Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iqan

tom, that paragraph that you are deleting is highly important. i can't believe you say it is irrelevant. bahaism recinds (cancels) babism and bayan. yes, bahaism accepts the bab as a forerunner to bahaullah, but it cancels "babism" and bayan, and declares bahaism to be its replacement. have you even taken a cursory look at Iqan? it is not like bahaullah was trying to say "ok, bab is legit too" -- he has made the full effort to CONFIRM both the bab AND the bayan. all that shortly before he was going to send them both into permanent retirement? especially given his claim that he already knew in his heart about bahaism and had kept it secret in his heart all along? and you are saying this is of no importance to an article about bahaullah? give us a break, man. --Amir 14:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He wrote the book to confirm that the Bab's message was true. Baha'u'llah then declared by saying "I am the one the Bab prophesised". Sure that means he over ruled the Bab, but he would never say anything but the Babi movement was true, otherwise he'd be contradicting himself. Bahaism doesn't cancel Babism, the whole argument is they compliment each other (Bab's a central figure, one of only three people we're allowed to read the prayers of in feasts).
Assuming right now that Baha'u'llah wanted to make a rush for power, and wasn't in any way devine. He doesn't have a leg to stand on if he can't confirm the Bab's message. The only way he can manage it is if he convinces as many people as possible that the Bab who he says he was and to look for "him whom god shall make manifest", and then race in and say "but thats me!".
If someone said "its a bit odd how Jesus allowed himself to die on the cross when he could have run away". Dying on the cross made Christianity the most prolific religion ever. Talk about a legacy to tell the grandkids (metaphoric don't worry).
Am I just mis-reading what's going on?? I just can't see why anyone feels that it's a relevant paragraph regardless of what you think of Baha'u'llah. -- Tomhab 14:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tom I have to agree with Amir on this one. If you read the response paragraph, we really have to leave in the paragraph Amir wrote. Otherwise they both should go. The earlier edit to JUST remove Amir's paragraph gives a very hard POV on Baha U'llah's claim to legitimacy. It allows the Baha'is to interpret what happened with no non-Baha'i i.e. neutral response. SO imho, either both paragraphs stay or both go. Personally I think they should both stay. And putting analysis at the end of the article seems fine. That is more typically how articles in the EB are writen. Wjhonson 01:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm really sorry about this, but I'm still completely lost. I thought the paragraph I deleted was saying "By the Iqan proving the Babs message meant that Baha'u'llah's claim might not be legitimate". Regardless I'm stepping out of this debate as I'm not sharp enough to keep up with everyone else :) -- Tomhab 03:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It does Tom. What you're missing is you have to read the paragraph that directly follows that one as well. Only removing Amir's paragraph would then make that following paragraph a stand-alone interpretation without response that implies that the article is promoting Baha's claim instead of just mentioning it. So that would then make it POV. Leaving in both paragraphs, or taking out both would make it neutral. In my opinion of course Wjhonson 04:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes i think you are misreading. the bab and babism (babis/azalis/bayanis, whatever you want to call them) were already well established and were in thousands. in fact, they were extremely ardent and dedicated to their cause. there was no need to reaffirm the legitimacy of the bab and babism for the babis, that would've been preaching to the choir. baha did it to establish himself as an authority in the babi community with a some sort of religious "publication" (to understand the dynamics of this better you must consider the shiite and howza culture and background of the babi/bahai movement), and the whole idea was to establish himself. if i was a mulla-wannabee in some howza in Qom or Najaf right now and wanted to establish myself as some sort of religious authority, i would find a subject that my "audience" already accepts, and i would concuct some mumbo-jumbo and "prove the legitimicy" of my subject. this is nothing new, it's even common sense. --Amir 15:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok.... so from the POV of Baha making a grab for power, he tried to establish himself within the Babi movement. I still don't see how you can say its odd or in anyway contradictory for him to do so. Anyway, you obviously feel very passionate about this and its not really worth arguing about (ie - if you really feel it has to be in there okay...). I just feel its a complete tangeant to the flow of the article that goes nowhere. -- Tomhab 15:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't even edit the English cuz I'm really not sure what the paragraph is trying to say. It just sounds reaaally odd and quite random to me. -- Tomhab 15:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no dear, i am not passionate about it at all, i am as cool as cucumber as you english-speakers say, and as cool and logical about this article as i am about the other one we are discussing at this moment. we are going to stay with facts, dispassionately, on all articles, and there is neither any tensions nor any bargainings anywhere -- just plain, honest, clear facts. --Amir 15:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"...just plain, honest, clear facts." OK Amir, will you remove all your speculation from articles, or should I? Occamy 18:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fine. I can edit it, and I have done two things. First, I fixed the english. Second I moved the argument, which was NOT about the exile in Constantinople NOR about the revelation in the Garden of Ridvan, but is, rather an argument about this historical sequence and Baha'u'llah's claim's legitimacy to below the chronological sequence and gave it it's own heading. I clarified your arguments, and expanded the response. I hope this helps. Rick Boatright 16:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thank you rick. your english makes me realize how much mine sucks. a question though, "then only a decade later cancel it and send it into retirement?" is that accurate? my impression was that Iqan was written much closer to the Rezvan declaration. i will have to check up on that. my impression is that it's more like 2 or 3 years. --Amir 17:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The decade later was refering to the revelation of the Aqdas. The declaration in the garden did NOTHING to "Send the revelation of the Bab into retirement." since it was merely the fulfillment of the Bab's prophacy of the revelation of "him whom God will make manifest." If _anything_ "retired" the bayan, it was the Aqdas, which abrogates much of the Bayan's laws. Nothing until then did. Rick Boatright 18:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That is incorrect. These are the facts: Bahai religion's "official start date" is the Ridvan announcement which is 1863. It's "private" announcement (that is, by God to Baha) is 1853. According to Bahai claim, Bahai Faith is God's new revelation and therefore it replaces and retires the Babi Faith. Therefore the way the article was written earlier is more coorect. I will change it back. Martin2000 18:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the two things do not exactly contradict each other, Amir, - Bahaullah gets revelation, tells his mates, keeps on getting revelation and eventually publishes revelation superseding old stuff. Now I do not believe any of it (i.e. the genuineness of Bahaullah's revelation) but this is my private matter. The logic described above by Rick is flawless. Refdoc 18:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Refdoc's version

You version includes the uncited claim that Bahá'u'lláh was poisened. your Legitimacy of Bahá'u'lláh's claim section starts with the words; The Bahá'í historical story is not different. This makes no sense in your version since the section about what it is different to has been removed (which also contributes to the article being POV.Geni 23:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reverted dt the picture, i am sorry if I reverted other stuff along with it. Edit to your heart's content, please. There is simply no consensus re the picture as far as I can determine, so i think both should remain up. Refdoc 23:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the lession is son't use the rollback button unless you are reverting vanderlism. Having both pictures makes the article look wierd (as well as increasing the page size for no benifit~).Geni 23:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes to both. The first was avoidable and I will take more care in future. The second though is not avoidable - the pictures were put up earlier in the two positions in order to allow others to see what the problem is all about - and its potential solutions. I think until a real and enforcable consensus is there the only way to avoid editwarring is to have both up however pointles sthis appears. Now I do not see the RfC going anywhere - has anyone actually started one? Refdoc 00:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No because there is the long standing problem of trying to keep this article out of the wider debate over images.Geni 00:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with this (no RfC at the moment) and think it would be silly to have this article's fate be decided in conjuction with autofellatio etc. But I do think if such a formal way is not possible we need to leave the picture either at the top - acknowledging that the strawpoll (I do not call it a vote because it was not formally announced) some time showed no adequate consensus to do otherwise - or continue to have it with two picture positions to see whteher eventually a consensus comes about. As I said before - my personal opinion is to have the picture at the bottom or in a link, but I think this needs really consensus otherwise you will have to editwar with Martin/Amir until .... Refdoc 01:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah sorry this is my fault. I wanted a move to resolve the issue and put both up with the intention to do a RfC, but after thinking about it, I didn't want to involve it all with the image debate going on now. Personally I think this debate will be resolved by the image debate anyway, but don't want it to spill over to here.
I then removed the top one as a simple preference (rather than having both - someone had to pick one). I figured that someone would get rid of the bottom one and put the top one up, but they just reverted it back to 2 images...
For now I'm stepping out of this argument. People who regularly patrol this page know my views (link or bottom at most) and fueling a war seems pretty pointless. We're miles away from a consensus so no point IMHO. To be fair I don't think it'll end until a real RfC can happen. Annoying, but... thats life. Until then I'm concentrating on building some of the other Baha'i pages up. -- Tomhab 01:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


passport.

Well, I have some questions for the persian readers here.

The only translation I have of the passport says:

Passport Printed in the Supreme Capital


He is taking along four women with Him They also have two male children with them

Mirza' Husayn-'Ali Nur-i

Number: BLANK
Features: BLANK
Age: 35
Height: Medium
Eye [eye color]: Black
Eyebrow: Black
Beard: Black
Mustache: Black
Particular Features: BLANK

The holder of the passport is a citizen of the Supreme Government of Iran. By the order of His Excellency the Prime Minister, He is dismissed and is departing for the sublime pavilion of the Holy Shrines. Border guards and passport officials should not prevent passage at the time of crossing within the provinces or the cities, or at the borders and frontiers, but should give due consideration when necessary. The duration of this passport shall be extended up to one year, and after the lapse of this period it is no longer valid.

Year: 1269
Fee: 500 Dinar
By the written order of the Foreign Minister
Issued in Tehran, 1 Rabí'u'th-Thání

I have several questions.

  • Is the translation of the term "dismissed" accurate?
  • Is that the NORMAL term for someone who has applied to make pilgramage in Iraq?
  • Is the phrase "departing for the sublime pavilion of the Holy Shrines. " the normal passports description of Iraq, or is it in face, as asserted on the page, a code-phrase meaning that the individual intends pilgramage?
  • Is there anywhere I can possibly find corrobortation for the assertion that this passport is indistinguishable from any other pilgram's passport?

Rick Boatright 04:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I edited the exile section from saying there was no evidence of an exile to refering to the later cited Browne letter, and the "oddness" of the passport. In reading other historical passports, admittedly no persion ones, I've never seen one that says that the citizen was "dismissed." Persia may be odd that way, but so far, no one has come forward to say so. Further, the passport does not mention a purpose, but rather a destination, so claiming that the passport specifies the purpose of travel is pilgramage is incorrect unless someone can come forward with a persian scholar who says that this is the standard form for persian pilgrams. From the (only available english translation) text of the passport, that assertion doesn't make sense. Rick Boatright 03:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The word that is translated as "dismissed" was, and still is, quite commonly used in special usage for border-related terminology including costumes. There is no "oddness" about that verbage. In that usage it implies "is allowed" or "is OK to pass". The passport appears quite normal (although I have a few issues with certain things about that passport, but that is irrelevant at this point) and the Bahai authorities have used this passport for the longest time as Bahaullah's legitimate passport. Your changes are actually shifting what the article was insinuating 180 degrees. The article was saying that according to his passport, there is no reason to believe he was exiled or banished.
The Bahai authorities have never claimed up to this day [and I am marking] that the passport says "he is dismissed" in terms of "banishment". Is this what they are claiming now?
Regarding your other question, the passport says "he is heading for the holy shrines". Since he needed a passport for these "holy shrines" they could only be the holy shirines that are in Iraq [today], cuz for the ones inside Iran one would not need a passport! And for Haj (the mulsim pilgrimage to Mecca) the term "holy shrines" is not used. --Amir 20:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Amir's opinion is welcome, but unconvincing. Can other Persian readers provide second and third opinions please? Occamy 22:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually, is says in the translation that he's heading for 'the sublime pavilion of the holy shrines." Now, I know that 19th cent persian was flowery, hell, frequently 20th century persian is flowery, but if that's an accurate translation then that's a destination not a statement of purpose. (It doesn't say he's going on pilgramage, it says he's going where thes shrines are." Perhaps that's a distinction without a difference, I just don't know.
as to "dismissed" That's why I _asked_ and didn't get any answer. So, I edited. There _is_ no "official baha'i position" of "The Baha'i Authorities." There's just "me". However, I would note that your statement that there was no support for exile is inaccurate in light of the letter cited by Browne further down the article.
As to the difference between exile and banishment in english there isn't one. They both mean "Persona non gratia. Go away." As to the edit being a 180 degree turn, well, I was trying to read the only translation of the passport I have, and compare it with other period passports I have seen. No one questions that this is the ACTUAL passport, for heaven's sake, the photo of it was included in "The Baha'i World" published by the House of Justice! also, the exile question seems supported by the later (Browne) letter. Rick Boatright 01:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You were caught cheating. How does it feel? Are you claiming that you didn't know that in Browne's note his reference to "exile" is about Bahaullah's confinement to certain areas within the Ottoman Empire, by the Ottoman Empire, and not by the Persian Empire? Martin2000 02:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I WAS NOT CHEATING You wrote in your edit comment Reverting Bahai cheats and deceptions. Browne's mention of "exile" is about Ottoman government having sent him to Bahji not about Persian government having sent him to exile. You knew this damn well.

I must say, I'm more than a little upset with this. First, I know no such thing. I read the Browne material, and it surely and positively looks to me as tho the persian official was talking about the Exiles. Now, you assert (without evidense, as a matter of fact, without argumentation or justification, that the persian official was refering to the Baha'is in a future sense as "those about to become exiles when we send them off to Acca." This looks like a very weird and twisted reading to me. Further, I take great exception to being called a cheat, and deceitful. I have spent nearly twenty years working with those who hate the Baha'i Faith and those who love it attempting to provide a neutral forum for that discussion. I brought the same sensibitlity to the wikipedia. Your personal attacks are inappropriate. If you have some scholar who contends that Baha'u'llah was not exiled, bring him forward. Otherwise, EVERY ENGLISH SOURCE says "banished" or "exiled". If you have a PERSIAN source who says Baha'u'llah ran away waving his hands in the air and screaming like a girl, BRING THAT ON. But quit sticking your PRESUMPTIONS of what happened in. The absense of documentation does NOT mean that there is an absense of action. You may asset it all you want, but that doesn't change the reality. Rick Boatright 05:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that 'Although there is no evidence to support the claim that he was "banished" or "exiled"' is wrong. We have a letter from the Persian government to the ottamans which kind of show he's not welcome in his home country. Also does EVERY pilgrim get his passport signed by the foreign minister? -- Tomhab 01:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

photo again

Ok then what is the reasoning this time?Geni 01:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Raul654 is strongly of the opinion that the picture should be included. As far as I know he's not involved in the dispute (ie here to promote or attack the Baha'i faith), just pretty strongly opinionated.
Quoting a summary of what he's written in /Archive_Picture
  1. "this is a biography article, and the only picture of him is integral to writing it. On wikipedia, informing our users trumps desires by religious adherents to not include it."
  2. "Wikipedia is not censorered or bowdlerized."
  3. "I had earlier commented on talk:Bahá'í Faith, giving an outsider's neutral point of view. I made the explicit point of saying that this article should include the picture, because (a) This is not a Bahai encyclopedia, and the image is not patently offensive (even if it were, then *maybe* you could argue that it shouldn't be included, but that argument is going on elsewhere and this does not come anywhere near qualifying) ; furthermore, (b) biography articles such as this follow a standard format, and the standard fof formatting is to include to include a picture (if at least one exists) at the top of the text; not at the bottom."
  4. On a vote on what to do "This censorship is nonesense." and "I would also like to add that this situation is a perfect example of using a poll to substitute for good editorial judgement."
I think that qualifies saying he's "strongly of the opinion..." Apart from talking about "standard format", which I think you (Geni) originally disputed using Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), its a perfectly valid opinion. A little uncompromising, but you shouldn't be forced to compromise on everything I guess.
It would be nice if he used the talk page when he does these changes that we spend hours talking about though... -- Tomhab 01:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually I realised that I'm not really addressing the issue of why he removed the bottom picture. I guess he figured the debate was over. Unless you're in on the details of whats going on (we're leaving both pictures up so that people can see the pros and cons), it might seem a little odd. -- Tomhab 02:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Well to deal with his past points (to save time)

Just added Geni's signature.
Should we invite Raul to participate in this conversation? -- Tomhab 02:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
we seem to be getting on so well without him. Ok then go on.Geni 02:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm dunno. Don't fancy having an pissed off senior admin on my hands... we could just ignore his changes... :P -- Tomhab 02:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It says at the bottom of each Edit page "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." So changes are appropriate if you think so. Anyway, putting the image at the bottom is not censorship, it simply displays sensitivity to the concerns of a substantial group of users. Occamy 12:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Yes, the situation is fairly simple - having the same picture in the article twice is inherently stupid (and wasteful, because wikipedia has to pay for bandwidth). Biographies with one picture of the person are pretty cookie-cutter - you put it at the top of the article, usually aligned right. "Articles with a single picture are encouraged to have that picture at the top of the article, right-aligned" -- Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Pictures Generally, in cases of multiple pictures, you put one at the top, and spread the rest through the article. →Raul654 17:17, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

PS - when editing, don't treat me different than anyone else. →Raul654 17:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Well here we have a reason to depart from the general case. We lose nothing by putting the image at the bottem of the page and potentialy gain some low level goodwill (there is also the issue that every version where people have tried to put the image at the top has ended up destorying information the image itself appears to have quite an interesting history)Geni 17:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
is anyone going to object to my analysis?Geni 14:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not from here, but my bias is obvious. -- Tomhab 16:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis too. My first choice would be a link, but that is probably too weird an option for people who do not believe that Baha'u'llah was God's divine messenger. Occamy 22:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


hmmm looks like someone is finaly dissagreing. Could they please explain why?

A new solution to the picture conundrum

Raul refers to the style guide - which while giving explaining where a siingle picture should go, does not say anything about biographies etc. My suggestionis to put the shrine picture up in the first position, have a warning for Bahai's somewhere in the first paragraph and then have the actual picture in 2nd or 3rd position. Refdoc 21:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Baha'is really don't want to see it just like the family of Nick Berg don't want to see a picture of him decapitated his article page, but they may still want to go over the article occasionally.. I understand there are differences and its hard to address everyone's opinion. I will however not do any picture related reverts unless it is against consensus, so ignore my vote. -- Tomhab 22:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If it's not at the top it might as well go at the bottem.Geni 09:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Put the picture of Baha'u'llah at the bottom and his shrine at the top with the warning. Nothing is lost with such a setup. Occamy 11:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I prefered my unstuble hint rather than an outright warningGeni 13:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Don't know if this is relevant, but the picture is also displayed prominently at the top of the Baha'u'llah's Family article page. After doing a quick search here (though not thorough), I didn't notice it mentioned anywhere else. Would it make sense that whatever decision you reach regarding the issue on this page is also enacted on that page? --Antyrael 17:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That would indeed be the plan. There are certain editors who strongly believe in it being on the top of the page and editting it without a complete consensus would simply start an edit war. Although I recognise that it will not be removed entirely from this article, I will be interested to see if neutral parties could agree to it only being on one page (ie removing it from the family page). That is for another time though - as said before I have a bias and recognise I do. For reference to any newcomings here is a summary of why Baha'is don't particularly like the idea of his picture being up on wikipedia let alone the web. -- Tomhab 17:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Allright. Just to throw my lot in, I'm for moving the pic to the bottom of the article and putting a warning at the top. I'd love to see a neutral concensus on this matter as well; but unfortunately I'm far from a neutral party, being Baha'i myself. --Antyrael 17:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The picture belongs to the top of the article just like other similar articles. This is a Wikipedia article about a man, whose picture is available and in public domain. The picture belongs right where it is now (on top of the article) just like any other similar articles. The comparison with the beheaded journalist and the like is completely false. Wikipedia cannot "adjust" itself to satisfy the policies and preferences of various organizations, such as the Bahai organization, throughout the world. Wikipedia is a people's online, web-based encyclopedia. If this is so offensive to the Bahais, they should just limit themselves to the official Bahai sites. Martin2000 01:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

argument by assertion logical fallacy.Geni 01:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In addition, Martin specifically signed up to Wikipedia in order to upload Baha'u'llah's picture and ensure that it was prominently displayed here, has repeatedly revert-warred on the issue and ignored/overridden discussion, and is currently the subject of a Request for comment on his unco-operative behaviour. PaulHammond 21:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Open Proxy edits

Open proxies should be banned on sight and for good as per Wikipedia policy. I would encourage all admins who frequent this page to do just so, instead of tolerating the ongoing nonsense. If editors feel anonymity is a necessity or login is inconvenient, this is fine, but the use of open proxies is clearly against current policies. Refdoc 22:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust .... 202.124.224.15 - Refdoc 16:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the photo

I believe we should be sensitive to and respect the Bahai faith. The offense that the picture may cause greatly outweighs the advantage of having it displayed in the article. The best solution would be to link to the picture, but not display it within the article, with an accompanying statement, such as: "The beliefs held by the Bahá'í Faith regard images of Bahá'u'lláh as offensive, and for this reason, an image of Bahá'u'lláh is located at the following link: (LINK TO PHOTO)" I don't believe that the current setup, with the image at the bottom, is a sufficient safeguard.--Brendanfox 14:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For neutrality's sake can you state your bias? Are you Baha'i, sympathetic to Baha'is or your first experience with us? Thanks -- Tomhab 19:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is someone else than the above user. I am someone who could accept either measure: photo at bottom, or photo linked to the article, and think that the latter would probably be best. I just performed a revert of an anonymous IP to this article. To contend against this person's obstinance I would assert that I don't have a problem with accepting most conventions, and established rules in their proper place: I do have a problem where one person or perhaps a few people try impose conventions on everyone else, whether they are appropriate or not, and try to imply that it is an established rule, that everyone else must obey. I've peeked in at this place from time to time, but not gotten involved since my initial remarks here several weeks ago, but I am speaking up now as someone who does not belong to the Bahá'í traditions, that the persistent insistence that this photo belongs at the top, without regard to their sensibilities is simply a callous and despicable rudeness, by apparently one person, or perhaps a couple, whose ultimate argument and contention seems to be a personal will to irritate and insult Bahá'ís.
I am certainly not someone who is offended by seeing Bahá'u'lláh's image at the top, of the page. I am offended by the contentious, rude and callous insistence that it '"belongs" there against the clear consensus of the majority of editors of this article. It is quite apparent that one person is posting this image wherever he thinks he can most offend Bahá'ís by doing so. It did not belong on the Bahá'í faith page and it does not belong on the Bahá'u'lláh's family page, and the clear majority of editors here feel it does NOT belong at the top here. Looking at the histories of these pages, and the style of edits and comments I have no reason to believe otherwise than that User:Martin2000 is merely a sockpuppet of User:Amir1 (who suddenly quieted down here quite a bit once "Martin2000" suddenly took over the campaign of vehement railing against Bahais), and that the various IPs that suddenly and "strangely" begin editing and calling people rude names for reverting to having the image at the bottom all seem to belong to one extremely bigoted person. The last comment I read before beginning this assertion of my own assessments read: Revert -- no way. There is NO REASON to make and EXEPTION for this one article. The picture belongs to top just like all other similar Wikipedia articles. I assert that there is no reason to make an exception to the consensus rule for this one rude contentious person. I believe that the developers and perhaps the stewards here can examine what IP a user is logged in from, and as have indicated I would not be greatly surprised to find that Martin2000, Amir1, are one and the same source of almost all the hostile comments and edits over the previous weeks and months. ~ Achilles 20:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are a suckpuppet yourself and you are stupid enough to think that nobody notices it!! hehe what an idiot. The fact that you are thinking other people practice suckpuppetry is also due to the fact that you do it yourself and you think everybody else is as pathetic and miserable as yourself. Using proxies when you are banned is not suckpuppetry, but YOU ARE a suckpuppet, and YOU HAVE MULTIPLE ID's. Get a life, motherfucker.
After seeing the above comment and others by the person who has obviously been using IPs User:81.58.24.133, User:69.110.148.64, and User:80.58.47.107 recently, I originally posted these responses at User talk:80.58.47.107, but as this person apparently shifts IPs frequently. I am pasting them here as well:
You also might want to try engaging your immensely fascinating genius and entertaining wit at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martin2000. ~ Achilles 12:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your edits indicate that you are apparently lacking in intelligence as well as decorum. I can solemnly affirm that I have not edited on any of the Bahai pages under any name or number other than "Achilles", that I do not belong to the Bahai traditions, that I reject and disagree with many of their assertions, that I do NOT even agree with the taboo on the picture: but unlike some people, I can respect and accommodate many of the beliefs and traditions of others, and don't need to insist on making any of the rudest assertions that I might devise against people who disagree with me. You are a person who has a great deal to learn, and are behaving very foolishly. ~ Achilles 13:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I also wish to note that this user seems to have confessed to being someone who has already been banned, and I might be mistaken in this, but it is my understanding that banned users can usually have their edits reverted, anywhere, by anyone, for whatever reason they might have. ~ Achilles 13:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
th reason I am oposed to link to the photo rather than haveing it in the article is that it is a pain to click through when the wikipedia is running slowly. Personaly I think the combination of the placeing and the unsubtle hint in the opening paragraph should be enoughGeni 23:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am not in any way associated with the Bahá'í Faith, but I believe that an encyclopaedia should endeavour to avoid causing serious offense when an appropriate safeguard can be easily implemented. This is my 'first experience' with this particular article, but I've been with wikipedia for about a year now, and have made almost 150 edits. The issue with placing the image at the bottom, is that people invariably scroll to the bottom of a page to see that they've read everything. How is the person to know where to stop scrolling? Additionally, at the end of what is a very long article, the early hint may often be forgotten. My first preference would be to have the image linked, and displayed on a seperate page so that the Bahá'í Faith can still access this article without offending their beliefs. Alternatively, if consensus is that the article must have the image, then I think the hint should at least be reworded to state that: "The following article contains images that may be offensive to followers of the Bahá'í Faith. If you might be offended by such depictions, you should avoid the remainder of this article." Another option may be to provide a link to secondary version of the article, which does not contain any sensitive images, although I realise it may be an issue to keep the two articles in sync. Also, in response to the recent revert war, I am requesting that this article be protected from further edits until this dispute is resolved. --Brendanfox 02:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My god, you are stupidity incarnate. HOW THE FUCK is this picture "causing serious offense" ?!! The ONLY problem with this picture is that Bahaullah looks like the crook that he was and this is why the Bahai organization does not want this picture to float around -- because it is not a good advertisement for their cult. You sound extremely stupid. -- Martin2000 (name added by rboatright 'cause Martin never signs anything)
Martin, I know that you know very well why Baha'is find the casual display of the image of their prophet offensive, because I explained it to you myself a month ago, and witnessed 5 or 6 Baha'is trying to do the same BIG HINT - IT'S NOT BECAUSE HE LOOKS LIKE THE WILD MAN OF BORNEO (in your opinion). Honestly, I go away for a month and when I come back, you are still at this. And sign your comments on talk pages, or are you ashamed that you're swearing at someone because they disagree with you about something?
Brendan, I preferred the link solution when I first came around here just over a month ago, but I am now increasingly of the opinion that having the photograph at the bottom with a warning at the top is the more elegant solution. People can rewrite the warning however they like, and put another one in italics just above the photo section once we have agreement on a solution. PaulHammond 22:07, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Martin, How is the photo capable of causing serious offense? It's really really simple. I will try to say it in simple words so that you can understand. Baha'u'llah was the manifestation of God on earth. Which God is an unknowable essance, Baha'u'llah embodied all that we can know of God. Every surviving account western or eastern of people who met him talk about being stunned by his personality and the power of his presense. These two photographs are the only images we have of the sign of God on earth. Baha'is wish to approach them deferentially, contemplatively and with reverence. That's very hard to do when they're popped up at the top of a web page. Baha'u'llah does not look like a crook. No one EVER accused him of being a crook. Not even Yahya accused him of that. He, like his son, Abdu'l-Baha have gazes which show the pain of the burdon God gave them. For me, looking at him brings saddness at the infinite burdon the man who was the manifestation bore. It saddens me further that in working on these pages, you, and your cohort prevent me from approaching the material reverently. You Martin, are not a nice man. You are _rude_. I know you hate the Baha'i Faith. But to the last day that my body will allow me to work on this site, I will edit these articles to force you to present FACTS and not wild speculation, inuendo, and simple nonsense. Baha'is are NOT ASHAMED of the way Baha'u'llah looks in these photos. We are ashamed that we have done such a poor job of teaching His cause that you do not understand our desire for reverence. In normal civil society, I would simply never speak to you again. Here, I do not have that gift. You are a rude man. Please. Go away. Rick Boatright 03:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am not answering for Martin, I am sure he can do a fine job himself, but if I may interject here for a minute :-) .... your sob story is truly pathetic. Aren't you intelligent enough to realize that not only most people see through your unsophisticated sob story, but also some bahais, too, will observe your dishonesty and manipulative attempts like trying to put bahaullah and abdul-baha together in the sentence about "the looks"? This clearly shows that your IQ is low, because it did not occur to you that most people easily see what you were trying to do. But you know, I could be wrong, maybe you are right and Bahaullah does look like his son and they both have that unmistakable oh-so-loving-and-in-pain-for-all-of-humanity look about them!! hehe ... bozo, does it not even occur to you that this dishonesty of yours will make some bahais think even more deeply about the whole manipulative, dishonest and self-victim-projecting culture of the whole bahaism sham? And don't try to tell us this is not about bahaullah's looks, because you know as well as everybody else that it is precisely about his looks. If he didn't look like the crook that he was, and he looked like badul-baha, the bahai organization would have plastered his pics all over the world, and you know it. Bahais are uncomfortable with his looks, and who can blame them?!! And last but not least, yes, he WAS a crook. Nitram0002 12:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay Paul, it seems that the image at the bottom is the right compromise here, although I might just rewrite the warning and add another before the picture. Other than that, looks like we have consensus on this, based on disregarding those opinions consisting mainly of personal abuse, which I think is the only way to respond to such unintelligible nonsense. --Brendanfox 14:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all, my dearest Nitram, you should thank GOD that judgement is influenced by mercy, because I would NOT want to be in your shoes right now (at least not without some Nomex-Kevlar apparel).

The way I see it, a picture is a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional object. As it stands, it is also the snapshot of that 2-dimensional representation at ONE specific time. From ONE specific angle. With ONE limited lens, light source, et al. To argue that ONE picture is ABSOLUTE would be stupid, really. And that's sorta what you're doing by a) judging the Glory of Glories by ONE picture and b) insisting on putting up that picture on Baha'u'llah's personal Wiki page.

Now, as Baha'is we know that Baha'u'llah was a good-looking man. The fact that Browne describes his outward appearance with such awe and respect is a no-brainer to that fact. The fact that Queen Marie was basically in LOVE with him reinforces that. The resemblance of `Abdu'l-Baha to his Father, etc... etc... we have facts, the image doesn't portray those facts, therefore the image is guilty of misrepresentation. Especially in modern ideals of beauty, where shallowness reigns king. It's like taking a picture of a pyramid from the bottom so that it looks like a square. The picture, to the best of my knowledge, was taken when Baha'u'llah was in exile. That's travelling for hours on foot/camel/whatever. Now, I'm a good-looking guy and even I look completely different in pictures after even 7-hour flights. (Plus, I'm quite photogenic!) You ever take the picture for your driver's license? I really DOUBT that after you pass on, you'd want your Wiki page to have THAT picture of you!

I'd say the PERFECT compromise would be if you get a copy of Baha'u'llah's picture that's in the Holy Land. Then you put them BOTH up. Howbout that? But one without the other is insufficient representation.

I'm sure the Muslims would be pretty peeved if you put up that Christian portrait of a quite hairy, savage Muhammed (PBUH) on his horse slaying people. Or if Jesus' pretty pics looked like Jerry Stiller or the "REAL JEWISH" look. I guess it's just hard for pre-Islamic religions to understand the depth of reverence we carry for the Manifestations of God. I really can't say. -The Empyrean

Get the photo from Haifa? Errrrm not too likely I'm afraid. I don't think the Baha'i World Centre wants a picture in the PD really. I think they'd rather a bad picture be available rather than justifying it be readily available -- Tomhab 22:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

The personal attacks and insults on this page will cease immediately. There will be no more attacks. There will also be no retaliatory attacks, so if someone attacks you, ignore them. Violators will be blocked regardless of "who started it". Consider this your warning. Gamaliel 06:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, you are sounding somewhat imperious here, Gamaliel. PaulHammond 09:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Next time I will say "pretty please" before asking people to stop calling each other "cocksuckers". Gamaliel 19:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked the Nitram0002 and Nitram003 incarnations indefinitely for malicious sock puppetry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And 4 and 5. Gamaliel 19:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Martin2000's main account has been blocked for 6 days--one for each sock puppet he used, once for open proxies, once for egregious and foul personal attacks, and once for wildly excessive reverts. Each attempt to break this block, the clock will start again with 24 hours added up to a maximum of 14 days. Any further sock puppets will be blocked indefinitely as before. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good idea, Tony. Last I saw, Martin still hasn't brought himself to make any comment on the RfC about his own behaviour, yet he's still playing his little game over here. This guy has such a nerve to even ever mention the word "consensus" in his revert summaries, when he's been doing nothing but ignore the consensus here for over a month and a half now! --PaulHammond 20:41, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Nitro Reverts up to six - need help with 3rr problem

I'm up against 3rr with two ex Nitro reverts so far today. Who else wants to chime in and help with this one? Rick Boatright 20:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Yeah I probably shouldn't. Would any admins watching make sure any requests for chages (excluding from sock) happen?Geni
Nitro up to 11 as of noon today Rick Boatright 17:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC listed

I have linked this page and Talk:Bahá'u'lláh's family on WP:RFC to attempt to elicit assiance from others to form a concensus which Martin/Amir/Nitro will accept. Rick Boatright 17:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not holding my breath. I think this should probably go directly to an arbitration. Anything else is probably a waste of time. Martin's been at this for over a month now, and every time someone new comes along and agrees that a modicum of respect for the sensibilities of Baha'is would not be anti-Wikipedia he accuses them of being Baha'is, sock-puppets, or stupid admins. About 5 or six different admins have come along to try to stop the 3RR violations, and he hasn't taken any notice of them. Why would he take any more notice if 3 or 4 more admins tell him his behaviour is out of order? He hasn't even bothered to make any kind of sensible response to the current RfC on him, beyond one passing joke from one of his sock-puppets. PaulHammond 17:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I thought about that, but the RFA page was very clear about not skipping steps.  :-( So, I didn't skip steps. I think this could be a VERY SHORT step. Especially since the Nitram count is up to 14. Rick Boatright 18:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Well to be fair currently his main username is blocked for fourteen days for various bits of disruption so he cannot legitimately respond on the Wiki. He'd have to email his response to me and I'd post it up. He may also want to apply for help from the Advocates, and he can do this through me. I always welcome, read and respond to legitimate (non-abusive) emails on the subject of Wikipedia, especially from blocked users. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Martin2000 on subject of Admin board consensus

I didn't go to WP:AN in order to satisfy your demand that I raise the question on that board, but to see if there was consensus that your actions merited what was after all some pretty extreme action. Nevertheless you'll no doubt be interested to know that so far WP:AN#User:Martin2000 seems to be pretty well unanimous that you're being a very naughty boy indeed. Now please stop it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photo opinions

Might it be an idea to start a page (such as Talk_Baha'u'llah\Photo_opinions - or however it should be syntaxed) that lists everyone's opinion on the photo. I'd suggest a format much like a vote (but not a vote) so that people can see what people think about it. Also it would be important to include any biases involved (such as I'm a Baha'i so would naturally prefer no photo etc). One section per user etc. Just an attempt to make a consensus more possible.

Having said that with the warring going on right now it might not work, but as this has come up a fair whack in my 3 months on wikipedia (and I imagine it will continue) it means that we can just provide a link rather than repeatedly discussing it. -- Tomhab 16:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Early Years: NPOV edits proposed

The section on "Early Years" could use some revision. Currently it reads as follows:

Bahais claim that as a young child Bahá'u'lláh was privately tutored and was known for his intelligence, although there is no evidence to support this claim. It is also claimed that when his father passed away, he was asked to take his father's position but he declined and instead opened a shelter for the poor. But there is no historical evidence to even show that there was ever a concept called "shelter for the poor" in Persia, or at least in that period. Also the claim that he was asked to take his father's position is unclear as it is well documented that his father was dismissed after Fath Ali Shah died seven years previously.

I propose that it be changed to read as follows:

Bahá'ís believe that, as a young child, Bahá'u'lláh was privately tutored and was known for his intelligence. When his father passed away, Bahá'u'lláh was reportedly asked to take his father's position, but declined and instead opened a shelter for the poor. Some historians have disputed these claims, denying that the concept of a shelter for the poor existed at the time in Persia, and claiming that Bahá'u'lláh's father was dismissed after Fath Ali Shah died seven years previously.

I think that this proposed revision gives appropriate room to the claims of both sides. The original test seems too strongly slanted towards rebutting the claims for a NPOV article.

I think this is a good proposal, but the negative commentary shouldn't be preceeded by "some historians", but by a reference to the actual historian(s) who claim this. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms for more on this sort of thing. It's better to say "However, X, Y and Z have disputed that N, saying that really, M". It makes things more specific.
Unfortunately, I suspect your chances of finding out the names of these skeptical historians are low - I think it's likely that this comment was originally put into the article either by Amir1 who hasn't posted here for several weeks, or User:Martin2000 who is currently blocked for his incessant revert warring on this and other Baha'i articles - PaulHammond 11:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Simple enough regarding the father's position. Baha'i historians have that correct The question isn't was his father dismissed, it's what was ment by "offered his position"... Here's Juan Cole's introduction to his A Brief Biography of Baha'u'llah:

Mirza Abbas Nuri, known as Mirza Buzurg. served at first as minister to one of the sons of Fath-`Ali Shah (r. 1797-1834),and then, late in the same shah's reign, he was appointed governor of Burujird and Luristan. Mirza Buzurg was in the circle of the then vizier, Mirza Abu'l-Qasim, the Qa'im-Maqam. The old shah died in 1834 and his son, Muhammad Shah (r. 1834-1848) came to power. The young monarch wished to establish his independence, and he had the vizier, Qa'im-Maqam, disgraced and killed. Baha'u'llah's father, Mirza Buzurg, was stripped of his governorship and of his government salary, though he retained the Nuri family's ancestral estates around the village of Takur in the Nur district of Mazandaran (Bamdad, Rijal, VI, pp. 126-129). [1]

Cole specifically explains the offer as follows:

Although Mirza Buzurg was out of favor at court, the new vizier, Hajji Mirza Aqasi, offered the young Baha'u'llah a government post, which the latter declined. (ibid)

Regarding Baha'u'llah's generosity, the most common source is a narrative of Abdu'=Baha his eldest son quoted in THE CHOSEN HIGHWAY by Lady Blomfield (Sitarih Khanum) Baha'i Publishing Trust, London, 1956 ISBN 0-87743-015-2

Even in the early years of their married life, they, my father and mother, took part as little as possible in State functions, social ceremonies, and the luxurious habits of ordinary highly-placed and wealthy families in the land of Persia; she, and her noble-hearted husband, counted these worldly pleasures meaningless, and preferred rather to occupy themselves in caring for the poor, and for all who were unhappy, or in trouble.
From our doors nobody was ever turned away; the hospitable board was spread for all comers. Constantly the poor women came to my mother, to whom they poured out their various stories of woe, to be comforted and consoled by her loving helpfulness.
Whilst the people called my father "The Father of the Poor," they spoke of my mother as "The Mother of Consolation," though, naturally, only the women and little children ever looked upon her face unveiled.
So our peaceful days flowed on.
(Lady Blomfield, The Chosen Highway, p. 40)

So, I propose the following edit instead which simply avoids the weasel words, provides an accurate biography and sites sources for each statement. By the way, no official Baha'i biography includes the claim of "opening a shelter for the poor" and I have deleted it and replaced it with a more accurate description of Baha'u'llah and Navvab's generosity. Rick Boatright 16:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed edit:

Bahá'í biographers state that, as a young child, Bahá'u'lláh was privately tutored and was known for his intelligence.
Bahá'u'lláh's father, Mirza Buzurg served as vizier to Imam-Virdi Mirza, the twelfth son of Fath-'Ali Shah who was the Ilkhani' (chief of the clans) of the Qajar tribe. Mirza Burzurg was later appointed governor of Burujird and Lorestan. (Balyuzi) He was stripped of those positions during a government purge when Muhammad Shah came to power. After his father died, Bahá'u'lláh was reportedly asked to take a government post by the new vizier Haji Mirza Aqasi, but declined. [2] Baha'i biographers sometimes report this as " He was asked to take his father's position " but that is an over simplification.
Bahá'u'lláh and his wife Navvab where known as the Father of the Poor and the Mother of Consolation for their extraordinary generosity and regard for the impoverished. {Blomfield)

Please add to the references at the bottom of the article the biography:

Baha'u'llah - the King of Glory - H. M. Balyuzi, George Ronald, Oxford. 1980. ISBN: 085398090X

The Chosen Highway Lady Blomfield (Sitarih Khanum) Baha'i Publishing Trust, London, 1956 ISBN: 0-87743-015-2

Removal of Active Discuss tag?

Another suggestion for when we get this page unprotected. AIR, the main reason for this tag was the discussion we were having about if/where to put Baha'u'llah's photo on this page. The conclusion of that discussion appears to be that we're going to put the picture at the bottom of the page, with links/warnings at the top. So, when we finally get Martin2000 to accept that he can't get his own way by shouting louder and reverting more, we should remove the tag saying the discussion is current, shouldn't we? PaulHammond 14:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Having that summary of the discussion we've had about the picture people were talking about above would seem to handle this issue, too - if we leave a summary of the reasons why Baha'u'llah's picture casually displayed offends Baha'is, the reason why we think a good compromise is the picture at the bottom, and a links to all the archived discussions in case anyone wants to check what people have said for themselves, that should at least allow people to get informed about this before trying to start moving the picture around all over again... PaulHammond 14:50, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

As the edits are mounting up, I'm going to unprotect now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We haven't had any trouble since unprotecting. Is Martin2000 on a wikibreak at present? Let's hope he'll behave himself when he returns! PaulHammond 12:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
I had to revert a kill the photo edit yesterday by an anon, but that's certainly not Martin Rick Boatright 05:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I noticed that - but the occasional anon edit that is reverted back to consensus by someone who doesn't necessarily agree with the photo being there doesn't strike me as a "problem" as such. PaulHammond 00:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
My moneys on Martin making a dramatic appearance though. He was banned for 11 days mind -- Tomhab 11:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Say, Tom - looks like you won that bet, and my hopes remain unfulfilled. PaulHammond 13:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia need to start a bookies. Probably wouldn't work as everyone would just march in and fix the odds in their favour. Ah well. Interesting that the "please do not remove this image" comment stopped any removals in the couple of months. -- Tomhab 13:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of Geni's edit of 16 Apr, 18:04 UTC

I'm reverting once to the gentler warning. A threat is unwikilike and is likely to provoke a reaction, whereas the warning will encourage editors to check the discussions. A threat to revert within an hour is really not the kind of thing we want to see propagated in talk pages, let alone in html comments in article sources. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I'm for truth in commented sectionsGeni 20:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a half way sort of thing, might it be worth mentioning that consensus is the image stays in until it is discussed again in the talk pages. And why can't I edit this section? I had to edit the whole talk page -- Tomhab 20:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone noticed that in the last 15 days there have been no photo deletions? Nice -- Tomhab 04:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000's Reverts Revisited

Martin2000 has returned with his wholesale reverts, ignoring the debate/discussion on this and related articles and insisting on his POV. If he takes the time to discuss, he is sure to find that the active editors of these Baha'i-related articles are reasonable people who genuinely want to make NPOV and proportioned edits. --Occamy 17:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

in as far as this is about putting the image to the intro, I support Martin. This is an article about the person, and so the photo should be shown, just like in any other article. We cannot take into account all possible sensitivities on WP. People surfing the internet should expect to be exposed to all sorts of images, and WP is not censored in any way (see also the "pornography" debate. We won't remove artwork containing nudity because some people object to be exposed to any nudity). Similarly, we display the tetragrammaton on YHWH, mentioning its special status in Judaism, but without censoring the article with a view to orthodox Jewish sensitivities. Taking this position, I do of course not endorse any of Martin's editing methods. dab (ᛏ) 19:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you look into the history of this article, the photograph is not censored. On the stable version of this article, before Martin decided to come back and revert-war it to the top again, the photograph of Baha'u'llah was included, in a section at the bottom. The article has existed that way happily for nearly two months, before Martin came back to revert it to the last version HE PERSONALLY approved of. This guy is a vandal who has no respect for consensus or discussion, and has a bug up his ass about the Baha'is. Gamaliel, thanks for acting swiftly to put a protect on the article. PaulHammond 13:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Dbachmann, and of course I don't endorse Martin's appalling actions either. Gamaliel 20:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, regarding the pornography debate, I'm afraid I don't agree with the "wikipedia is not censored in any way" position. and keeping the photo at the bottom (and remember guys, I've RESTORED the photo a number of times against edits by new editors who don't know the history of the compromise here) - there is a substantial difference between "We cannot take into accoutn all possible sensitivities" and "We can take into account no sensitivities." Does wikipeida show the graphic details of the beheadings of Iraqi murder victoms? The wiki DOES take into account some sensitivities. It is your position that this one should not be one of those. I, obviously, disagree. Moving the photo to the bottom doesn't feel like censorship, it feels like compromise. How is this not true? Rick Boatright 20:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Having followed the photo debate closely as it evolved, I agree with Rick Boatright. Personally, as a Baha'i, my strong preference would be to remove the Baha'u'llah photo from the article but provide a clear link to those who want to view it. But I recognise that there is a need for compromise with NPOV users who want it in the article and placing the photo at the end of the article was a satisfactory compromise. --Occamy 21:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not censorship. The photo is still in the article and by placeing it at the bottom it provied a convient way to put in a load of extra info about the photo. You don't even have to scroll down since there is a link to it at the top.Geni 21:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've been here before and a consensus formed. Once the Martin situation has calmed down we can reopen discussion on the matter about the consensus, but please read arguments of both sides before judging. See this RFC about Martin to understand what a nuisance Martin has been. -- Tomhab 22:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Time to unprotect

It's been nearly a week now. Shouldn't this page be unprotected? PaulHammond 19:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I will unprotect. Gamaliel 21:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revising the Layout

It seems like people have focused so much on the photograph that they forgot about writing an article. I would like to revise the layout of the page, which right now is just one big section. Normally I would just do it, but since this page is the focus of a lot of controversy, I'll give my idea here, and you can add your comments.

Right now the title is just "Baha'u'llah's Life" and then broken up into a lot of sub-sections. See Joseph Smith, Jr. or John F. Kennedy] for examples of other biographies. I think it should look something like this, and I'm not attached to these ideas...

  • (section) Early Life
    • (sub-section) Background
    • (sub-section) Childhood
    • (sub-section) Marriage and Family
  • During the Babi Movement
    • Acceptance of the Bab
    • Torture and Imprisonment
    • Revelation in the Síyáh-Chál
  • Baghdad
    • Banishment from Iran
    • Kurdistan
    • Declaration
  • Imprisonment
    • Constantinople (Istanbul)
    • Adrianople
    • Akka (Akko,Acre)
  • Final Years
    • Ease of Restrictions
    • Bahji
    • Passing
  • Teachings and Impact
    • Principles
    • Tablets to the Kings and Rulers
    • Claim of Prophethood
  • Succession

In addition, this article has become a mess and I want to move some information to new pages when appropriate. If someone really wants to have a lot of criticizing legitimacy then they can put it on Baha'i apologetics in an educated way, with references to who holds such opinions, or they can make a new page called I'm complaining, or My thoughts on Baha'u'llah . . . Cunado19 30 June 2005 09:13 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, which looks fine to me. --Occamy 30 June 2005 11:15 (UTC)
I think the idea of dividing the article into logical sections is a good one. However, I would caution against trying to chuck out the critical comments into another article. Can you see if you can re-organise the article while keeping the criticism in it in the appropriate places? Or if you want to cut the criticisms down, try to summarize in one sentence, and move the other comments into the Bahá'í_divisions article? Even several Baha'is have noted that they are worried your edits are tending to turn the articles into Baha'i propaganda recently.
I don't like your Baha'i apologetics article. It seems to me like it's really just the Baha'i criticisms article with a different name. When people have voted to merge the criticism back into the main Baha'i article, some might think creating another article with similar material but a different name is just a way of avoiding the result of the vote. I wanted to say this a couple of days ago, but my noticing this co-incided with the Wiki being closed while it was upgraded. PaulHammond June 30, 2005 11:28 (UTC)
Incidentally, I know you're being flippant, but any article called I'm complaining about Baha'u'llah or My view on the Baha'i faith would quite rightly get deleted - this site is supposed to be about writing encyclopedia articles, not polemical opinion pieces. The correct place for criticisms and controversies to be noted is in the articles which are the subject of such criticism - of course, such criticism should be referenced and reasonable, and not just one person's anti-Baha'i crusade... PaulHammond June 30, 2005 11:32 (UTC)
On further reflection, I agree with PaulHammond. Sorry about the apparent flip-flop...I must be jet-lagged. --Occamy 30 June 2005 15:21 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying about criticism. Maybe I gave the wrong impression. What I meant was, if there is a remark like "It is generally believed that Bahá'u'lláh had accepted the Báb's new religion in his late twenties." This is not clear and obviously the result of people trying to make it non-pamphlet-like. I don't want a pamphlet on wiki, but I think this is poor writing.

If there are people that question when Baha'u'llah became a Babi, then just say who they are. But as far as I know the only record of this is from Baha'i history books, and nobody questions when it happens, because no other sources exist (that I know of). So maybe we need a disclaimer at the front of the article that unless otherwise stated, the information we have on Baha'u'llah comes from Baha'i sources, which has obvious consequences. If there are other sources for historical information on Baha'u'llah, then we should be quoting the sources and what they say. Anything else becomes people's opinions. Therefore the joke about My thoughts on Baha'u'llah.

Similar for criticism. Almost all the criticism has no references or sources. The opposite extreme of the pamphlet-like article is the anti-Baha'i article. Cunado19 3 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

Changed the layout, and a few things inside to make the titles go better. Cunado19 5 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)

Apologetics/Criticism

Baha'i apologetics was my shot at trying to resolve the issue of how much criticism should be addressed in the main articles. It was just an idea. Obviously some people want to go into great detail about why they think the Faith is wrong. Read the talk page on it. Cunado19 3 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

On the Baha'i Faith talk page I have put the case for a FAQ page to replace Criticims, Apologetics etc. It would be more enlightening to the general reader. --Occamy 5 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baháʼu%27lláh/Archive_5&oldid=997596363"