Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Picture

message: This archive is about the inclusion of Baha'u'llah's picture on the Baha'i page. Below is the discussion which resulted in a vote. The result was 11-0 against (although some editors refrained from voting), and including the picture on the page can be considered vandalism now until further discussion occurs. The vote included 4 or so "neutral parties". -- Tomhab 22:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: This article is on the Baha'i Faith and is not on Baha'u'llah.  His picture is on that page, and given that other religious pages such as Islam, Christianity, Hinduism do not have pictures (or drawings) of the main prophet, but instead have other pictures, I think that the picture of Baha'u'llah should be removed.  I was going to leave the picture up (PaulHammond took it down) until we could have some sort of consensus and not just blind/reasonless deletes.  So before we make any more changes, either picture up or picture down, let us discuss it here? -- Jeff3000 20:26, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
:I've already got firefox to block all images from wikipedia over this issue... As I've said somewhere above I think we should just gut everything thats not to do with what Baha'is are all about (which is what this page should have) and make a new article about it. Namely the whole history section, but also whatever else turns up. Actually I'd do it now except I don't know enough about wikipedia.
:As for the image itself, I'd really like people to put a link up in every place it turns up (like the Baha'u'llah page) as any Baha'is (must make up a fair amount of the people visiting the page) might be offended by it. -- Tomhab 20:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baha'u'llah's picture in this article 

message: Clearly, there is a person here who thinks that it is very important that Wikipedia readers can see the photo of Baha'u'llah that he has taken the trouble to upload to the database, and yet Baha'is find the casual display of Baha'u'llah's picture offensive, for reasons that have been explained above.
The guidelines for using offensive pictures at Wikipedia:Image use policy state:
"11. 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."
So, I suggest that we have no picture on this article, where the subject is Baha'u'llah's religion, not the person himself, and at Baha'u'llah there should be a non-displaying link to Baha'u'llah's passport photo fairly near the top of the article, probably with an explanation that Baha'is find casual display of Baha'u'llah's photo offensive, so that the start of Baha'u'llah would read something like:
Bahá'u'lláh (1817 - 1892) (Persian - Mírzá Husayn-'Alí (میرزا حسینعلی)) was the founder and prophet of the Bahá'í Faith. He was also known as Bahá'u'lláh ("The Glory of God" in Arabic), as "He Whom God will make manifest" (from the Báb's writings), and as "Father of the Poor".
Bahá'ís find casual display of Bahá'u'lláh's image disresptful/offensive, but a passport photograph of Bahá'u'lláh may be viewed .
Bahá'u'lláh authored serveral religious works, including the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (Most Holy Book) and the Kitáb-i-Íqán (Book of Certitude). He died in Bahji, Palestine (outside 'Akká, Acre).
Obviously, we can work on the wording once we have some agreement here.  I note that there appeared to be a consensus for no picture here and a link at Baha'u'llah forming before Martin's reverts of my edits led to my investigation of his edit history yesterday. - PaulHammond 13:23, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
:The so-called "consensus" if there is one here, is only among you Bahais. I realize that somewhere else you claimed not to be a Bahai, however, a simple click on your ID and a quick perusal of your comments speaks volumes about your partiality.  In fact, if you really aren't a Bahai, you have behaved even more partial than a fool-hardy Bahai -- I wonder why?  Anyhow, there is no such consensus here. I vote for Baha's pic to be included in the article.  --Amir 18:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baha'u'llah's photo: suggestion for compromise 

message: #Image simply does not belong here -- Tomhab 00:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: Do not include --image of Baha'u'llah on page 

message: I think it is strangely perverse that Wikipedia towed the "reverence" line for Baha'is.
Maybe THEY have a law that they 'must obey' (as if Baha'is really obey their own laws -- Ha!), but WIKIPEDIA is not constrained by 'Baha'i laws,' thank goodness.
But in reality, they actually do NOT have any such law. Indeed, there is no 'law' regarding pictures anywhere in their Book of Laws (Kitab-i-Aqdas), or in anywhere else. The Baha'i source material I've seen actually does allow for the phenomenon of Baha'is seeing photos of their founder.
Even if sincere in their pious claim that showing the photo is "irreverent," that can only be classified as a devotional nicety in the life of a religious devotee in this little sect. Isn't that obvious? We're supposed to miss out on seeing pics of this controversial religious founder so Baha'i's can get a better thrill when they go to Haifa, Israel and look at the picture there? Silly.
 
The photo's "offensiveness" is only understood in the context of religious devotion or "reverence" for Baha'u'llah. We here are not by definition devotees of Baha'u'llah. We want to see the documentary picture! How can Wikipedia base a decision on religious reverence for Baha'u'llah?
Also, articles on Christianity, Islam, etc. are not in the same class as an article on this little known movement. The world knows a lot about these religions and their founders. These religions are also profoundly sectarian, so it is politic to avoid photos that might be favored by one sect but not another. The Baha'i Faith is relatively little known, and largely unsplintered. There is no popular awareness regarding it's founders as with Christianity and Islam. You would not believe how SMALL the Baha'i Faith is. Their membership numbers are grotesquely inflated. They are like a sieve. I know because I used to help cook their books.
The Baha'i Faith has nothing of the stature of Islam or Christianity. In terms of history and culture it is not even on the map next to them. It is comparatively arcane and unique. Must Wikipedia bend to be properly 'reverent' towards every little sect out there?
And why is it that photos of 'Abdu'l-Baha are used everywhere by Bahai's? He was one of the four 'Founders,' the son of Baha'u'llah, and his spiritual and temporal successor. He has a lofty "station" in their pantheon; is considered a Divine Institution. But Baha'is plaster his face all over the place. Why is it not an 'atrocity' for Baha'is to see photos of him all over the place?
Amir is right. It's all about Baha'i PR interests. The question is: Will Wikipedia allow itself to be a dupe for a religious promotional agenda? Or is Wikipedia a place to find complete documentary information? - unsigned by User:Mentious Jan 15, 2006
::This conversation is being repeated on Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo. Please refrain from posting the same thing on two different pages. Cuñado  - Talk 23:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are We Devotees?