Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Photo

message: Why is it that the real life Autofellatio picture has to be clicked as a link (currently) to view the image vs. a thumbnail?  Is it because it would offend certain sensibilities? For some radical liberal sensibilities (about the same as the population of baha'is currently, or even greater), it would be offensive to censor this image by not thumbnailing the image and leaving it at the top, otherwise, everything else would be some form of censorship.  Yet currently it's linked and you have to click it to view the picture. To respect the sensibilities of the some who view this website, we have the picture linked, vs. displayed on the page waiting to be stumbled upon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.108.187.169 (talk • contribs) .
I thought that someone had vandalized your comment so I replaced a word(I forget what it was) with the term 'offensive word' - however I see later references so I suspect that this was your original word. I don't know how to revert or change this back so I hope that when you next visit this page, you will change it back yourself.JeanKorte 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Anonymous 

message: It seems as though this controversy has been going on for so very long without any real conclusion. I can fully understand the opinions of both sides--that the non-Baha'is mainly want the image to be displayed because of nature of Wikipedia; that is to say, that Wikipedia is intended to provide as much information as public domain will permit. However, to consistently fight to have the image displayed despite the fact that the Baha'i Faith clearly prohibits Baha'is from seeing any image, whether photographic or representational, of Baha'u'llah shows a clear lack of respect for our faith and the wishes of Baha'u'llah himself. Consider this: if you were giving a lecture to everyone in the world about the history of Judaism, its culture, and its customs, would you serve pork at the reception afterwards? If you answered "no" to this question, then perhaps you should consider the Baha'i stance on whether or not Baha'u'llah's photograph should be featured.
Perhaps it seems like a fair compromise to list the photo at the bottom of the page with clear warning to Baha'is, but my concern is for non-Baha'is who come to this site to learn more about the Baha'i Faith, perhaps as a precursor to their religious conversion. Is this at all fair to their development? Moreover, does the photograph of Baha'u'llah really serve any purpose whatsoever to non-Baha'is? Does it enrich them in any way, shape, or form? Or has this photo just been used as fuel for an ongoing argument that attempts to prove that a man's right to free speech liberates him from being respectful? That's obviously not to say that free speech is an undesirable thing. However, a right is not the same as a choice. Do you have the right to include Baha'u'llah's photograph? Well, yes, as long as the book and photograph are old enough to have fallen under public domain. Is it respectful to display an image that violates a basic law of a religious group? More specifically, is it respectful to display this image in an area heavily trafficked by said religious group? To me, it is ethically wrong to include the picture at all. I realize that some are somehow not able to understand this position, or who feel that the information that the image provides somehow benefits people in some way.
Now, as a Baha'i, I firmly accept almost every major religion as being a bright, shining pathway to God. With that being said, I recognize that most other religions don't quite see it like we do. So my question is this: to the non-Baha'is in favor of having the picture included, how would you feel in our shoes? If you're Christian, what if Jesus expressly requested that his image never be duplicated, nor shown to anyone (which he actually did, in rejecting idolatry)? What if Muhammad asked this of his followers? Does this not strike any of you? If I've still done nothing to convince you, then please leave the image at the bottom of the page and provide a noticable warning for Baha'is both at the top of the page and before the image is shown. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In response to the view that Wikipedia has a duty to uphold and maintain a sense of complete neutrality, I think that your view is in fact, a biased one. If the goal is to be neutral in presenting information, then the goal is to display all available information in a format which offends as few people as possible. To better illustrate this statement, let's examine the examples in neutrality that history has provided us. In World War II, Switzerland was a so-called "neutral" country (though it was Allied-friendly). What does this mean? It means that it really didn't get involved in the war and tried as best it could to not support either side of it. They obviously didn't do something that would drastically offend anyone. So, if an encyclopedia intends to be neutral, then the aim is to display information in way that does not drastically offend anyone. Does this make sense?
In response to those who think that we're some weird, crazy faith (I think someone called us "Asian," despite the fact that the religion was founded in Persia) that for some reason hates to see the man who founded the religion: we're just following the laws of our faith. Believe it or not, the same law exists in Christianity and Islam, though there are obviously people who don't follow it. Baha'u'llah asked that no images or symbols representing him be spread among the Baha'is, as it might lead to idolatry. I believe Shoghi Effendi was quick to point out the spread of idolatry in Buddhism and Christianity, and how it tended to distract their respective followers from the lessons that Siddhartha and Christ provided. It is for this reason that we avoid all images of Baha'u'llah and the Bab.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In response to "I think someone called us "Asian," despite the fact that the religion was founded in Persia": Persia is located in Asia!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
67.136.79.11 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is in Asia. See: Asia. The Middle East is not a continent. The continent Iran/Persia is on is Asia, while the region in the Middle East. "Asia" != "Asia-Pacific", okay? 65.73.219.85 03:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous 

message: As a long time moderator of soc.religion.bahai, as a survivor of many usenet flame wars, I have seldom been insulted as I have on the talk pages of the wikipedia.  In my opinion, it is neither POV nor "Baha'i Propaganda" to place the photograph of Baha'u'llah at the bottom of the article with a promenant warning to Baha'is at the top.  Anti-Baha'i editors might note that the warning will probebly result in non-Baha'is paying MORE attention to the photo, but it makes it possible for Baha'i editors to participate in editing and researching the wiki without compromising their observance since Baha'is preffer to view the photo only in situations of reverence and worship which can not be provided on line.  This looks really simple to me, and I do not understand the vehemance with which anti-Baha'i editors approach the topic.  Photo thumbnailed at bottom with promenant warning please. Rick Boatright 23:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rboatright 

message: Ok I admit it my interest in the Bahá'í Faith and Bahá'u'lláh in particular is somewhat limited. I ran across this dispute months ago and have been involved in the debate since. I suport placeing the image at the bottom of the page with a strong clear hint at the top (ie a warning that cases the minium posible desruption to the flow of the article)Geni 23:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geni 

message: I'm a Baha'i and personally am not at all keen with his picture being available on wikipedia. On the other hand I realise that Wikipedia is not a Baha'i encyclopaedia. To be honest I don't think I'll be entirely happy unless the image is only linked, but I do believe very strongly with the comprimising and consensus nature of wikipedia. I guess I summarise my views as preferably linked, failing that thumbnailed at bottom with a warning. I do however respect the viewpoint that top right is where it should be (well - as long as the motives aren't simply to annoy Baha'is), so will agree to any consensus.
I would really prefer a far larger number of neutral observers on this issue however. At present it appears to be only Baha'is, anti-Baha'is, and only 2 or 3 neutral observers taking part in this discussion. -- Tomhab 20:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomhab 

message: I'm also a Baha'i, and find the depiction of any of the Manifestations of God disrespectful.  However, I am fully aware of the public nature of this experience we are sharing here in wikispace.  It appears that some would like to avail themselves the opportunity to mold the discussion to suit their own agenda.
This is my first post to any discussion here on the wikipedia, and is the result of the only about fifteen minutes' research that discovered at least two revert wars regarding this issue over just the past six months.  The current one, as of 19-Sep-05, seems to involve one or more Bahá'ís removing the subject photograph.  Kudos to those reverting to the version with it.
I submit that revert wars are hypocritical in the extreme; and I suggest that violators be suspended.
The Politcally Correct rightly recognizes that one has the responsibility not to offend.  However, and this is often missing, we are also responsible not to take offense.
I think that the picture should remain, at the bottom, with the warning.
--MARussellPESE 21:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MARussellPESE 

message: I would like to add to my opinion, though I am a Baha'i, I have tried not to be bais, how I understand it, we are allowed to view the picture but not possess it. Now more to what I wasnted to say is what copy right violation is involved here, who gave Miller Permission to have the picutres? According to the copy right laws he is in violation and having the picture without consent from the Baha'i world centre or an immediate family member is in violation of this law. I do not know how Miller obtained the picture but it seesm to be to be Violating some copy right laws and issues. Miller giving permission is not a reason to have the picture on the site, the question is who gavce him permission and who allowed the picture to be presented?
--Aryan Khadem 11:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture is so old it is in the public domain. No permission from anyone is needed to use it.Geni 12:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the question of public domain etc, Miller was given it by Azal, so avoiding any question of permission. Photographs are considered public domain 50-100 years after the death of the author (depending on the country). Wikipedia I understand tends to take the smaller number as it is international so can choose which they prefer :) -- Tomhab 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Regardless of various people's wishes the image is at this time in the public domain.Geni 11:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aryan Khadem 

message: Please link to its own page, and if it must be on the page, then leave it at the bottom of the page. Wiki-uk 08:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki-uk

message: I know that even though the Bahá'u'lláh picture is at the bottom of the page, sometimes when reverting the removal of the picture, and in normal editing, I sometimes inadvertantly see the image, which I don't like doing.  So for Baha'is who do not want to see the image, and who are using Mozilla Firefox, you can do this to block this one image:
1. Go to the directory that stores your Mozilla Firefox profile.  On Windows XP, it looks something like  
:
  C:\Documents and Settings\<Windows User Name>\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\<random digits>.default\chrome\
:where 
::<Windows User Name> is the name when you log into Windows XP 
::<random digits> is a 8-digit alphanumberic string which is random, and which Firefox uses to protect your data from hackers
2. In that directory open a file called "userContent.css" (or start a new one with that name if it does not exist).
3. In that file at the top enter this code
:
  img[src*="Bahaullah_from_miller"] {
        display: none !important;
  }
4. Restart firefox
That should block the image for you, and you alone
-- Jeff3000 16:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking the image in Firefox 

message: I added some more details about the photo. There was a comment that the actual text accompanying the photo needed to be of a higher quality. How is it now? Cuñado  - Talk 06:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo details 

message: I have moved the image to the top of the page as per standard practice that Wikipedia is not here to give into certain sensibilities but for the common informative good and giving into to a compromise due to someone's relgious foibles is against our goal.  Also WP:NOT censored so that it doesn't offend people as shown by Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy which should be seen as the predominant example here. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are ignoring a mountain of talk pages and the consensus of several editors, both Baha'i and not-Baha'i, and administrators. I reverted. Cuñado  - Talk 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted back since consensus is pointless when it violates the style guidelines for articles and Wikipedia policies as well as illogically giving into a religious POV. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines, are just guidelines, and not policy.  There is quite a difference.  Consensus has been reached, and the image is at the bottom. -- Jeff3000 00:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is crap if it's based on a religious POV just because they don't want a picture of their "idol" on the top of an article.  That's an invalid reason to move an article down to the bottom of an article I don't see why people put up with the Bahá'u'lláhist's crap if even the Islamic editors and readers have put up with the pictures of him on the top of a dozen or so articles. I see this as you guys stating that they put up so much of a fight that we just gave up rather than fight them even more and that's the impression I got from reading the page and all the archives of discussions. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many non-Baha'i editors who think the placement of the image is just right. You have the right to disagree, but the consensus has already been made through much discussion.  And the Baha'i editors, while we wish the image wasn't here at all, enforce the consensus by putting back the image, every time a random Baha'i comes and takes it off.  So we are not just going by our religious crap as you call it, but we go by the consensus.  Check the history of the page and you'll notice that there are many Baha'is that put the image back up whenever it's removed.  So we actually go against what our religion teaches, but we do it because consensus was built. -- Jeff3000 00:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to revert again since I have no urge to get blocked for 3RR violations in a pointless edit war when there are millions of fanatics with their stupid religious POV's who are more than willing to corrupt Wikipedia and censor it to comply with their views. The way I see it your just giving in to the fanatical religous zealots and their point of view at the expense of encyclopedic content and a compromise is just a way of hiding the fact that they probably knew they'd never get it entirely off but this way they still win. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How do we (the Baha'is) win.  The image is there, against our wishes, and the fact that it is at the bottom probably gets it more attention that anything.  Secondly we, by constantly restoring it when it gets removed, are going against our religious beliefs.  There is no religious fundamentalism here.   A reasonable consensus was made, and we are working within it. -- Jeff3000 01:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Consensus is crap if it's based on a religious POV just because they don't want a picture of their "idol" on the top of an article." This is illogical. Consensus building can not be based on considerations of the attitudes of the people involved? Or is that only when they disagree with you? Most Baha'is would really rather not have the picture in, but we are the fanatics because we have strong feelings on something that differs from yours? Thank you for contributing to the discussion. Most helpful. MARussellPESE 13:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No. A 'devotee's' stance would be to remove the image. So much information about the photo is now built into that section of the article that it would be impracticle to place it at the top.Geni 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look through the history of this talk page, and surrounding talk pages before and during the time the consensus was taking place (it has since become more of a message board), you will notice that there were many well-respected Wikipedia editors who were (and are) not Baha'is (some of whom were administrators) who participated in the discussion and consensus-building.  The Baha'i editors were also all distinct editors (not sock-puppets), who had some, if not a lot, of history in Wikipedia (Baha'i and not Baha'i pages).  The decision was to have the image available to everyone, and not have censorship, but also limit the disturbance that Baha'is who come to the page will have, by placing the image at the bottom, with an obvious note at the top.  The note at the top, more than anything, makes the image (and it's surrounding controversy) more obvious, and most viewers will probably spend more time looking at it, and for Baha'is that is not an issue. (We do not mind if others look at the image, (but hopefully respectfully))  The Baha'is themselves do not wish to see the image, and thus the image was placed at the bottom of the page, where most Baha'is (viewers, and also editors) do not have to see the image if they do not want to.  The location of the image below the references and see also makes sense in that light, because the note at the top makes it very obvious that the image exists, and it being below the references and see also serves the purpose to limit exposure to the Baha'is who are reading the article fully. -- Jeff3000 15:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could put another note just at the end of the text of the article, if you like. -- Jeff3000 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Greets.  I made some minor wording changes and fixed an external reference.  Because this section is so contentious, could someone please look it over and confirm that I haven't broken consensus.  I see them as minor changes, but I want to be fair. --Christian Edward Gruber 18:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mild wording change and link fix 

message: Censorship = attempt to keep people from seeing/hearing/knowing something.
The Universal House of Justice already said Baha'is should not worry about sites that are not owned/operated by Baha'is, and that there is no objection, fundamentally to Baha'is viewing the picture.  It is rather that Baha'is would wish to view it in a respectful mode, the display of which on hte website not being seen as such.
so...
Spoiler-alert = a polite warning and restructuring of an article, so that the reader who may not wish to view some upcoming material has an opportunity to avoid it.
The photograph of Baha'u'llah is there for those who wish to see it.  For those who do not wish to see it, it is put at the bottom with sufficient linking so as not to obscure it.  Further details are given as to the issue in a section which, if anything, heightens the profile of the picture, despite its location.  This is not analagous to censorship, but rather to the above-mentioned spoiler alerts.  Several wikipedians representing a self-styled "secular" attitude towards wikipedia have argued that putting the picture near the end is "hiding" it in violation of wikipedia standards and practices.  As several others (Baha'is and otherwise) have pointed out, there is no wikipedia policy on the location of the image in a biography.  However, the relevant precedent is information that an interested viewer/reader might not want to see - for example story details that might spoil the viewer/reader's appreciation of the item under discussion.  
Since Baha'is experience the presentation of one of the photographs during their pilgrimage, they are in an entirely similar situation to the aforementioned interested reader/viewer who would prefer to know, in advance, that they might come across something which would spoil their experience.  If altering the order of the article to allow a viewer to come across the picture in the manner of their choosing (i.e. they can always click the convenient link and directly transit to the photo section) is "kowtowing" to the "devotee view", then putting up a spoiler alert with polite whitespace is kowtowing to the proverbial "fan who hasn't seen the movie yet".  It's an identical process.  No attempt is seriously entertained by the regular and active editors to censor the picture.  It is a simple effort of courtesy.  Baha'is are free to view the picture, and it is a matter of personal conscience how they go about it.  Those who are not Baha'is are also free to view the picture.
Somehow, there is this opinion that neutrality and "secularism" requires that sensitivities be entirely and deliberately overruled.  Such a process is proselytizing in reverse.  It is attempting to force a secular POV on the article.  The current consensus, as I see it, allows the reader full choice and control, and certainly doesn't prefer the secular or Baha'i perspective, but rather attempts to preserve both needs and present them in a way that doesn't clash.  To push further in either direction, I feel, is an exercise in a stubbern clinging to POV, Baha'i or secular.  
::side note, I dislike the use of term secular to describe wikipedia, because it often has (at least) two implications; one which is neutral and non-judgemental to any particular faith and viewpoint - simply that which is nonreligious or without religious bias; and the other is specifically judgemental and hostile to faiths and "devotee" viewpoints.  Put another way, one means tolerance and openness, the other means hostility and opposition.  Wikipedia should, I believe, prefer the former over the latter, but the term itself is overloaded - hence my dislike in applying it.  In the latter case, secularism is often conflated with radical Atheism, free thought movements, etc. and becomes another POV, and, according to wikipedia policies, should not be "kowtowed to" any more than should Baha'i, Muslim, Christian, or Flying Spaghetti Monster sensitivities.  However, as a non-religious, or non-religously-biased encyclopaedia, wikipedia can be remarkably generous and neutral to all parties and views.  To me that's the ideal.
Anyway, there it is - just a thought I had when reading over the yet more recent incarnation of this (in my own POV) ridiculous argument. --Christian Edward Gruber 21:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you quoted the quote that backs that up.  As you cite, However, as the creator of the site is not a Bahá'í, there is little, if anything, that can be done to address this matter.  This is the case with Wikipedia.  The creator of the site, and the majority of its editors, are not Baha'i and not subject to Baha'i law.  Because this is a neutral encyclopedia, non-Baha'is wish to have the picture displayed.  When I paraphrased "don't worry about it", I was referring to "there is little, if anything, that can be done".  A compromize has been reached that is as respectful as we can hope, considering the non-Baha'i nature of the site, and we must be gracious and non-fanatical, in my personal view. --Christian Edward Gruber 13:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well lets find out. Would you consider Piss Christ be a valid example?Geni 16:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple alternative way to think about the photo; grist for the mill. 

message: What is written in the article is untrue. There was only ONE photograph taken of Baha'u'llah, not two. The one photograph taken is the one on that is on display in the archives in Haifa. I have seen this picture, and the picture shown on this website is neither the same picture, nor is it a picture of the same personage. The claims that this photograph is a photograph of Baha'u'llah are false. The person in this photograph bears no physical resemblance to the personage in the photograph on display in the archives. Their ages appear to be the same, so the dissimilarity in resemblence cannot be ascribed to age differences in the same person.
I'm going to correct the text on display claiming "two pictures" were taken of this historical figure, and am going to remove the picture. Quite frankly, all this debate is quite ridicules. I respect the Baha'is right to respect the Manifestations of God by not portraying their images publically, but they seem a bit too defensive. THeir all worried about showing his picture publicaly, and this isnt even his picture. Apparently this picture has been distributed, even among Baha'is. These people havent even seen the picture in the archives. I cannot emphasize how different in appearance the two personages in the two photographs are. Why do you think they never show the archives picture online? Or never show the two photographs together? Because it would be obvious that one of them is a false picture.
Thank you.
:To quote the Baha'i World Centre:
::"In one of His epistles, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of Bahá'u'lláh, wrote that two photographs of Bahá'u'lláh were taken, both in Adrianople, Turkey, each in a different pose. There are copies of both pictures at the Bahá'í World Centre and one of these is displayed in the International Archives where it is viewed by Bahá'í pilgrims. The image reproduced on the Web site in question seems to be a poor reproduction of one of these photographs."(Office for Public Information, 1999 Sept 04, Photo of Baha'u'llah on Web Site)
:Cuñado  - Talk 17:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Photograph 

message: You know what I mean. Shame on you. Marc Mongenet 21:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant violation of neutrality 

message: Simply logg onto Baha'u'llahs German article (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baha%27u%27llah), if you want to se a picture of B.U. . They've come over this senseless quarrel. Wikipedia isn't a site for worship and as long no Baha'i is forced to download this image, making a cult with photos is an internal problem for Baha'is, not for Wiki-users!--193.171.99.70 08:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice Hint 

message: Then who are earth is it? Zazaban 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is him. See Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo. MARussellPESE 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Bad reproduction hmm? Zazaban 23:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the letter refers to a version of the image that only consitsts of a croped head and is of lower qulaity than our image.Geni 16:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: yes.Geni 20:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If that's not Baha'u'llah.... 

message: I've seen the photograph in the archives in Haifa, and you cant attribute the dissimilarity to the personages in the two photographs simply due to low quality. I didnt say "I cant make out whether the person in this picture is Baha'u'llah or not because I cant see the picture properly due to its low quality". I see the personage in this picture, and the personage in the other picture, and THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE!
The photograph in the archives shows a personage with much smaller eyes, an enormous, ample brow, much higher cheek bones, MUCH bigger hands, and a beard and hair that didnt show a trace of lightness or grey, or white. They were PITCH BLACK, the darkest, most pronounces beard I had seen.
This person in the photograph that you are showing is definately NOT the same person as the photograph in the international archives. It should be removed, not because it is in violation of Baha'i law, (people have a right to see the picture if they really want to), but because it is INCORRECT INFORMATION! I cant verify whether or not two pictures were taken of Baha'u'llah or one. I know there was one painting, and one photograph, perhaps I'm mistaken in my information, but I'm saying now that if there WERE two photographs, THIS IS NOT THAT SECOND PHOTOGRAPH!! 
If you really want to post a REAL photograph of the picture of Baha'u'llah, then I suggest that you write to the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, and say that, for the sake of providing accurate information for Baha'is and non-Baha'is alike, it is only fair to post up a picture, and then, Baha'is, if they are offended by the posting of the picture, have the choice of NOT viewing the picture.
But let the photograph be there, if you so insist. But please at least get the RIGHT photograph. There is nothing NOTHING worse than misrepresentationl. Deliberate, or undeliberate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.242.209.29 (talk • contribs).
:"In one of His epistles, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of Bahá'u'lláh, wrote that two photographs of Bahá'u'lláh were taken, both in Adrianople, Turkey, each in a different pose. There are copies of both pictures at the Bahá'í World Centre and one of these is displayed in the International Archives where it is viewed by Bahá'í pilgrims. The image reproduced on the Web site in question seems to be a poor reproduction of one of these photographs."(Office for Public Information, 1999 Sept 04, Photo of Baha'u'llah on Web Site) Cuñado  - Talk 06:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's NOT Baha'u'llah 

message: Hi.
I thought of a new method we could use to stop Bahá'ís from stumbling on this thing by accident, which has been my big complaint. Unlike my previous suggestion it does not involve creating a new page. Instead, we could change the image link from Image:... to :Image:... turning it from a direct display into to a link to the image, and the link would have a clear warning in it. I just discovered this feature, by the way. What do you think? 74.38.35.171 02:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that was shot down during the consensus making, and is unacceptable to most. Please read all the discussions relating to the Danish cartoons controversy on Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 07:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eugh. There is a lot of stuff there to slog through. Could you give me a boiled down reason for why it is? I'd like to thrust this back into dispute. I've seen several reasons there. 74.38.35.171 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I'm not going to debate the issue now, could you please respond to my request for the reason that this would not work? Just to satisfy my curiosity. I do NOT like having to read MEGS of posts (you said ALL posts)... I probably will not agree with the reasons, but I guess I'll have to "agree to disagree" and leave it at that due to the possibility mentioned that the photograph may bounce right to the top if I start debating. I just want my curiosity satisfied and I don't want to have to spend hours reading through a whole heap of posts. 74.38.35.171 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I just got some more mail. I'm cutting and running like mad from this thing before it blows. 74.38.35.171 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, we must revisit this issue.  The disregard of respect and reverence towards the Bahai community by wikipedia editors is appalling especially considering the founder of Islam is not depicted in a disrespectful way on related pages.  The image link sounds like a more acceptable solution at least than what is currently implemented.  This must be changed. 98.26.113.25 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Cuñado  - Talk 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome! :) 74.38.35.171 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New method to prevent accidental stumbling 

message: This is a controversial issue, but how about a text link to the image where it is stored on the wikipedia servers instead?  I can't imagine an encyclopedia bowing to a religion and removing it completely, so I vote no on removing it.Claytonian 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  text link instead? 

message: If Bahá'u'lláh doesn't want people seeing pictures of him, why'd he have a picture taken? 
It is a horrible mistake to conform Wikipedia articles to ANY sort of religious dogma. Here's the official policy:
=== Wikipedia is not censored ===
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.
I'm not trying to offend, I just believe in the Golden Rule. To quote Bahá'u'lláh, "Wish not for others what you wish not for yourselves" Aqdas 148.73. This world would be a much better place if nobody forced their religious views on another. I think discussion of differing points of view is divine but expecting others to hold your beliefs only causes conflict. --Calibas 09:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear! Score one for moderation. MARussellPESE 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave the photo there 

message: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.
I'm not trying to offend, I just believe in the Golden Rule. To quote Bahá'u'lláh, "Wish not for others what you wish not for yourselves" Aqdas 148.73. This world would be a much better place if nobody forced their religious views on another. I think discussion of differing points of view is divine but expecting others to hold your beliefs only causes conflict. --Calibas 09:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear! Score one for moderation. MARussellPESE 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not censored 

message: well for one thing, yes it is Baha'u'llah.  "a poor reproduction of one of those photographs."  so it IS Baha'u'llah's photo but just not very clear.  it was a photoscan of what a Covenant breaker copied and put in his book.  also, I have been to Haifa and seen a photo there.  the photo there is different, actually He looks much different, but it is obviously the same Person.  once i was at a talk by Former Universal House of Justice Member Ali Nakhjavani, who explained that the photo online is one that was taken of Baha'u'llah to which when Baha'u'llah saw it, He didn't like how it turned out, so He asked that another picture be taken.  the photo in Haifa is the one that He liked.  and yes, the photo in Haifa is much much MUCH clearer, and I can understand understand why He did not approve of this one.
Kmehrabi 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes it is Him....but... 

message: now, you dont allow pornography right? why not? because it treads along the line of morality and public decency. but what determines morality and public decency? religion. more specifically judeo-christian-american religious values. thats the origin.  i could go on and on about that but this is sociological common knowledge.
so why is it that these religions have their own code of conducts incorproated to the wikipedia system, but not others.  its as though Muslims and Baha'i's are getting the shaft in this regard.  now i am not saying that what offends us is not applied to say Christian sections of the site.  surely if there was an offensive picture of Christ, wikipedia would not take it down. what i am saying is that what judeo-christian-american values dogmatically find offensive to morality and public decency has already been engrained into secularist society.  likewise a secularist code of conduct has been developed as a fallout of this.  the idea of the mere picture or cartoon of a Prophet is not particularly questionable to these religions and has not been anywhere near to the degree of offensiveness that say pornography is to what typical religious influences to american secularist policy on morality and public decensy would dictate.  
thus, if wikipedia is to TRUELY be objectional and fair, a code of conduct must be redrawn, identifying what religious standards have influenced its secularist positions thus far, and then either eliminate those influences, OR incorporate equally the beliefs of those of other religious backgrounds.
Kmehrabi 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: erm we do allow pornography see :Image:Johann Schwarzer movies about 1906.jpg (I didn't say it was good porn).Geni 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It was created as pornography.Geni 21:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A FEW WORDS TO WIKIPEDIA 

message: Here is another Baha'i asking that the wikipedians please remove the photo. For those non-Baha'is wishing to see what Bahá'u'lláh looked like, it would be very easy to simply add a link to an external site, or to simply store a photo on wikipedia, but not on the main article page. It would also put an end to this argument which has become unnecessarily divisive and complicated. Thank you for your understanding and respect for our Faith.
--Ericcjensen 07:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a Baha'i encyclopedia, and will not adhere to Baha'i laws. It is at the bottom of the page where Baha'is don't have to see it. Zazaban 23:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Wikipedia IS NOT CENSORED. Removing the picture would be siding with the Baha'i POV. Zazaban 21:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Bahá'u'lláh 

message: what about copyright laws? It has been taken from a book that first has been published on 1974. It's not when the photograph has been taken but it has been first published on 1974! -- 213.217.33.217 09:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Work was PD when miller used it and miller has no copyright claims due to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..Geni 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright 

message: *I'm still against having it, but I've accepted consensus.  My suggestion is that perhaps there shouldn't be a wikilink in the warning at the top of the article.  It's a little easy for someone who doesn't want to see it to click on it out of curiosity (maybe expecting to be taken to an article about the controversy, or about photographs in general).  Just a thought. JuJube 22:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is needed; if someone cannot keep his mouse from accidentally clicking on a link, well at that point it's their problem. -- Jeff3000 01:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another comment on Bahá'u'lláh's photo 

message: I have seen the argument that the photo should be shown for this individual as it is shown for all others: 
"Thus it should be displayed where it should be for all other biographical articles: at the top." 
I would like to know why this is such a big deal for this character, but I have seen many, many other wikipedia biographies (of current persona) where there is no picture period. World Championship Golfer Vijay Singh, for one, Major League Baseball Hall-of-Fame member Ryne Sandberg, for two; just to name a couple. If it is such a big issue that photographs be shown, then why are there countless biographies of modern-day living public figures of varying degree of fame where no picture is shown period, top or bottom of page? ; and that this lack of picture shown is not an issue there, for those folks, but it is here for this character....I just find this a little bit maybe hypocritical, or at least somewhat inconsistent with the reality of wikipedia.  
Sparty79 13:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For other pages, there is no picture because there is no copyright-free image available.  Wikipedia has some pretty strong policies regarding the use of images that are under copyright, see WP:FUC.  The picture of Baha'u'llah is old, and therefore is considered to be the public domain, free of copyright.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos in General, at Wikipedia.  

message: I would like to STRONGLY point out that all Baha'is will find it very insensitive that this article includes a photo of Baha'u'llah. We regard His photo as sacred and  there are only a few photos displayed - which one can see in The Archives building on Mount Carmel in Haifa, when one goes on pilgrimidge.
As Baha'is who follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah and who we regard as the supreme Manifestation of God in this day - even we do not have a photo of Him displayed in our homes!!! We all have photos of Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'u'llah's son -  a reminder of how to live a spiritual life.
Therefore I would like to ask you kindly to remove the photo of Baha'u'llah from this site.
Fleurba 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people find censorship insensitive.  If were were to remove everything from wiki that offends or annoys somebody, nothing would be left. Dman727 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baha'u'llah's photo: I cannot believe Wikipedia has been so insensitive!!! 

message: I wish Baha'is would kindly read the discussion here in full before posting these insensitive and ill-informed comments.
The status quo with respect to the photo is the result of years of discussion, consultation, and consensus-building that has involved the generally good-faith efforts of many Wikipedians, and enjoys reasonably broad support — including that of most of the regular Baha'i Wikipedians.
Baha'is demanding that the photo be taken down because "it's insensitive to our feelings" or worse: "against the Baha'i Faith", present a narrow-minded approach to this question that reflects poorly on themselves, and their faith.
They should familiarize themselves with what Wikipedia is not as well.
MARussellPESE 04:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does this mean it is wrong to challenge, even with new or valid logic, consensuses that have been the result of "years" of discussion? Note I'm not referring to this specific case (so far there is no new, valid point that has not been addressed) but in general as your post begged a general question for me. If so, isn't that dogmatism? mike4ty4 (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No — if there's some actual valid logic to bring to the table. Often, these kinds of discussions re-hash old arguments. In this case: demands that a non-Baha'i setting conform to Baha'i standards. Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Baha'is: please read the whole discussion before posting

message: While I am personally dismayed that the photograph has been made publicly available when Baha'is such as myself essentially consider it a treasure to be observed reverently, if it is legally publicly available I cannot object from the standpoint of wikipedia guidelines that the photograph is permissible. In contrast to the images of Muhammad and Christ, which are cartoons and imaginary depictions and by my reckoning actually make the articles less accurate, a genuine photograph of Baha'u'llah could reasonably be said to supplement a biographical page.
One thing that bothers me is that this photograph is supposedly in the possession of the Baha'is in Haifa. How is it that Miller was able to get a copy of it? By all rights, it is a stolen image at its very root. While I do not doubt that there is a technical legal precedent allowing it, it still leaves a bitter taste to know that Wikipedia is one of the places that would keep this rather private image up in such a public place. Peter Deer (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technically allowable? Probably. 

message: At the moment there is a current discussion on the image of Muhammad displayed at the Prophet's entry. In order to avoid the appearance of double standards, i suggest that whatever decision is made for the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, should likewise be applied to the picture of Baha'u'llah. 
That is if the decision is to take down the picture from one, the other should likewise be applied.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.73.71 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a different situation for many reasons. One is a fictional painting and the other is a photograph, not to mention different people and different religions, spread apart by 1300 years. Please keep your arguments on Muhammad to the merit of that article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't see the big deal about having it at the bottom of the article. It preserves the accuracy of the article by making it so that those who want to see it can, while making it so that those who do not want to see it can avoid it. Peter Deer (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch out for discussion on painting of Muhammad 

message: First of all, how are you all doing? It's been a long time since I've been editing Baha'i related articles. I'd like to inform you all that that image controversy over at Talk:Muhammad is in danger of overflowing over to here. In fact, it may already have, I'm not sure. Anyway, just thought you may appreciate the warning that all hell may break lose soon. Cheers. Zazaban (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the discussion at Muhammad took pointers from this discussion.  As per Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo, there's been a discussion going on since, at least, 2006.--Veritas (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on the photo talk page, I think that they are unrelated issues frankly. depictions of Muhammad by individuals who have never seen Him can hardly said to be accurate or reliable in any sense, and detract from the accuracy of the article just like pictures of Christ. Islam forbids such depictions from being made. The photograph of Baha'u'llah, on the other hand, is a photograph. The only true objection Baha'is have to its usage is its inglorious location and irreverence towards something that most individuals cannot begin to understand the value of. Peter Deer (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations  

message: I really hope that the Muhammad images controversy will lead to the banning of religious POV-pushers that are working on this article. Marc Mongenet (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey buddy wrong article. Peter Deer (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I hope that people moving :Image:Bahaullah from miller.jpg to the end of this article will be banned. Marc Mongenet (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It allows it to be in the article and allows Baha'is who want to avoid viewing it accidentally to do so. Having it at the end of the article doesn't make the article less accurate. The only reason I can see why you would have it any other way is to specifically spite Baha'is. Peter Deer (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures controversy 

message: Can we retitle this :Image:Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Nuri from Miller.jpg so that Baha'is who are searching for images on google don't need to stumble upon this accidentally? -LambaJan (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe without the underdot and accents, and maybe because it's more accurate and reflects what is written in Farsi on the picture. We shouldn't do things to cater to what happens on other web pages. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine doing it without the diacritics, I just cut and pasted it above. Your reasons are indeed better than mine but if I'm correct about my thinking on this then changing it may cut down on traffic from angry Baha'is who come here from there. I think I can change it on the en.wiki but I don't know how to change it on commons (I have an account there but the move button doesn't appear on the image page). -LambaJan (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a sec, maybe I can't do anything about it. I'm actually _really_ confused on this one. The image page over here says it's deleted. I can't edit the image page without it telling me I'm recreating a deleted page, but there's no record of deletion in the history and there's no move button and the link still works. The image in the article is still there and is there as from a link to the image page, so it's effectively not deleted but it thinks it is deleted. I suppose I can do a 'cut and paste' sort of move, or maybe someone else is in the process of doing that and is thereby creating this confusing situation. -LambaJan (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You got me. Using images from commons is a bit confusing. I can't help on that one. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured it out. If an image exists on commons then that's where the page is and that's why the page here doesn't actually exist and thus acts like it's deleted. I cannot rename an image on commons myself but I can (and did) request a rename that will apparently cover the changes on all of the wikis. -LambaJan (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: Who decided that a disclaimer should be used? I will remove the disclaimer if I hear no responses. See my message on the talk page. нмŵוτнτ 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if Britney Spears said she didn't want a picture of herself in her Wiki article, would it be moved to the bottom as a disclaimer? We can't have double standards. нмŵוτнτ 22:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read this whole thread - if you can bear the tedium - and consider if it is worth the bother kicking about this. Any changes you make will obviously be instantly reverted, as there is a VERY old consensus in place for doing so. The note is NOT a disclaimer anyway - at least not in the sense that you are using the word - but a warning to people who do not want to have this picture shoved in their faces against their will. Nor is it double standards. I'm sure if Britney Spears' fans wanted her picture at the end of her article it would be no big deal to have it moved there, and a subject for tolerant amusement, at most, from any non-Britney Spears' fan. O.K. it's a poor analogy - but then it's yours, not mine!!! 144.134.101.189 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "A warning to people" who do not want to see something is by definition a disclaimer. Also, note that I read this page before commenting anywhere. нмŵוτнτ 00:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current formatting was made after consensus after months of discussion, so that the picture is there for those who want to see it, and for those that don't want to see it, they don't have to.  Calls of censorship are completely unwarrented, as the image is on the page.  Note that the no content disclaimer is a guideline and not a policy.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline (Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles) says that: "The consensus is that [disclaimers] should not be used" and, "When spotted, such text should be removed." нмŵוτнτ 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly. So why would one not do what is advised? нмŵוτнτ 00:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be advisory, but you can also use common sense.  There is no encyclopedic content being lost; regardless I have change the article so that there is no disclaimer.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just noted that you did that. I think you did an excellent job here. Everything is solved. Thank you for your cooperation, understanding, and calm nature. нмŵוτнτ 01:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclaimer

message: Dear Sir/Madam:
 
I work with organizations who have removed their Native American mascots because:
 
1.  They now understand the pain it causes
2.  They realize it is the hi-jacking of precious images of others
3.  They beleive it causes no harm to them to remove them
 
Baha'u'llah- 
 
Would you expose other Manifestations of God this way?  I think not.  Many may not understand, but finally more people respect the feelings of others where they may not have feelings about the picture at all.
 
I ask that you remove the picture of Baha'u'llah.  This request is not just a Baha'i asking.  It speaks to the same kind of consideration about reverring sacred objects, pictures, etc. that may have no value to others plus or minus.  It speaks to a kind of consideration that needs to be regained in our world.
Sharon Davis
Farmington Michigan
:Displaying Chief Illiniwek etc. is indisputably insensity and offensive. Displaying Baha'u'llah's picture is not. See WP:NOT, WP:NOTCENSORED, and standing consensus discussions here. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTCENSORED says exactly that: Wikipedia is not censored, i.e. it too is fair game for display unless the policy has been changed, according to official policy: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive" (from WP:NOT / WP:NOTCENSORED) 170.215.65.87 (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The essence of her statement is that we don't need to exercise all of our freedoms just because we have them. You have the freedom to spit on your grandmother but I doubt you will. I hope your man Rudd follows through and gives more of them the opportunity. Respect is never a stupid precedent. -LambaJan (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the essence of MARussell's statement is that the Baha'is are working to make sure the Wikipedians know that we respect that right. And since I'm amending this please know that none of it was written with a confrontational tone, I just couldn't think of a better metaphor. -LambaJan (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You're right. Every freedom is paired with it's own responsibility. Many people forget this. 170.215.65.87 (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pulled from Comments:Baha'u'llah

message: :I'd like to add that I find it very unthoughtful the photo is left here, although I'm not of the baha'i faith. I don't see any necessity to keep it here. Very pityful and a typical misunderstanding how one is to use one's rights.
129.35.231.16 (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dont know where to contribute 

message: I am an atheist.  I confess I felt curious to see the photo, but still, I think I would rather it wasn't there.  I didn't expect it to be there and I arrived at the bottom of the article a little surprised to see it.  Can we not at least make it only a link at the bottom of the page whihc takes one to the wikicommon of the picture, or something- some gesture which makes it more discrete?  IceDragon64 (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there no better way? 

message: I am a Baha'i and I am offended by the inclusion of this photograph.  This is the second time in my life that I have seen it.  At first, I thought I was offended because I did not have a choice but to view it.  The reason is actually much deeper: I was tempted into idolatry.  Idolatry is expressly forbidden in all of the Abrahamic religions, the thrust of the reasoning being that God has no shape or form, and should therefore not be worshipped as such.  I was admonished to treat the photograph with reverence, which I did; however, the image lingers.  I do not want to be led astray by the encyclopedia I cherish.  
I was  informed that this article is disqualified from being nominated as a featured article because of this seemingly endless dispute.  I appreciate the civility with which the issue has been debated, and it speaks to the immense value of consultation and NPOV, but this is a real shame -- this is a gem of an article in its tone, information, and objectivity, and could serve as an example of the great potential of Wikipedia.
My preference is to cut the Gordian knot.  The fault, I think, is that NPOV is too ambiguous.  Having a neutral point of view does not imply having a neutral set of values.  I think we can all agree that people are deeply offended by the inclusion, and that censorship is a violation of many people's values, including my own.  But this problem cannot be solved by the same thinking that created it.  
A solution, in my view, and certainly not an offical view of the Baha'i community of which I am a member, is to amend the NPOV stance of Wikipedia to be more rigorous and explicit.  This will not be a Baha'i biased endeavor, this will not be popular, and this will not be easy.  This will take all of us working together to serve the better ideals of the Wikipedia community.  We Wikipedians have come very far, but look at how far we have yet to go.
Thank you. --Matthewlandau (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with you, but take a look at the issues with images on the Muhammad article and you'll see that he problem is deeper. It would be very simple to have a link to the photograph in the article, instead of displaying the photograph, but some people insist on achieving what they see as a right to free expression, and even revel in expressing their right when it aggravates others. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want also to add "and they may view putting it behind a link a curtailing of that right". mike4ty4 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the deeper reason of why I'm offended 

message: DELETE THE PHOTO
Let the Bahai faith keep its integrity, its offensive and rude to us. 
DELETE IT, REMOVE IT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me20391039 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Get over it! You have no business trying to force others to conform to your sensibilities in this public place. "Those virtues that befit his dignity are forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving kindness … " [Emphasis mine.] MARussellPESE (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo 

message: Nobody has a right to impose their sensibilities on others. In a direct quote from Bahá'u'lláh:
:"The Almighty beareth Me witness: To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man. Those virtues that befit his dignity are forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving-kindness towards all the peoples and kindreds of the earth."
::(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 215)
The forbearance part is something that takes some work.
I'm reading John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration". In it he exposes the hypocrisy of imposing one's own beliefs on others, with violence in his discussion, while ignoring the failings of ones own flock. In that vein I'll arrogate to myself the opportunity to not be a hypocrite.
I grew up Bahá'í in Alabama and have been condemned to Hell more times than I care to remember by people who hardly have the standing to do so. So, I have been sensitized to sanctimony. Quite bluntly, I see little difference between that kind of self-righteous sanctimony and some of the Bahá'ís' statements here.
As an example: I am offended by the Bush Administration's outrageous attitude towards the Constitution and the nation's internation treaty obligations. The "triksy" attitude that rules don't apply when inconvenient  is a disgrace to my nation's honor and a stain from which we may never recover. For heaven's sake! We helped write the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and have ratified several of its secondary protocols: including, without reservation, the Convention Against Torture.
If one reviews the Universal Human Rights Index at the Universtiy of Bern, whose data cover 1999 to the present, one will note that UN human rights bodies have made 357 observations and recommendations about the United State vs. 152 for Iran. Of those 357, 300 (Dear Lord!) post-date 2001.
The violation of international law in the administration's conduct of the "War on Terror" and the exercise of pre-emptive military action is an offense to my sensibilities nearly as close to home as one made against my faith. Considering my ancestors' military service, when I say that the nation has been dishonored, it has deep meaning to me.
That said, I've never vandalized any page here. I'll take my outrage to the voting booth — yet again. But I'll not take it here where the above qualities of forbearance, mercy, compassion and kindness are what my fellow editors, and Wikipedia readers, deserve.
There are about a dozen Bahá'ís who are regular Wikipedia editors. About four regularly monitor these pages. Every presumably Bahá'í editor who comes along and censors the picture with pleas that this offends their sensibilities ignores the principles of forbearance and understanding, and undermines the credibility for these and collaboration that the regular editors have striven for years to develop. You've no idea the damage you're doing here. MARussellPESE (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it not also wrong even if one does not ignore the failings of one's own flock? I.e., don't force views on others, period, regardless of whether or not you have the same fault? mike4ty4 (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "and undermines the credibility for these and collaboration that the regular editors have striven for years to develop." Is it still bad to argue against such "developed over many years" consensuses with new arguments, i.e. suppose at some point a new point comes up, that hasn't been addressed before and someone were to bring it here for discussion (not just rudely "censor" the picture by hitting the edit button)? Not sure if that can happen in this specific issue but I'm talking in general. mike4ty4 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. New arguments would always be welcome. But, I've been editing here for years and the arguments consistently boil down to the the same petulant argument: "this is offensive to me". Scroll up for a sample. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahá'ís need to get over this and stop shoving their sensibilities down the community's throat 

message: Just go to the image page and look at its license; "This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.". Was this taken in the US or Canada? Turkey isn't part of the European Union, and it doesn't look like they will be for a long time, so how exactly is it considered public domain? Parthian Scribe 20:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkey is a signatory to the Berne and TRIPS conventions. Sorry, it's in the public domain. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image isn't free 

message: An example image.
It is technically possible to hide the photo by default, using "collapsible tables", which rely on javascript in the browser.  Non-javascript browsers will see the image, but javascript browsers will see a "[show]" link to show the image.  This comment illustrates the technique.  —AlanBarrett (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like both of your suggesions but prefer your first, AlanBarrett.  It doesn't impose an unreasonable burden on those who wish to see the image, IMO, and it does hide it from those who prefer not to see it. Rreini (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While both suggestions are nice, suggestions similar to the above were suggested regarding the depictions of Muhammad, and were deemed unacceptable by the community.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry Jeff, but what do you mean by community? Islamic community, Wikipedia's Community or this group of people who, I believe, reached a "consensus" that is more unhappy-unhappy, instead of a win-win, like the solution proposed here?
--SAM1981 (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It would make me MUCH happier, for one! Nonetheless that is not how Wikipedia works. We are fortunate to have reached a consensus where the picture is not up the top. You are jeopardising this and risking a return to a consensus that is much less "Baha'i friendly" on this issue. Please remember this is NOT a Baha'i site, and the Baha'i Administration (much less individual Baha'is) have no say whatsoever in what is shown on it. Of course if you can establish a new consensus that would accept this solution then I for one would be delighted!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using a collapsible table to hide the photo by default 

message: In my opinion, I think that if someone was to delete the photo and then somebody was to undo that would be unfair. For example, if someone was to delete it and then no body would touch it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjames 9999 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: I just cant understand why post it were not ment to plain and simple i mean as bahai's were taught not to act to things like this in extreme ways and im not angry or going to curse about it but i just find this hurtful and unconsiderete , I ask the author just to at least think of the people its upsetting. i understand u probly mean well but please reconsider.
Yours sincerely
Lorcan OReilly  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.221.82 (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upset 

message: Actually, Islam does have plenty of images of Muhammad. They mainly appear in Persian and `Turkish miniatures, and Muhammad's face is often (but not always) covered by a veil. The Shi'i imams (known as mazahir ilahiyya, manifestations of God, like the Bab and Baha' Allah) are commonly depicted. Thus, the Baha'i obsession with seeing the photograph of Baha' Allah is somewhat deviant from Islamic normas. The modern Muslim sensitivity stems largely from the Wahhabi/Salafi form of the faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis MacEoin (talk • contribs) 
:An obsession? In view of the facts that it is here, that it is Baha'i editors who keep restoring it, and that the very Universal House of Justice itself is in the last instance pretty tolerant about its appearing on the net (look at the very mild way they word their disapproval!), recognising that there's nothing that can be done about it anyway - this seems a bit unfair. And you know (probably better than I do) just how variable Islamic influence is in the Baha'i Faith anyway. Many aspects of Baha'i that can be seen as influenced by Islam are either "softened" or modified, positively rejected, or else, as here, reaffirmed in a rather conservative way. Remember that traditional Islam rejected all artistic "representation", not just of prophets, nor even just of people, but of all living things. This of course gave rise to a glorious tradition of decorative art avoiding any forbidden repesentation. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New comment

message: Just took my vote in Wikimedia vote 230 and happy that finally we're getting to a point of NEUTRALITY.  One question on the ballo, in particular, goes at what I've been trying to say on this board this whole time, only to get dismissive bullying responses.  What I kept saying about taste and ethnocentric double standards of censorship wasn't an attack on anyone in particular or even accusing anyone of doing anything deliberately.  I simply posited a broader item to chew on: that perhaps what wikipedia policy, and most wikipedia editors, consider an 'objective reality' about what qualifies as crossing boundaries and calling for censorship in some way, stops at a western judeo-christian influence.  That is, even the most secularist westerners nonetheless draw standards of taste and moral decency from the western faiths that shaped their cultural upbringing, whereas secularists in the east could well have incompatible ones, but considered secularist nonetheless by their own standards. So, if wikipedia is to be a truly neutral world secularist group, it must either distance itself from any such standards whatsoever, OR take in a holistic global standard of what is objective neutrality. That's all I was saying on here, and I was bullied and dismissed.  Some people even accused me of being bigoted. Sheesh! 
This part of the current Wikimedia vote I feel covers what I was saying well (asking users to rate on a scale of 0-10):
"It is important that the feature be culturally neutral: as much as possible, it should aim to reflect a global or multi-cultural view of what imagery is potentially controversial."  
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about.  So to my dear friends on here that pounced on me for saying such things, without naming names, there you have it - it's an issue at least worth enough to be put to a vote, and not what you were so quickly dismissing without further consideration.  
My biggest problem with this board isn't even so much that there are disagreements but that certain people on the other side refuse to see this as a complicated issue that will continue for years to come.  To the moderators, I realize it may be frustrating when you have a solid opinion on something and you just want people to drop it and adopt your ruling as the last word, but please try to keep an open mind.  I hope individuals on here, including moderators, can be more considerate in the future, regardless of what happens, just to be more considerate and open to the possibility of new ideas coming into the fold.  Kmehrabi (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimedia Referendum 2011, this image, and my comments on this board over the years

message: It is my understanding that the inside of the Mormon temple is off limits, in fact a secret to non-Mormans and Wikipedia contains no photographs of the inside of the temple. This is a clear indication that censorship is not the issue regarding publishing the poor quality photograph of Baha'u'llah on Wikipedia. Doing this, just as publishing photos of the inside of the Mormon temple is disrespectful. Not publishing pornography is also an issue of respect for humanity, especially women, rather than censorship. It is what enlightened and thinking people prefer. Wikepedia's guidelines also cannot properly be termed censorship but an effort to ensure accurate portrayal of facts while maintaining respect for others' views. This attitude of respect is embedded into the philosophy of the website and strongly influences its guidelines, especially in how to edit. So the censorship claim as a reason to include the photo is misguided and off point.
The fact that the photograph is published despite Baha'u'llah's (pilgrim's note) statement that He did not approve of this likeness shows that the issue is very temporary. As the world becomes a more moral, respectful and Baha'i-like place, people will want the photograph removed and this desire will prevail. The fact that the pilgrim note is not included in the page on Baha'u'llah and the unclear and misleading way the two photographs were mentioned indicates the mischievousness and wiliness of those who want the photograph to remain.
I would be very surprised if an unflattering and distorted photograph of a movie star would remain up on a Wikipedia webpage for more than half a day. Is this censorship? Or is it respect? In Removing an unflattering photo, or one that is misleading due to the play of light or angle of view, speaks to the desire for accuracy as well as respect. That the photograph of  Baha'u'llah which is used on the webpage is of poor quality and not an accurate depiction speaks volumes about the reason certain people who are not Baha'is want it to remain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homethinker (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure how any of us would know whether the photos are good likenesses or not. Certainly, if there were better photos, we would look for quality first.  However, I don't think there are other photos available. You are right that a poor quality photo of anyone would be replaced had we a better to use. As for the interior of a Mormon temple, Commons has one that is used on three pages. Once again, if there were others, and we had choices, I suspect they, too, would be used. The Temple garments' photos were greatly controversial, as were (and likely are) the use of photos in the article on Mohammad. It is a difficult feat to balance "not censored" with reasonable respect. While I am not sure we always succeed, the present consensus is to keep these photos. Bielle (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incongruency 

message: As a member of the Baha'i Faith, I would like to thank everyone for the steps that have been taken to show reverence towards the image of Baha'u'llah that is displayed in this article.  It was very sensitive and loving of those who contributed to moving the photo to the bottom of the page.  Also, the information provided about the use of the photo on non-Baha'i websites was very useful (just because someone is a Baha'i, doesn't mean that they know all this stuff :-)  I hope that, sometime in the future, and out of even greater compassion and love, the community will consent to having a link to the photo so that non-Baha'is can have access to it, but that Baha'is won't find themselves viewing it unintentionally.  Personally, I am very much in favor of free speech, freedom of the press, etc., but if there is a way to exercise these freedoms with love, compassion and sensitivity (but still exercise them), then perhaps they become even more powerful.  Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for the consideration and sensitivity you have all shown and I hope that, even though it isn't practical to satisfy the needs of every individual, the community continues to show the sensitivity that it has; and, that we may be lovingly moved to show similar sensitively (while maintaining our rights and purpose) to other groups in articles about them.  -william johns jr  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.158.124 (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to all of you... 

message: In reading this, it appears that after much debate, a consensus was reached to put a warning at the top of the page for those who would not wish to see the picture. It appears the warning was removed, against the consensus. Today, I stumbled upon this picture and I'm quite shaken and disheartened by it. If the link, in my opinion a very neutral request by Baha'is which does not censor the photo, can not be respected, than can the warning please be put back in place, so that others like me will not stumble upon it unwillingly. Viewing this portrait should have been a special moment for me, in the Baha'i archives, after preparing myself to see it. That was needlessly taken from me today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.50.153 (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I exceedingly wish there was at least a warning at the top, if for some reason we can't create a click-through link for the image.71.83.184.46 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning? 

message: I find it a little strange that this is even on the net, but it's understandable. However, on a wiki page? This feels more then a little odd, even for a non-Practicing Bahi. How about a link to the picture, so those who wish to see it can, but those who'd rather not can continue reading without covering that part of the page? Even if you wanted it fancy, a simple <a href*="image or words here>*<link here*> tag would fix it.CaedusCraft (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been tried. Violates the spirit and letter of the relevant approach. --Smkolins (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How About a link to the picture? 

message: There is a photograph of Baháʼu'lláh on wikipedia pages.
I see that it's so important that this photograph get removed from the wiki page since the Baháʼí world center says: "For Baháʼís, the photograph of Baháʼu'lláh is very precious and it should not only be viewed but also handled with due reverence and respect". Also it says: "The portraits of... Bahá'u'lláh should be shown infrequently and on very special occasions". As well as Shoghi Effendi, the guardianof the Faith says: "Concerning the question of display of the photograph of Bahá'u'lláh, the Guardian's instructions were that this should be done only with the utmost reverence, and then only on special occasions." Sa1844Ah (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is the copyright holder? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I vehemently agree. My primary argument for the removal of this photo is that there is no depiction of Muhammed whatsoever on that wikipedia page.  Of course, there are certainly accurate depictions of his likeness in circulation, but out of respect and common decency this has been excluded.  The same courtesy and compassion should be shown towards Baha’is.  We have suffered so much already as a community, please give us this respect.  This photo stands to cause far more harm than benefit. 98.26.113.25 (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing photograph of Baháʼu'lláh 

message: The criticism if bahai faith page is also clearly anti bahai propaganda.  It is incredibly sad ti see wikipedia complicit while Bahais are assailed online.  This oage should not exist at all, but even if it dies should not be the first result underneath the bahai wiki page and it should not include complete lies and false information.  
14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, thanks for your comment. It is difficult to achieve neutrality on controversial topics and often takes some back-and-forth between editors. Could you explain what specific parts of the article you believe are biased or inaccurate? Gazelle55 Let's talk! 17:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of bahai faith oage