Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 3

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