraphic representation of his name. It represents Muhammad and the perspective his adherents hold towards him just as much as an imagistic depiction of him would. The choices we make about how we should best represent those prophets can never be divorced from ideology; any position take will inevitably be a religious or even political one. The decision to include the photograph of Baháʼu'lláh is also ideological and I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise. Rather, the argument is that the choice to privilege historical accuracy, objectivity, and neutrality in the face of censorship attempts leaves us in a position that better accords with the ideology that animates the Wikipedia project.

There is an obvious reason why the vast majority of biographical articles on Wikipedia include photographs of their subjects when they are available. The fact that Baháʼu'lláh was a signficiant religious and historical figure who lived during the time of early photography should be more, not less, of a reason to include the photograph as a lead image. The only reason this is even a debate is because certain religious dictates militate that there should be one. That is why we are having this discussion here, instead of also over on the talk page for Sun Myung Moon. I think those religious arguments, are much more coherent and reasonable than the well-meaning, but ultimately groundless, attempts by non-adherents of those faiths to frame this as anything more than that. On this talk page, there are frequent, periodic calls for Wikipedia editors to treat the reverence Baháʼís hold towards the sacred images of their Prophet with respect and understanding. They ask that others empathize with them because of the shock and distress these images can cause them, and seek compassion on that basis. They, unlike you, have not failed to grasp that this is not an exercise in dispassionately balancing oppposing interests, focused only on apparent evenness and compromise. They understand that this discussion will always implicate deeply-held convictions that require us to try to understand each other. This isn't about tallying up some measure of fairness, or about avoiding double standards, it's about conflicting views on how much deference Wikipedia should afford perspectives that differ from the values that animate it as an independent and collective project. Image24 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are angry at me or just being candid. I apologize for the tone in my previous comments being a little blunt—that was not intended.

Regardless, I think we're focusing on different metrics when arguing about whether this is a double standard. I agree that at face value a photograph of Baháʼu'lláh is very different from a depiction of Muhammad. However, as I mentioned under Talk:Baháʼu'lláh#Lead_image, I was under the assumption that MOS:SHOCK was the primary factor in the consensus regarding the lead image for the Muhammad article. And in terms of potential shock value, I think a photograph of Baháʼu'lláh is very analogous to a depiction of Muhammad.

To be clear, my take on the issue is this: indeed, this is a question about how much deference (or accommodation) Wikipedia should afford minority perspectives—it is a case of a lead image with potential shock value for those minorities. I don't believe it's unreasonable to try to maintain some level of consistency in how such cases are approached; anything else would call into question the supposed NPOV of the Wikipedia project.

Lastly, I know I have made it seem like I am an outsider playing white knight on this issue for no reason. Perhaps that is true to some extent, but I only opened this talk page because I used to be Bahá’í and seeing the lead image did indeed shock me. I was then bothered because it seemed that MOS:SHOCK concerns were not given much consideration, or at least not as much as in the Muhammad article.

PS: Woodroar's comment was posted after mine. Imyxh (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

An example image.
An example caption for an example image.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

Hello, I am a Baha'i and am humbling requesting that the photograph of Baha'u'llah be removed from the page, or at least put towards the bottom with a disclaimer. It is currently there as a portrait. Baha'u'llah's photograph is considered sacred to us and only to be viewed in a setting of reverence, and by placing it on the Wikipedia page it opens it up to online desecration through photoshopping and idolatry. The Baha'i Faith has very similar rules about depictions of religious figures to Islam, and this matter is nearly identical to not having illustrations of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) on his Wikipedia page. I am asking you to remove it out of respect for Baha'u'llah and his followers worldwide. Thank you. Napoleondehuette (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, honestly, but standing precedent means the best we can hope for is an option to hide the image. Education-over-easy (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing the image in question based on its religious significance to certain people would violate the principle of neutrality that Wikipedia seeks to uphold. Wikipedia refrains from censoring its content in favour of any specific faith. Removing content that people find offensive while balancing that with neutrality would rapidly become impossible. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, removing or collapsing the image is not an option for Wikipedia. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Tone and Neutrality

Is it just me, or does this article read differently from others on Wikipedia?

It goes into extreme specifics about mundane, ordinary details and it reproduces the narrative style of the sources it relies on in many instances.

This article reads like it is based on primary, not secondary, sources and fails to adopt a consistent, neutral, and obective tone throughout.

I'd say it needs an overhaul.

Image24 (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Reposting my comment from August 2023: "This article was re-written in December 2021, discussed here. All three editors commenting on the proposal noted that the re-write has a neutrality problem and it needs further work. The lead was re-written but I think everyone currently active would agree that most of the article needs NPOV improvement... The article should present the subject with the weight found in modern reliable sources (independent experts that have done the synthesis of the primary sources)."

So yes, I agree, and I have a huge stack of sources to work with, but it would take days. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Picture of Baha’u’llah

It was my understanding that to view a picture of Baha’u’llah, one needed to make a pilgrimage to Haifa. Only pictures of Abdul’Baha were shown publicly. 104.247.231.251 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If you'd rather not see the image, there are instructions at the top of the page explaining how to do so. Woodroar (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Picture of Baha'u'llah

Bahá’ís prefer not to have the picture of Baha’u’llah displayed in public. Bahais will display the picture of Abdul Baha, Baha’u’llah’s son and the perfect exemplar of the Baha’i Faith in their homes but not the picture of Baha’u’llah. Bahá’ís are asked to treat the image of any Manifestation of God with extreme reverence. It is for this reason we could replacing the picture of Baha’u’llah with Abd'u'lbaha. It maybe a picture of Abdul Baha would be better than a blank. Dariush.farrokhi (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to hide the image (for yourself), there are instructions at the top of the page or at Help:Options to hide an image. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a photo of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá as the main image for an article about Baháʼu'lláh doesn't really make much sense. You can just do what Woodroar said and hide the image for yourself. Unpicked6291 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. WP Ludicer (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)