Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Picture

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)

Baha'u'llah's picture in this article

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)

I'm willing to debate it here, but can people stop adding it back while we talk about it? PaulHammond 21:06, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000, can you please comment on the talk pages why you think the picture should be in the Baha'i Faith page given the comments that above that the Baha'i Faith article is about the Baha'i Faith and not on the founder, and that all other religious pages don't have pictures (or drawings) of their founders. -- Jeff3000 21:12, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

User Martin2000

This user appears to be an identity created on 14th Jan whose only reason for being is to upload Baha'u'llah's picture and add it to this article and the one on Baha'u'llah. here is his entire list of contributions to Wikipedia. I think Baha'u'llah's image ought to be removed from the Wikipedia database. PaulHammond 21:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Even one tiny contribution to a Wiki project is welcome. Obviously you have not read the rules. You must know that this project is not sponsored by any Bahai organization or the Bahai "Universal House of Justice". Yes I have (so far) only contributed to the Bahis articles, but that is because I have specialty on this subject. Bahaullah's picture belongs to this article and if you dislike the way he looks, I am sorry, there's not much we can do about it. Martin2000 21:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

everybody knows this is not a bahai sponsored project, and this has nothing to do with the way the photo looks, the =>POINT<= is, as been said before , "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" , also : "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?" - --Cyprus2k1 21:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Martin, you clearly have some kind of axe to grind. Your edits are far from NPOV. Wikipedia isn't a place for you to indulge your quarrels with a religion you dislike. If you've just put the picture back, I will leave it. If you have removed my edits to the article as well, I will revert. Please don't remove the work I did on the text, however minor you think it. PaulHammond 21:45, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I am just interested in contributing to a subject in which I have accurate, detailed, and correct information. If you like to paint a rosy and romantic picutre of Bahaism, and certain facts ruin this picture for you, don't blame those who state the facts. In other words, don't shoot the messenger. I am simply stating some facts. Also, going to multiple people's personal pages and knocking on every door trying to portray me as some sort of evil character just because I have contributed FACTS AND CORRECT INFORMATION to Bahai-related articles, is not a good idea, there are good chances that it will backfire on you. Martin2000 22:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And can you kindly tell me how is putting a picture of Bhalullah in an article about the religion which he introduced "far from NPOV"?! I must be missing something, I am sure. Martin2000 22:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You created this user-name precisely for the purpose of putting Baha'u'llah's photograph on this page. You have made no other edits on Wikipedia, except for uploading his picture, putting it here, reverting anyone who takes the picture down, and arguing for having the picture on the talk pages of these two articles. I am certain that you are well aware of the offence publishing Baha'u'llah's image causes to Baha'is, and that your whole intention in coming to Wikipedia was to cause such offence, for whatever personal reasons you have. The whole pattern of your behaviour here shows that your edits violate NPOV policy. That is what I mean. PaulHammond 02:20, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000, I don't dispute your facts. Yes, Baha'u'llah married his third wife, after he became a Babi in apparent contradiction to his Babi belief system, and his later laws written in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. This contradiction should be in wikipedia, and the only question is where to put it. Given the way other religious faiths are organized, I would recommend, as I have written done above, that the place that makes the most sense is the Baha'u'llah article. I give the example of Muhammad (PBUH) and his marriages Muhammad's marriages which is linked to by Muhammad's (PBUH) article. As stated in that article, some people either attack Him because he had more wives than the Qu'ran says is possible. Some muslim scholare then argue back that the Qu'ran clearly states that Muhammad (PBUH) in the Qu'ran was allowed to keep his wives, and then others attack back that that Muhammad (PBUH) was giving himself more benefits that his followers. Regardless of whom you think is right in that disagreement, the page is written in a way that presents both points of view. In the same way I think that the information should be in Wikipedia, and since the Baha'u'llah article is not too large, we don't need to make a whole new article about his marriages, but include it in that article.

As for the picture, again, I believe, following the reference of other religious pages, which don't contain pictures or drawings of the main personages, should be left in the Baha'u'llah page. -- Jeff3000 22:42, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

The reason there is no picture of Moses, Jesus or Muhammed is because, I think, the photographic camera was not invented back then! So any "pictures" of them would be just an imaginary rendering of some artist. But the case of Bahaullah is quite different, the photo is from his own passport, and a photo of a prophet of a religion certainly does belong to an article about that religion. Martin2000 22:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Take Scientology, the picture of L. Hubbard is not in the article. Take Mormon, Joseph Smith's picture does not appear there. The point is that the article is on the religion, not on the person. -- Jeff3000 23:24, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of those religions. But if they are religions and they have prophets and their prophets have a photo, I cannot imagine why the photos should not appear in a Wikipedia article about those religions. I cannot comment about Sciontology and Mormonism, since I barely even know their names. But I know a few things about Bahaism. Martin2000 04:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page has been locked because of this argument. Tread carefully Martin2000 as I'm sure this talk page is now being monitored by Wikipedia. -- Tomhab 22:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Baha'u'llah's photo

Hello my Bahai friends. I asked the admin who had protected the page to unprotect it so that we can hopefully work this out in a civilized and intelligent way, without any need for jumping up and down, name calling, slandering or fretting, as a few people here seem to have displayed. I would like to incorporate the recent contributions of our protective friend PaulHammond along with the photo of Baha, into the article. If you can think of any additional data that needs to go into the article, please discuss them here first, so that we don't run into a revert war or other such unnecessatry conflicts. Thanks. Martin2000 04:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello Martin2000, I truly appreciate your gesture to work this out in the talk pages. In regards to the changes by PaulHammond (not including the photo), his changes are mostly just grammatical, except for the removing the statement "Faith; Bahá'u'lláh, however, remained the sole prophet of the Baha'i Faith." I don't really mind if this stays in or out, it doesn't change a thing. His grammatical corrections, should stay though.

As for the photo, I really believe that the Baha'u'llah article is the place for the photo if it should be anywhere. You state correctly that none of the world religions have a picture, because pictures did not exist during the time of their founders, so we have to find something that is more like the Baha'i Faith in regards to the time of its coming. Scientology is an applied religious philosophy that is given religious rights in the United States. Ron Hubbard founded it in the 1950's, and his photo is in the Ron Hubbard page. Mormonism is an untraditional sect of Christianity (my own words since I can't come up with a better wordage, it's not intended to offend anyone). Joseph Smith believes that he had contact with Jesus in the early 1820's and found another book of Jesus Christ, and thus he is the founder of mormonism. His picture is not on the Mormonism page, but instead on his page. Another recent religious movement is Rastafarianism from the 1930's, and it's main organizer, Marcus Mosiah Garvey has his photo on his page on not on the Rastafarianism page.

I think the main main spirit of the reasoning why Baha'u'llah's picture should not be in this article is that the Baha'i Faith article is on the Baha'i Faith and not it's founder. As has been mentioned above by many people, and to follow the template of the other religious movements, the history should be moved out into a seperate article anyways, so that the page, as other religious pages, can be on the beliefs of the religion.

In general, I just want to state that regardless of what the other Baha'i writers have written in these forums, I appreciate your bringing of certain truths into the Baha'i related articles; it helps Baha'is understand their own faith and realize why Baha'is believe in what they do. It is this Indepedent Investigation of Truth, one of the main principles of the Faith, that all Baha'is should go through before accepting. For example, the reason why, I, myself, believe in Baha'u'llah regardless of his apparent breakage of the Babi laws on marriage is all the teachings that he brought that, I believe, are useful to humanity. In one of his writings, the Kitab-i-Iqan, he writes that (I'm paraphrasing) that the ways of the prophets of God are sometimes contrary to that of what man wants, and this is not for us to understand why. He particularly gives the example of Moses who murdered someone, but the teachings of Moses were divine nonetheless, as seen by Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith.

I hope you understand my reasoning, and help to make the Baha'i related pages a useful definitive source regardless of view, either for the Baha'is or against them. I am just asking that the information be placed in a logically correct place. -- Jeff3000 06:09, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jeff. Thank you fro your smooth language. I have to be honest, it just seems like you Bahais almost get terrorized even at the thought of Bahaullah's picture. OK, granted, he is not good looking and presentable, but is he really *that* horrifying? I bet you anything if he looked like Abdul-Baha, you guys would have plastered his photo all over the place. If you think about this, this is actually a big insult to Bahaullah by the Bahais. Anyway, if this really makes you guys lose sleep at night we can forget about his photo in this article and keep it in his own article, but trust me, the Internet is growing and growing, and sooner or later, all such information will be universally avaiable. It would be a futile (and wrong) effort to try to do this sort of "damage control". I hope you will think about this.

As for Kitab-i-Iqan, he actually wrote it to prove and support the Bab's legitimacy -- Iqan means "certitude" and someone had raised doubts about the Bab's divinity, so Bahaullah wrote the book of Iqan or Certitude in that connection. I think that actually the process of writing that book is perhaps the single most contributing factor in making him believe that he could make claims of his own "divinity", which eventually lead to his claiming he was the "promised one"! The Bab's writings clearly imply that the "promised one" was to arrive in distant future, as in numerous occasions it advises the future kings (plural) how to behave, between now and the time of the arrival of "The One Whom God Will Manifest". It certainly doesn't seem like just 13 years later, this "manifestation of God" will appear in the same little area!

Finally, the way you guys behave, you disallow or discourage non-Bahai contributors to write honestly and frankly about this religion (which in my own opinion is actually a cult) and this is not healthy. Of course if someone is maliciously injecting misinformation into Bahai-related articles, that's one thing, but contribution of correct information about this "religion" should not be discouraged. You never know, it might even help some Bahais gain the ability and courage to examine their faith in a more honest and intelligent way. Martin2000 07:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hi Martin2000, just a quick answer (time is short), we allow and even encourage non-Bahai contributors to contribute but the edits must be neutral,factually correct and in the right context. also when there is a dispute it should be first discussed in the talk page until a consesus is reached (as is common in wikipedia) and not just reverts wars with no reasoning behind as has happened...

also, on the photo, again it has nothing to do with how the photo looks but by reasons given avove (no time sorry)

about the Bab prophecy on the promissed one, thats a common attack that seems to confuse the prophecy given by Baha´u´llah on the next prophet and instead atribute it to the Bab.

i must say i really appreciate your change in atitude and decide to discuss things here in a true wikipedian spirit. thanks - --Cyprus2k1 07:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no confusion. I have read the writings of both the Bab and Bahaullah extensively. I know what I am talking about on this subject. The Bab's writings clearly imply a distant future when it talks about the "Man Yozharullah". Bahaullah claimed to be the promised Yozharullah, and made it very clear that the next "manifestation of god" after himself will be at least one thousand years!! This was to prevent someone like himself hijacking his own establishment the way he hijacked the Babi movement. Martin2000 07:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The matter of when the Man Yozharuhllah will come is a matter of interpretation. Some of the Bab's writings, which I include below say that the "Mon Yozharullah" will not come before the completion of nine years (either from the beginning of his dispensation, or after the writing of the Bayan, open to interpretation) and others say that he will come in the year of the Vahid (which is the number 19) after his declaration. The Bab declared his mission in May 1844, and starting writing the Bayan in 1848. 19 years after the Bab's declaration, in 1863, Baha'u'llah declared that he was the one whom the Bab had prophesized. People can claim that since Baha'u'llah knew of these statements in the Bab's writings he could have timed his claims; and thus this fact by itself is not enough to proove Baha'u'llah was the one whom God will make manifest and other things have to be investigated by each person individually to see if they believe in Baha'u'llah or not. Some people will believe, and some others will not. Regardless of what we do, we should all respect everyone's belief and not judge anyone. -- Jeff3000 17:29, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

• "In the year nine, ye shall attain unto all good"
• "In the year nine, ye will attain unto the presence of God."
• "Wait thou until nine will have elapsed from the time of the Bayán. Then exclaim: `Blessed, therefore, be God, the most excellent of Makers!'"
• "The Lord of the Day of Reckoning will be manifested at the end of Vahíd and the beginning of eighty"

--Jeff3000 17:29, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

i would like to continue this discussion with you, however since wikipedia isnt the right place (not to mention we would be off-topic) can i invite you to a forum? :) - --Cyprus2k1 08:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

p.s after this i may or may not take some time to respond, since i will be quite busy today - --Cyprus2k1 08:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The discussion area of an article *is* a forum, a forum in which people discuss things before (or during) modifications to the respective article. I am not writing stuff here for the sake of the discussion page itself!! We don't have to include Baha's photo in this article, but we certainly need to make changes so that the article does not look like a Bahai promotional campaign advertisement. Martin2000 08:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. In fact, this is exactly the immediate impression I got upon reading this article the first time: religious promotionalism and advertisment. I would be more than happy to be a contributing party to the collaborative effort to help this article out of its present sorry state of being a measly promotional pamphlet for some sort of self-proclaimed "new world religion". --Amir 09:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is true that all Wikipedia articles need to have a bit of perspective in them so that they sound like encyclopedia articles, and not breathless worship from a fan's website. However, I think it is unfair to characterise this article in such a fashion. This article has achieved featured article status, I think before any of us here started commenting. The process of achieving that status can be seen through the archives and the history (as I recall from when I first came here, that process mostly happened around September/October last year). When an article is suggested for featured status, a link appears on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates, and many other editors come and have a look at it in order to vote on whether it should or should not achieve such status. The consensus of those editors was that it did. Comments such as yours above tend to belittle the contributions of the editors who worked on the article to make it a viable proposition for featured article status, and the judgements of those editors who voted to accept it as a featured article. Featured articles are not made overnight, and I personally am very careful when editing an article that other wikipedians have judged deserving of that accolade. PaulHammond 13:44, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is a link to the archived discussion on the vote for featured article status in the featured article boilerplate at the top of this talk page. (I couldn't find the subpage from the main candidate page because of the diacritical marks in its title. PaulHammond 14:28, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest a neutral alternative if you feel the current version isn't. Cynical titles changes don't help the wikipedia project. -- Tomhab 12:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Baha'u'llah's photo: suggestion for compromise

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 here.

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)

Amir, I'm not making a call for votes here, I'm making a suggestion as to how we can work together to make this a better Wikipedia article. Like I say, we're meant to work towards agreement here. The Wikipedia policy is not to put up pictures that people might find offensive, but to put up a non-displaying link if the consensus is to put those pictures in. Do you have a problem with that being Wikipedia's policy for handling offensive images? Does Martin2000 have any comments about this as a potential way forward? PaulHammond 18:06, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Should the Baha'u'llah picture be included on this page.

The page has been protected because admins believe that the Baha'u'llah picture is still under debate. Lets just finish this. Suggest no-one touches the picture (ie leave it up) until the vote completes. Giving this a vote will give any decision a bit more legitimacy. -- Tomhab 00:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arguments

Please feel free to edit these sections and add other reasons.

Summary of arguments for including picture

• Baha'u'llah started the religion and remains a very important part of it
• The photograph is very informative
• Baha'is attempt to censor the image as it is offensive for a picture of Baha'u'llah to be in public domain

Summary of arguments against including picture

• Not a case of censorship, but of relevance
• This page is primarily about the religion
• The image is already included (and will remain included in some form) on Baha'u'llah
• Christianity does not have any representation of Christ
• Islam does not have any representation of Muhammad
• Judaism does not have any representation of any of its Prophets
• Scientology does not despite having one such photograph
• Mormonism does not despite having one such photograph

Vote: Do not include --image of Baha'u'llah on page

1. Image simply does not belong here -- Tomhab 00:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. No need for the image on this page. ~ Achilles 01:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Image is irrelevant to article. Take it down please. -- Ariadoss 18:57, 14 Feb 2005 (MST)
4. irrelevant to the article. - --Cyprus2k1 09:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Not really needed here, but should definately appear on Baha'u'llah. violet/riga (t) 10:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Not appropriate here. First because there is an article on Baha'u'llah, second because openly displayed images of Baha'u'llah offends Baha'is. Occamy 12:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. No picture. See also /Request for Comment and /Picture. We've been here before. PaulHammond 12:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
8. Irrelevant Brettz9 17:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. No Picture here, no picture anywhere. I'm a 4th generation Baha'i and to me and everyone I know seeing His picture is offensive and irreverent. --JS 004 18:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. No Picture I am a member of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith and we to find it disrepectful of our belief system to put up such a picture, and it appears it will stay up on the Baha'u'llah biography but I don't think it needs to be up on this article.-multiman
11. I am the first to say that a picture of Mírzá Husayn-'Alí belongs on wikipedia. However, the precident states that said picture does not belong here. --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 23:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. It is irreligious to display a picture of a Manifestation of God. Baha'u'llah is a Manifestation of God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.1.24 (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Please do not be discourteous. It is necessary to respect religion. The Baha'is, like Muslims, consider the image of the Prophet or manifestation of God to be sacred. It is irreligious to display it. This issue has not come up with Christ because photographs were not available. Janet Nattress March 23, 2024. It is not a simple common sense issue. It is one with religious precedence and involves respecting the character of religion.Period.

The image simply belongs to the article. It is an authentic photograph of Bahaullah and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the image. It is not porno, it is not violent, it is not offensive in any shape or form other than the fact that the way Bahaullah looks, you can print the photo and use it as a scarecrow at the gate of your farm -- and that is no reason to exclude it from a Wikipedia article about the cult which this man started. The Bahais here are working in concert to influence Wikipedia articles for their religious promotional purposes. In fact, why should a Wikipedia article be based on votes instead of solid facts? This is stupid. This image is not offensive in any shape or form and there is no excuse for taking a vote on this. For this reason, I refuse to participate in voting, but I will bring it up with senior Admins if you want to practice censorship based on some sneaky voting process that some Bahais with religious promotional agenda have started. --Amir 11:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice try, Amir. The fact is that casual display of Baha'u'llah's image simply is offensive to Baha'is - and it's got nothing to do with him "looking like Rasputin". People have explained this to you over and over. There's no excuse for your pretence of remaining ignorant of this fact. PaulHammond 12:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Senior admins have no more authority than I do (well arbcom does but I don't think you will get very far with them)Geni 12:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little lost how its sneaky especially as you've noticed the comments section but refusing to vote. All we're trying to be is reasonable. -- Tomhab

I don't like seeing Bahá'u'lláh's picture, even though I love Him. It is offensive because I have to be in a state of complete selflessness, like during a Bahá'í pilgrimage, before I can look at His Face. --JS 004 18:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is taken into account. The Baha'i situation seems somewhat unique (offends some, but not all), but many in wikipedia feel that any image, whether it causes offence or not is fair game. I feel the debate on Baha'u'llah will not be resolved until Wikipedia develops an offensive image policy (whatever that may resolve to be), but there is no reason for the picture being here except for Amir to get kicks out of pissing Baha'is off. -- Tomhab 19:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really think it should not be there at all. Even if you don't seem to agree with it, Baha'is have a law that they must obey. It really has nothing to do with how he looks. Nor does it have to do with a state of reverance we must be in to see it. Shoghi Effendi was worried that the picture could turn into an object of worship, and would not allow it. -- 209.179.168.52

Just added 209.179.168.52's signature. May its because I'm a Baha'i bigot but I always get confused when people don't sign what they write :) -- Tomhab 17:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

take it off for the love of god - unsigned by 82.44.187.49, 26 October 2005

When i was reading this it made me cry because of some of the things that were being said about the Bahai Faith. I guess i have just never experienced religious prejudice pertaining to the faith before. I think that not putting the picture up would not affect anybody for the worse, while putting it up would offend quite a lot of Bahais. Love, a Bahai aged 14. - unsigned by 195.92.168.175, 11 February 2006

Are We Devotees?

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)