Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive Picture

message: Below is a comment from User:Foant, moved from the article by sannse (talk) 21:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: From teh Orthodox Baha'i Perspective, the picutre also should be removed, not because it is a Baha'i site, but for the same reason on the section of Islam no one puts up the print of Muhammad that might be available (there is a sketch) but no one would think of putting it up sicne this would be offinsive to those of that Faith, unless we want to say Wikipedia will allow offending peopel of various religions by putting in thinks that are deliberately offensive,  Like how about putting a picture of the swastika on the Jewish page, or maybe soem other such I am sure we can all come up with reason to justify why we do what we do.f  Also the reason for no picture goes back to Islam.  Both Bha'is and Islamic followers bvelieve a picture representation of any Prophet is not a thing to be done, but specidifcally of their own prophet they definately should not do or have done to them.  It is not just a Baha'i thing.  I will not remove what has been placed up there but strongly object to it being put there without a disclaimer under it that Baha'is like their Muslim brethern do not believe picturers representing the prophets should be allowed, and that this picture therefore is offensive to them.  If you were to put that under the picture I would still object to it, but would have to recourse but to accept it.
:Actually, Orthodox Muslims believe that having pictures of *anything* that exists in reality is blasphemy because only God is allowed allowed to create - this does not stop us from posting pictures of things that exist. Wikipedia is not censorered or bowdlerized. →Raul654 04:19, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
::Considering a picture on the front page is something you really cannot miss though, and at least "Universal House of Justice" Baha'is find it quite quite offensive then surely changing it to a link (as the wikipedia image policy suggest when a picture might be offensive ) may be considered. Its really just something I do not want to see. Thats not censorship as its freely there. -- Tomhab 17:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  about this issue, i will copypaste what i said before (why its ofensive) "you see, Bahai´s usually see photos(..) of Baha'u'llah on pilgrimage(which is a special moment to bahai´s), by showing the photo in the article without any warning is very ofensive/shocking to bahais. im not saying the photo should be deleted, but at least put a wikilink to it instead.. " -  --Cyprus2k1 19:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the age of the Internet.  So what are you Bahais going to do?  Stop every single web site in the world from putting up the photo of Bahaullah?  It is not intelligent to swim against the current.  Accept the fact that we are now in the Internet age. What you see happening in Wikipedia is natural, and there are numerous other projects that are similar to this one, in multiple languages.  Martin2000 17:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Should we just end this by putting a link to it and removing the picture, then reverting to this whenever it gets added in again? Put the link in the external links AND in the top paragraph so its not being hidden away? -- Tomhab 13:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo or link 

message: I'm going to try and summarise the three views here. Feel free to edit it if I'm wrong or if I miss something out, but it would be nice if you also add what you changed at the bottom if you could.
===Conflict summary===
The picture of Baha'u'llah has been repeatedly added and removed for a while now. There are various arguments for each side.
====Reasons for removal====
Generally seems to be done by Baha'i (or at least pro-Baha'i) wikipedians. Their reasons seem to be:
*Baha'is belieave that Baha'u'llah was a prophet within their religion and should be treated with reverence and respect and his picture should only be seen when those situations are present. They feel the internet is not such a place, and find his picture being their offensive.
:There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes.
:(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 6, 1939)
:(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 539)
::The belief described above is a point of view.  Wikipedia's NPOV policy allows us to mention that the point of view exists, and to explain who holds the point of view, but does not allow us to behave as if the point of view is correct.  —AlanBarrett 19:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - I know. This isn't really an option, but it was worth including and explains why random people sometimes remove it. -- Tomhab 23:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Think carefully if offensive pictures are really necessary. Consider providing a link to the picture, and a warning of the picture's contents, rather than place it directly in the article. If you have concerns regarding the appropriateness of an image, discuss it on the relevant article talk page.
*It is a compromise. Baha'is who don't want to see it don't have to. People who are interested can see the image freely.
*Although Baha'is wouldn't like the image of Baha'u'llah on the internet at all, it is already there so asking it to be removed from wikipedia doesn't solve their problems.
Just to state my biases in writing this summary. I'm a Baha'i but I'm endorsing the third option. I have tried to keep this neutral, but if you feel I've failed there please write it below.
Lets try and keep from flaming each other. First time and neutral readers of this conflict are strongly encouraged to contribute their views. -- Tomhab 12:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tomhab's third option: inserting a link to the photograph is a reasonable compromise. I am a Baha'i and was shocked by seeing the photo...not by the image, but by the fact that it was there. Anyone--including Baha'is--who wants to follow the link to the image would be free to do so without giving offence to many people visiting the article. Thanks Tomhab for your common sense proposal. --Occamy 16:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am most certainly not a Bahai, nor have the slightest sympathies for that faith or its organisation. I do though believe mutual respect is A Good Thing and hence support the third option. Refdoc 16:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I agree with Tomhab's compromise option.  I suggested the following format four days ago at Talk:Baha'i Faith.  So far, no response from Martin2000 has been forthcoming.  PaulHammond 16:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
* It seems to me that it isn't the photograph that Baha'is object to, but specifically the act of looking at it irreverently, and in general the display of the picture in a location or context where people will look at it irreverently.  There is nothing Wikipedia can or should do about the state of mind in which people look at Wikipedia. Baha'is wishing to avoid engaging in irreverent behavior towards their prophet can easily make their own personal arrangements. The compromise will not help because the vast majority of people who look at it will not be Bahai's and will still not look at it reverently even if they do have to click on a link.  Those who are Baha'is will gain spiritually by learning to be constantly vigilant, for an encounter with the sacred can be found around every corner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah I think you're right. The image won't ever get removed from the net and thats why I'm not endorsing the idea of removing it here (because what difference does it make?). People will happily enough look at the image everyday and I don't think it really makes much difference. As a personal preference though, I really don't want to look at the image of him without really being in the right mood and state of reverence. Think of it as a personal choice. I don't drink but am well aware that a great many people do, but it doesn't impose on me so fine. At the moment you cannot view this page without seeing the picture so it is imposed on me. I can see your point that you can't accomodate everybody's concern which is why we're having a debate now. -- Tomhab 21:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand that aspect of it.  There is a page on Wikipedia with pictures that I really don't like to look at because the pictures are very upsetting to me.  I have a phobia of caterpillars which is triggered by photographs of them.  But this doesn't stop me reading about them on Wikipedia.  My web browser (and all web browsers I've ever encountered) has controls that permit me to stop it downloading and displaying pictures. So if I wanted to edit caterpillar (and because my phobia doesn't overcome my scientific curiosity, I may want to) I would be able to turn off image downloads on my browser, visit the page without having to see caterpillar pictures, and then edit it.  Afterwards I could turn on image downloads on my browser.  It's only a couple of mouseclicks to do this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess its weighing up how necessary something is compared to how much it'll offend. Anyway, the important bit is that we all understand the situation enough to make a consensus. I think we're getting somewhere (although I'm always optimistic). -- Tomhab 01:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict summary: Image, link or nothing 

message: The picture of Baha'u'llah has been repeatedly added and removed for a while now. There are various arguments for each side.
====Reasons for removal====
Generally seems to be done by Baha'i (or at least pro-Baha'i) wikipedians. Their reasons seem to be:
*Baha'is belieave that Baha'u'llah was a prophet within their religion and should be treated with reverence and respect and his picture should only be seen when those situations are present. They feel the internet is not such a place, and find his picture being their offensive.
:There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes.
:(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 6, 1939)
:(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 539)
::The belief described above is a point of view.  Wikipedia's NPOV policy allows us to mention that the point of view exists, and to explain who holds the point of view, but does not allow us to behave as if the point of view is correct.  —AlanBarrett 19:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - I know. This isn't really an option, but it was worth including and explains why random people sometimes remove it. -- Tomhab 23:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Think carefully if offensive pictures are really necessary. Consider providing a link to the picture, and a warning of the picture's contents, rather than place it directly in the article. If you have concerns regarding the appropriateness of an image, discuss it on the relevant article talk page.
*It is a compromise. Baha'is who don't want to see it don't have to. People who are interested can see the image freely.
*Although Baha'is wouldn't like the image of Baha'u'llah on the internet at all, it is already there so asking it to be removed from wikipedia doesn't solve their problems.
Just to state my biases in writing this summary. I'm a Baha'i but I'm endorsing the third option. I have tried to keep this neutral, but if you feel I've failed there please write it below.
Lets try and keep from flaming each other. First time and neutral readers of this conflict are strongly encouraged to contribute their views. -- Tomhab 12:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tomhab's third option: inserting a link to the photograph is a reasonable compromise. I am a Baha'i and was shocked by seeing the photo...not by the image, but by the fact that it was there. Anyone--including Baha'is--who wants to follow the link to the image would be free to do so without giving offence to many people visiting the article. Thanks Tomhab for your common sense proposal. --Occamy 16:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am most certainly not a Bahai, nor have the slightest sympathies for that faith or its organisation. I do though believe mutual respect is A Good Thing and hence support the third option. Refdoc 16:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I agree with Tomhab's compromise option.  I suggested the following format four days ago at Talk:Baha'i Faith.  So far, no response from Martin2000 has been forthcoming.  PaulHammond 16:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
* It seems to me that it isn't the photograph that Baha'is object to, but specifically the act of looking at it irreverently, and in general the display of the picture in a location or context where people will look at it irreverently.  There is nothing Wikipedia can or should do about the state of mind in which people look at Wikipedia. Baha'is wishing to avoid engaging in irreverent behavior towards their prophet can easily make their own personal arrangements. The compromise will not help because the vast majority of people who look at it will not be Bahai's and will still not look at it reverently even if they do have to click on a link.  Those who are Baha'is will gain spiritually by learning to be constantly vigilant, for an encounter with the sacred can be found around every corner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah I think you're right. The image won't ever get removed from the net and thats why I'm not endorsing the idea of removing it here (because what difference does it make?). People will happily enough look at the image everyday and I don't think it really makes much difference. As a personal preference though, I really don't want to look at the image of him without really being in the right mood and state of reverence. Think of it as a personal choice. I don't drink but am well aware that a great many people do, but it doesn't impose on me so fine. At the moment you cannot view this page without seeing the picture so it is imposed on me. I can see your point that you can't accomodate everybody's concern which is why we're having a debate now. -- Tomhab 21:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand that aspect of it.  There is a page on Wikipedia with pictures that I really don't like to look at because the pictures are very upsetting to me.  I have a phobia of caterpillars which is triggered by photographs of them.  But this doesn't stop me reading about them on Wikipedia.  My web browser (and all web browsers I've ever encountered) has controls that permit me to stop it downloading and displaying pictures. So if I wanted to edit caterpillar (and because my phobia doesn't overcome my scientific curiosity, I may want to) I would be able to turn off image downloads on my browser, visit the page without having to see caterpillar pictures, and then edit it.  Afterwards I could turn on image downloads on my browser.  It's only a couple of mouseclicks to do this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess its weighing up how necessary something is compared to how much it'll offend. Anyway, the important bit is that we all understand the situation enough to make a consensus. I think we're getting somewhere (although I'm always optimistic). -- Tomhab 01:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict summary

message: Generally seems to be done by Baha'i (or at least pro-Baha'i) wikipedians. Their reasons seem to be:
*Baha'is belieave that Baha'u'llah was a prophet within their religion and should be treated with reverence and respect and his picture should only be seen when those situations are present. They feel the internet is not such a place, and find his picture being their offensive.
:There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes.
:(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 6, 1939)
:(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 539)
::The belief described above is a point of view.  Wikipedia's NPOV policy allows us to mention that the point of view exists, and to explain who holds the point of view, but does not allow us to behave as if the point of view is correct.  —AlanBarrett 19:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - I know. This isn't really an option, but it was worth including and explains why random people sometimes remove it. -- Tomhab 23:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for removal

message: Offered as a compromise approach after edit wars. Reasons for it:
*When an image might be offensive Wikipedia Image use policy rule of thumb point 11 states:
:Think carefully if offensive pictures are really necessary. Consider providing a link to the picture, and a warning of the picture's contents, rather than place it directly in the article. If you have concerns regarding the appropriateness of an image, discuss it on the relevant article talk page.
*It is a compromise. Baha'is who don't want to see it don't have to. People who are interested can see the image freely.
*Although Baha'is wouldn't like the image of Baha'u'llah on the internet at all, it is already there so asking it to be removed from wikipedia doesn't solve their problems.
Just to state my biases in writing this summary. I'm a Baha'i but I'm endorsing the third option. I have tried to keep this neutral, but if you feel I've failed there please write it below.
Lets try and keep from flaming each other. First time and neutral readers of this conflict are strongly encouraged to contribute their views. -- Tomhab 12:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tomhab's third option: inserting a link to the photograph is a reasonable compromise. I am a Baha'i and was shocked by seeing the photo...not by the image, but by the fact that it was there. Anyone--including Baha'is--who wants to follow the link to the image would be free to do so without giving offence to many people visiting the article. Thanks Tomhab for your common sense proposal. --Occamy 16:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am most certainly not a Bahai, nor have the slightest sympathies for that faith or its organisation. I do though believe mutual respect is A Good Thing and hence support the third option. Refdoc 16:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I agree with Tomhab's compromise option.  I suggested the following format four days ago at Talk:Baha'i Faith.  So far, no response from Martin2000 has been forthcoming.  PaulHammond 16:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
* It seems to me that it isn't the photograph that Baha'is object to, but specifically the act of looking at it irreverently, and in general the display of the picture in a location or context where people will look at it irreverently.  There is nothing Wikipedia can or should do about the state of mind in which people look at Wikipedia. Baha'is wishing to avoid engaging in irreverent behavior towards their prophet can easily make their own personal arrangements. The compromise will not help because the vast majority of people who look at it will not be Bahai's and will still not look at it reverently even if they do have to click on a link.  Those who are Baha'is will gain spiritually by learning to be constantly vigilant, for an encounter with the sacred can be found around every corner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah I think you're right. The image won't ever get removed from the net and thats why I'm not endorsing the idea of removing it here (because what difference does it make?). People will happily enough look at the image everyday and I don't think it really makes much difference. As a personal preference though, I really don't want to look at the image of him without really being in the right mood and state of reverence. Think of it as a personal choice. I don't drink but am well aware that a great many people do, but it doesn't impose on me so fine. At the moment you cannot view this page without seeing the picture so it is imposed on me. I can see your point that you can't accomodate everybody's concern which is why we're having a debate now. -- Tomhab 21:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand that aspect of it.  There is a page on Wikipedia with pictures that I really don't like to look at because the pictures are very upsetting to me.  I have a phobia of caterpillars which is triggered by photographs of them.  But this doesn't stop me reading about them on Wikipedia.  My web browser (and all web browsers I've ever encountered) has controls that permit me to stop it downloading and displaying pictures. So if I wanted to edit caterpillar (and because my phobia doesn't overcome my scientific curiosity, I may want to) I would be able to turn off image downloads on my browser, visit the page without having to see caterpillar pictures, and then edit it.  Afterwards I could turn on image downloads on my browser.  It's only a couple of mouseclicks to do this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess its weighing up how necessary something is compared to how much it'll offend. Anyway, the important bit is that we all understand the situation enough to make a consensus. I think we're getting somewhere (although I'm always optimistic). -- Tomhab 01:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for converting to a link

message: * I have just been involved in a discussion about generally allowing the removal of images from being in-line. I am strongly against linked images - either they are appropriate or they aren't, and if they aren't then don't link to them. I would like to suggest an option that hasn't yet been mentioned. - Put the photo at the bottom of the main page - after a spoiler warning. -- SGBailey 20:22, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
::I agree with SGBailey and the proposed solution. All modern browser allow users to disable images, so every Baha'i will be able to avoid looking at the photo.
::The same discussion is going on in the German wikipedia - have a look at this version to see how this solution looks there -, and after more than 40 users have weighed in on the matter this seems to become the compromise which most people can agree on. regards, High on a tree 20:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I think you can accidentally stumble across the image though so still prefer a link, but its better than being at the top. As long as the warning is clear I guess it could work... Just watch though, call me cynacle but Amir or Martin will put it straight back up to the top. -- Tomhab 21:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: And yeah, you can block images but from a whole site. At the moment I can't see any images from the wikipedia upload site for this reason. Not really a solution though and doesn't address the issue. Just an opinion but Wikipedia really shouldn't offend someone to the level they have to block all images from its site. -- Tomhab 21:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I really like this idea.  Be aware that on some large browser pages the pictures will still be visible immediately, although it may only be in the peripheral vision of the reader. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Would it be cheeky to ask if it could be RIGHT at the bottom though? As in below references, weblogs etc, then a line-break and a title such as "photo of Baha'u'llah". I guess if someone (who isn't just being unreasonable) should say no to this I won't push for it further, but just as a preference. -- Tomhab 01:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that would be fine.  It's unconventional layout, but layout is not paramount. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll change it now and see what people think. My money is on it being less than three hours before it gets reverted. -- Tomhab 01:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise: picture at page bottom, warning at the top

message: Dear readers,
In the Baha'i faith, it mentions that the picture must not be portrayed in an environment that does not respect the portrait of Baha'u'llah. In other words, this is a belief that all Baha'is agree upon.
To friends,
I understand your need of "Freedom of Expression", for the progress of the world "depends" on such value. However, if we do not respect each other and freely express our views among one another, nothing can be solved. We have to learn to respect each others views, and not to impose our views among others because we are either oppressed by our Government that censors everything, or forcing the view that I need that information because it is vital to knowledge. I agree with the second thought, it is important for our knowledge, but must everything be available for the sake of Human Knowledge? Should we post the guidelines in Making Bombs and Dynamites "for the sake of improving the world" by giving in Information? Let us forget about bombs now. How would you like if the portrait of your dear one be portrayed badly? Although it is hard to understand why Baha'is really do not accept the portait to be posted within Wikipedia, but the sensation of how Baha'is feel is similar to the feeling of having a portrait of your loved one be portrayed in a very poor manner. The only way we can solve this is to understand one another.
"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 
"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)
Yoruba: (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
"The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form" Shinto
With warmest regards,
--ABehjat 10:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Understand One Another 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}}