Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Relocate the lead image

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

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 Wikipedia 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" section. (I don't want it removed altogether), or else efforts should be made to insert a portrait of Muhammad in the Wikipedia article of Muhammad so as to ensure fair treatment. After all, Wikipedia does not cater to religious taboos and should not cater to Islamic taboos either. Anirudh131819 (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

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 depictions of him that were created later. Woodroar (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Woodroar Thanks for the clarification. But I'd be more satisfied if in the Muhammad article itself, one of the portraits used in the article is established as a lead image. Anirudh131819 (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to suggest that change at Talk:Muhammad. Woodroar (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Editnotice should likely be changed

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 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing it, or perhaps changing "bottom" to "top". The more notices the better, I'd say. Woodroar (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If someone has the permissions to do so, please make the necessary changes here: Template:Editnotices/Page/Baháʼu'lláh. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 22:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I can after consensus. I figure having this open for a week or so wouldn't hurt anything. Again, I messed up by not getting consensus first. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that it has been changed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Baháʼu'lláh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Numerous unresolved issues; no objection to closing, and no current work to improve the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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

"His family was considerably wealthy..."

"...and donating considerable time and money to charities."

"...a governmental attempt to exterminate the movement, Baha'u'llah narrowly escaped dealth..."

"...attracted the ire of Iranian authorities"

There are other parts of the article as well:

"...the execution of the Bab were tumultuous for Babis."

"...seeking to curry favor with the king..."

"...encourage and revive flagging spirits..."

"...imprison both Baba'u'llah and Mirza Yahya in far-flung outposts..."

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. Unpicked6291 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo of Bahá'u'lláh

I would like to dispute the recent edits from 29 and 30 November 2022 by @Roman Reigns Fanboy: and @Silver seren:. 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 establishing a consensus is central to Wikipedia's decision making process, and disputing the consensus based on personal opinion does not represent a neutral point of view. Additionally, I reprimand Silver for his apparent arbitrary assumption of Smkolins; 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. GOLDIEM J (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

GOLDIEM J 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 Wikipedia articles need 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 WP:ANI. If you think my edits are truly non-NPOV and the consensus needs to be re-opened then you should discuss this at ANI. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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 authority of consensus on Wikipedia 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! GOLDIEM J (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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" 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. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J: I assume you talk of this edit. [1]. 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 Wikipedia. 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 User:JeffUK: Broad consensus for inclusion of the photograph at the top of the article following?

As far as WP:CENSORSHIP goes User:Cuñado, even if it might not qualify as such, the previous consensus certainly violated WP:NPOV 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. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and content disputes should follow WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION. This was pointed out to you several times. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Since you forgot you've accused me of falsely accusing you of censorship to get a consensus User:Cuñado. User:GOLDIEM J 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. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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 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. Silverseren^C 23:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Silver seren: 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 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? GOLDIEM J (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

User:GOLDIEM J 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 against Jesus' representation on Wikipedia? 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. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: 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 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. GOLDIEM J (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J: 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, Talk:Baháʼu'lláh#Full name and photo, 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. Wikipedia editors should follow its policies no matter how many support otherwise, in this case WP:NPOV. 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. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The rules are there for us to keep in mind no doubt, but they're not set in stone. 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, Wikipedia is a community effort, so make sure you discuss before you upset the status quo. GOLDIEM J (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You're not an admin who's going to bring anyone into question User:GOLDIEM J 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 regarding including the Bahaullah photo at top, when the very first section Talk:Baháʼu'lláh#Full name and photo 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 Seren. As far as me disputing an established consensus goes, one can dispute a consensus and start a new one. See WP:CCC. In this case I raised the obvious issue of religious censorship and NPOV violation. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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. [2] I hope you will respect it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me also make something obvious which User:Cuñao 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.

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 most Wikipedia readers have a problem with the image.

The reason behind all this simply is many users here, especially Bahais, don't like it when they see the image, or simply put they're "offended". No matter how much they deny.

This is obvious censorship no matter how much he contradicts it, they're removing 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 [3] [4]. And it's obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Roman Reigns Fanboy, 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 Wikipedia censors the former names of trangender individuals (WP:DEADNAME) and it is upheld in the name of avoiding offense. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm just stating the obvious Cuñado, 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.

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

WP:DEADNAME 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. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"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 User talk:Cuñado is suggesting. Smkolins (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 WP:NOTHERE. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

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 exclude or move the image. Discussions about deadnames or other articles are irrelevant, as they apply to other 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. Woodroar (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

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 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?

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 feelings of those who do not.

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 African-Americans?

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 offense.

Therefore, please reconsider.

Ali Manning Thomas, Seattle, USA Alimt19 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

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 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. Alimt19 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Alimt19, please take note of WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia 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 encyclopedia.

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

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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines that may influence the decision on where it should go on the page. A good place to start is WP:Core content policies or MOS:BIOGRAPHY. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

We may eventually want an FAQ for this talk page, similar to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, 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.

Alimt19, 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia are not resolved by editors voting, but rather by the strength of the arguments editors put forward based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I also think the analogies you added are flawed. This is not different form the case of Muhammad, 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 Persecution of Baháʼís, but that is a separate matter.

Your last point was about the diversity of editors. Yes, it is well known that Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia policies and one of those is that Wikipedia is uncensored.

Sorry for being long-winded -- happy to discuss further if you wish. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 00:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite entire article for neutrality

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.

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 claimed they were following [the customs] 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."

(Izziyyih Khānum (Khānum Buzurg), Tanbīh al-nā’imīn, pp. 11–12 )

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.

"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.

"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.

The entire article is so frustratingly dishonest and biased that the task of rectifying its lack of neutriality will require a significant, collaborative effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcombo (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Diatribes don't help. Published verifiable sources count. Not … what you posted.Smkolins (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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 during his visits there:

"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." Browne, Edward Granville (1926). A Year Among the Persians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 578. Drcombo (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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 proposal to use primary sources is a common error for new editors, see WP:NOR. 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. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drcombo, 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.

I also appreciate that you're providing sources, but like Cuñado has said, the ones you gave are mainly primary sources (see WP:PSTS 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 (you've probably seen WP:OR). The last source you gave is a scholarly secondary source, but it is well out of date (see WP:AGEMATTERS). For non-Baha'i perspectives on the early history, I recommend The Messiah of Shiraz 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. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 03:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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 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.' Injaa (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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 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. Silverseren^C 00:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Drcombo's comment

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 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. Drcombo (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I recommend you read over Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Core content policies. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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. Drcombo (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drcombo, please suggest specific content changes to the article here, accompanied with citations to reliable, secondary sources—or be bold and add them to the article and see if they stick. Woodroar (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence (not from states or organizations with anti-Baha'i doctrine, such as the Iranian government) to support your claims? Education-over-easy (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Title

Image24 the edit summaries are getting crowded so I'm adding some discussion here.

You made this edit, you reverted, I reverted, I tried another wording, you went back to the original.

Your main concern was to not say God's attribute of "Glory" 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>-Allah, and it's meant to call the virtue to remembrance (e.g. Lutfullah, Faizullah). 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:

Baháʼu'lláh's given name was Ḥusayn-ʻAlí, and as the son of a nobleman in the province of Núr, he was known as Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí (Persian: میرزا حسین‌علی نوری‎). In 1848, at the Conference of Badasht, he took the title Baháʼ (بهاء), Arabic for "glory" or "splendour", or Baháʼu'lláh (/bəˈhɑːʔʊlɑː/, Arabic: بَهاءُالله).

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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 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 Wikipedia 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.

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

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 splendour?

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

Baháʼu'lláh (/bəˈhɑːʔʊlɑː/, Arabic: بَهاءُالله) is a title connoting God's attribute of "Glory".

What do you think? Image24 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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 2008 book? Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 14:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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 summary. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)