Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Archive Picture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


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

I still wanna se an image of the guy. Where can i find it? I ask they respect my curioisty.

End of moved text


Contents

Baha'u'llah's picture

As mentioned in the article, for Baha'is, Baha'u'llahs picture is not shown for signs of respect. Most Baha'is do know that a photo exists outside the Baha'i archives building, but don't even want to go and search for it. It is not a minor part of their (my) faith.

I think that the message could be changed to something that says that Baha'u'llahs picture exists and can be found on the web, but as a sign of respect for Baha'is that the precise link not exist. If people really do want to see the picture they can go ahead and find it. -- NavidAzizi 19:27, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Some more info. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, who was appointed the successor, to Abdu'l Baha (who was appointed the successor to Baha'u'llah) has written the following. "There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes." So just for the sake of respect I ask that the precise link not be posted. -- NavidAzizi 19:32, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
The question is - should Wikipedia articles be restricted out of respect to its subjects, and if so, who should define respect - neutral Wikipedia users or the subject. What if a spokesman for the US Army asks to remove the images of prison torture "out of respect"? Or children of a Nazi war criminal ask to remove his photo "out of respect"? (not equating Bahaullah with any of those, of course). My opinion is that Wikipedia is not a Bahai encyclopedia, so in no way should writing of articles on Bahai faith (including related articles, such as this one) be governed by the principles of Bahai faith. If we can't put a link to the photo, because Bahais do not want so, can we put criticism of the church or would that be disrespectful too?
So my view is that Wikipedia can make no such concessions to what material is included. This is an article about a person. There is a photo of that person. That photo is in public domain. Ergo, the photo should be included (or the link to it, it doesn't make much difference). Paranoid 19:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Furthermore, 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. →Raul654 06:31, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
you see, Bahai´s usually see photos(there are at least two or three, the one in this article is the worst quality one) of Baha'u'llah on pilgrimage(which is a special moment to bahai´s), by showing the photo in the article without any warning is very ofensive/shocking to bahais. im not saying the photo should be deleted, but at least put a wikilink to it instead.. - --Cyprus2k1 05:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think this photo is the best one, because the ones that the Bahai Center in Israel shows the pilgrims are retouched photos (in fact one of them is a bogus one based on this photo) and they are worked out to make Bahaullah look "more presentable", which, if you think about it, is actually an insult to Bahaullah. If you believe in this guy, then just accept him the way he really looked. If he is not "good looking enough" for your taste, then shop around for a better looking prophet or "manifestation of God". The authenticity of this passport photo has been officially acknowledged by the Bahai authorities. --Amir 15:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thats not the point, i dont care how to photo looks like, i will copy-paste what i said: "you see, Bahai´s usually see photos(..) of Baha'u'llah on pilgrimage(which is a special moment to bahai´s), by showing the photo in the article without any warning is very ofensive/shocking to bahais. im not saying the photo should be deleted, but at least put a wikilink to it instead.. "
To Amir1: Dude, i think that either you havent been to Haifa, or you didnt even pay attention on your pilgrimage, otherwise you wouldnt be saying nonsense. I was there last January 2007 and for those who havent been (and those who have can confirm what i say) Two of those were drawings where there is absolutely no intention of making him look more presentable. And i think you are confusing terms, for the other drawings are refered to the Bab and one was made by a christian. Furthermore, those drawings were taken in old times when they had no idea wich would be the pictures available for the public to come, so why would they want to make something "more" presentable. More than what? Dear Amir, please think wisely about your own thoughts before sharing them with people, for that will save a lot of valuable time for those who come here for good information. Thanks my friend (by Foad M.I. 17th Nov. 2007)
I have got to say I find the picture mildly offensive. I implore everybody to consider changing it into a link as [1] suggests in the rule of thumb - 11. It is hard to explain to a non-Baha'i but this really is very important. -- Tomhab 16:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should definitely be a link - and it makes a HELL of a lot of difference. The Baha'i attitude to Baha'u'llah's photo basically derives from the Islamic prohibition on representative art (certainly, if there were photos of Muhammad around, you'd get vociferous complaints from Muslims if you had it there on the Muhammad article). Imagine if you'd illustrated the article on Jesus with a photo of one of the more controversial artworks depciting him (say, "Piss Jesus", or something like that). This picture was taken from a passport photo of Baha'u'llah, as Amir says, but it is only public domain because it appeared in a book full of knocking copy by a Christian missionary out to discredit the Baha'is. People who don't like Baha'is publicise this picture because they know that to do so is offensive to Baha'is. That is the only context I have ever seen this picture appear on the web. PaulHammond 20:55, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Paranoid is right. In fact, Edward Brownse, in another book talks about some gory details of how the Bahais and Azalis brutalized one another, in particular, how the Bahais were intolerant of the Azalis. The Bahais today know these facts very well, but do their best to keep such mess under the carpet. As for "extremely offenisve to the Bahais", well, tough. First of all, let's be honest, the reason you don't want this photo publicized is because he looks like Rasputin, or he looks like the crook that he was who hijacked the Babi movement. If "out of respect" you don't want his photo displayed, then how come the photos of his son Abdulbaha is all over the palce? Because he was more photogenic and his appearance is more "marketable". If you think about it deeper, it is you who is being offensive to him by saying that his appearance is not good enough! But as it was pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not a Bahai encyclopedia. It is stupid to put a photo of some house in this article, when a photo of Bahaullah is available. And this photo is authentic and is his passport photo. Martin2000 22:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Baha'is see Baha'u'llah as a messenger of God, and as so displaying his image is unrespecful. It has nothing with anything with the way he looks. I'm going to go back to Paranoid's suggestion of jsut linking to it. -- NavidAzizi 04:52, Jan 15, 2005.
On another note, I have no problem with a link to his photo, but honestly, for the life of me I can't understand why it is "offensive" to have his photo in the article. In all honesty, to me it seems that the Bahais are actually insulting the guy by indirectly rejecting his appearance. Wouldn't every Christian or Muslim have loved to know exactly what Jesus or Muhammed looked like?!! The claim that "out of respect we don't want his photo here" is indeed strange and even lame -- but I will not insist, because in my heart I feel that the real reason for this objection is because the Bahais consider his photo to be ... hmmm ... "unmarketable". That is like saying "we love the guy, we just wish he looked a little better so we could comfortably include his photo in the article"!! Martin2000 07:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For the picture, a couple reasons. One is so that the picture does not become an icon, where people idolize the icon and not the teachings. Secondly like I wrote about, Shoghi Effendi wrote not to view the image. There is a strong link of authority in the Baha'i Faith, and when Shoghi Effendi has written not to place the image in public places, most Baha'is do listen. You might call this listening to authority a restriction of freedom, but Baha'is see it as a way of conserving unity and protecting it (not eliminating it) from divisions. The point about people seeing this authority as a restriction to personal freedom is in the main Wikipedia article on the Baha'i Faith.
As for the escape/exile to Baghdad, you are partly right, he wasn't exiled to Baghdad, but was told he had to leave the country (and thus an exile). He was given the choice to choose the destination of the exile, he chose Baghdad. I don't know why Baha'u'llah chose Baghdad. And I don't know if he chose it because Babais were already there or if the other Babis followed Baha'u'llah to Baghdad. Actually the persian authorities wanted to execute Baha'u'llah just like they did to the Bab, that would have been the easiest thing to do. But since people in shah's court knew Baha'u'llah and his father they asked for proof that he was part of the failed assassination. So the next best thing was to get him out of the country. NavidAzizi 15:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Navid. I have to disagree with your assertion here. A copy of Bahaullah's Iranian passport page(s) is on the official Bahai web site (as well as on other web sites). According to his passport, he had requested to visit the Shiite holy sites in then Ottoman Empire (modern day Iraq). So it seems that he had told the authorities that he is going for shiite holy site pilgrimage, and he was taking his wives with him. According to his passport, he took 4 women with him, and 2 sons. Any reasonable person will think that he escaped out of Persia in this way, and he was not asked to leave. His passport clearly indicates that the passport will expire in one year, which was the standard expiration date for passports issues at that time. At this time his half-brother Sobh-i Azal was already the leader of the Babi community in Baghdad, and when Bahaullah joined him, Sobh-i Azal put him in charge of much of the affairs of the movement. From that point on, Bahaullah went on to accept Subh-i Azal's leadership of the Babis for almost 10 years without any incidents until he came up with some ideas of his own. It certainly seems that Bahaullah planned to leave Persia and join the Babi community in Baghdad; and all the melodramatic stuff such as "he was forced to leave Persia with very little food and supplies etc...." is bogus and should be taken out of the article. --Amir 16:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Another thing, please show me Baha'u'llah's picture on the official Baha'i website [2]. You won't find because it's not there. -- Fadeaway919 19:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
I never said the official Bahai web site has his picture on their site. Please read again what I wrote. I said the Bahai officials have indeed acknowledged that this photo of Bahaullah is an authentic one (in response to a letter from a Bahai asking specificially about this photo) but they have said that this is not one of the photos of Bahaullah that they show to the pilgrims in Israel when they visit. --Amir 05:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What you wrote "A copy of Bahaullah's Iranian passport page(s) is on the official Bahai web site." -- Fadeaway919 05:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
That's right, I wrote that. A copy of the first page of his Iranian passport is on http://bahai-library.com web site. Isn't that one of the official Bahai web sites? --Amir 06:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As written on the bottom of http://bahai-library.com "Managed by Jonah Winters and a team of contributors. This site is not endorsed by any Bahá'í institution and is not affiliated with the International Bahá'í Library." -- Fadeaway919 06:10, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Amir, your comment certainly suggested to me that you thought Baha'u'llah's photo appeared on the official Baha'i web site. If you didn't mean to say or suggest that, then you have certainly been unusually careful in choosing your words here. I doubt it appears on Jonah Winter's site - presumably the reference to his passport there is one of the pages that does not contain his photo. The Baha'i taboo against casually displaying Baha'u'llah's image is very strong, so loyal Baha'is like Jonah are not going to put his picture up. Baha'u'llah's picture in all cases only appears on the sites of people who wish to criticise and offend Baha'is. PaulHammond 03:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I meant there is a picture of the main page of his Iranian passport, dated 1853, which does not contain his photograph. Also, it seems that one Bahai is blaming me for having used that site and another Bahai is calling it the site of a "loyal Bahai" -- can you please make up your minds? My reference to his "passport photo" which may have been the cause of this confusion for you and Navid is probably form another section of this page, when I mentioned something regarding his photo, I think, to Cyprus2k1. --Amir 10:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It sounded to me like you were saying "This official Baha'i site contains Baha'u'llah's picture, so it must be okay for me to use it here". This is not the case, and Baha'is really do have a strong taboo against the casual use of their Manifestation's picture. Amir, people are not "blaming you", they are trying to explain the situation. Jonah Winters explains on his site that his work has no official status - Navid has reproduced that site's disclaimer above. But that Jonah Winters is a loyal Baha'i (and therefore would not reproduce Baha'u'llah's image anywhere on his site) is also the case. The official Baha'i site is at http://www.bahai.org Incidentally, you have also made an incorrect assumption about me. I am a non-Baha'i.
On a more general point, the talk-pages aren't meant to be a place for debating who is right and who is wrong. We're supposed to be working making this article better, and working towards agreement, that's good Wikiquette. I am just about to make a suggestion to that end here. - PaulHammond 12:59, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Also I have never contested that the photo is not of Baha'u'llah, it is indeed a photo of Baha'u'llah. You might even notice that I've put the photo back when other people have deleted it, even though I don't agree with it being there -- Fadeaway919 06:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

photo or link

From teh Orthodox Baha'i Perspective, the picutre also should be removed, not because it is a Baha'i site, but for the same reason on the section of Islam no one puts up the print of Muhammad that might be available (there is a sketch) but no one would think of putting it up sicne this would be offinsive to those of that Faith, unless we want to say Wikipedia will allow offending peopel of various religions by putting in thinks that are deliberately offensive, Like how about putting a picture of the swastika on the Jewish page, or maybe soem other such I am sure we can all come up with reason to justify why we do what we do.f Also the reason for no picture goes back to Islam. Both Bha'is and Islamic followers bvelieve a picture representation of any Prophet is not a thing to be done, but specidifcally of their own prophet they definately should not do or have done to them. It is not just a Baha'i thing. I will not remove what has been placed up there but strongly object to it being put there without a disclaimer under it that Baha'is like their Muslim brethern do not believe picturers representing the prophets should be allowed, and that this picture therefore is offensive to them. If you were to put that under the picture I would still object to it, but would have to recourse but to accept it.

Actually, Orthodox Muslims believe that having pictures of *anything* that exists in reality is blasphemy because only God is allowed allowed to create - this does not stop us from posting pictures of things that exist. Wikipedia is not censorered or bowdlerized. →Raul654 04:19, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Considering a picture on the front page is something you really cannot miss though, and at least "Universal House of Justice" Baha'is find it quite quite offensive then surely changing it to a link (as the wikipedia image policy suggest when a picture might be offensive [3]) may be considered. Its really just something I do not want to see. Thats not censorship as its freely there. -- Tomhab 17:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
about this issue, i will copypaste what i said before (why its ofensive) "you see, Bahai´s usually see photos(..) of Baha'u'llah on pilgrimage(which is a special moment to bahai´s), by showing the photo in the article without any warning is very ofensive/shocking to bahais. im not saying the photo should be deleted, but at least put a wikilink to it instead.. " - --Cyprus2k1 19:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to the age of the Internet. So what are you Bahais going to do? Stop every single web site in the world from putting up the photo of Bahaullah? It is not intelligent to swim against the current. Accept the fact that we are now in the Internet age. What you see happening in Wikipedia is natural, and there are numerous other projects that are similar to this one, in multiple languages. Martin2000 17:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia policy on offensive imagery: "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."

People have quoted this policy here, so you must be aware of it. If you were not aware of the offence that you cause to Baha'is by insisting on publishing his picture on this article, enough Baha'is have explained that to you now that ignorance can no longer be a defence. Personally, if you are so wedded to the idea that people *have* to be able to access this image of Baha'u'llah that you have uploaded here, I'd prefer you to do it in an external link to your own website, where you will also be able to bad-mouth Baha'u'llah to your heart's content. Of course, I've outlined my strong suspicions about your bona fides as a wikipedia contributor below, already. --PaulHammond 03:17, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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'i Faith. 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 21:24, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am 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 those facts. In other words, don't shoot the messenger. I am simply stating some facts. 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. Is there any misinformation that I included in any of the articles? Is the picture that I uploaded not authentic? What is your problem with my contributions other than the fact that I do not have a long list of variegated contributions? Martin2000 23:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Martin2000. The picture is a piece of factual information, its authenticity is not under dispute and it is not a copyright violation. So in summary: It is factual information, abeit with a twist - it upsets some people. AFAIK we have no policy in wikipedia to remove factual, undisputed, unencumbered information. If there is upset about the "prettiness"of the picture - I would not disagree to exchange the picture with one less "Rasputinesque", as long as it is equally authentic, simply to keep the peace, but removal would be very wrong. And whether or not Martin2000 has created his identity to upload something which s/he anticipated to be controversial is not really the point under discussion. Refdoc 17:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought the going suggestion wasn't removing it. I don't think theres much point in anyone trying to hide the picture - someone keen enough can always find it off the web. The point was exchanging it for a link, so you only see it if you want to (as wikipedia image use policy suggests when an image might offend someone). I think Paul's point is that Martin2000's entire agenda is to annoy the Baha'i community. I don't think Rasputin is the problem here :). -- Tomhab 23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, then I would suggest provide us with evidence over and above "I do not think the photo should be here" and we will move it into a link. Refdoc 10:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes.
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 6, 1939)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 539)
I think thats the main bit of literature on the matter. I think generally Baha'is would prefer that the picture be off the net all together for this reason, but since its already in public domain I don't see what difference whether its linked or not. Needless to say I would really like the picture to be replaced by a link. -- Tomhab 13:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also as for replacing it for a prettier picture I doubt you'll find one on the net as most Baha'is wouldn't put it up if they had one for the above reasons. I believe this one got released by people who considered themselves Baha'is but did not follow Shoghi Effendi (who the vast majority of Baha'is do follow). -- Tomhab 13:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As no-ones complained about the idea, I'll replace the image with a link. See if it stops the edit wars. If this stirs people into saying the image HAS to be on the page then we can change back -- Tomhab 02:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No I agree, the link is clearly the best place, reading the explanations and Wikipedia policy. Further, Martin2000, you are seriously out of order, using personal attack and editwarring against a developing consensus to push your way. Refdoc 09:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy?

What Wikipedia policy says that the image can't be on the page? RickK 09:48, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

see this, the discussion about the photo has/is been discussed in different sections and talks(see Talk:Bah�'�_Faith, so its a little bit confusing :\ - --Cyprus2k1 10:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's not policy, that's unresolved discussion. To call it policy is not only incorrect, it's misleading. RickK 10:04, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Its cuz Baha'is find a picture of their holy personage offensive. Policy can be found here. I'd be interested to hear your views on the matter. I'll write up a conflict summary in a minute. -- Tomhab
It's a matter of disagreement as to whether Wikipedia should or should not kowtow to a particular group or religion when it comes to knowledge, but I just went to Muhammad and there's no image of him there, either, so I'm not going to fight for the picture to be here, but calling it policy is still incorrect. RickK 19:30, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
The point was we discussed it in the discussion page and decided due to the policy linked above, a link to the image was appropriate and enough as a midpoint. I guess we needed more discussion about it. -- Tomhab 00:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rick, as you know photography was not invented at the time Muhammad, so there is no authentic picture of him around. If there was one around, it most certainly belonged to an article about Muhammad and also to an article about Islam. The same is true about Jesus. The main reason the bahai authorities are so concerned about this photo is because bahaullah does not look ... hmm ... very "marketable" and frankly, he looks bad. You might notice that they plaster the pictures of Abdul-Baha, his son, all over the place. They are simply not honest enough to admit the real reason behind this stupid demand. At any rate, it is too late for them now, as we are already well into the information age and the era of the Internet. --Amir 00:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Slightly inaccurate. Baha'is see Baha'u'llah as a Messenger of God so deserving of reverence, whereas Abdul-Baha was just a nice guy, so thats why we have little problem with Abdul-Baha's picture. I think we can generally accept that belief has more in it that merely someone looking good. -- Tomhab 00:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conflict summary: Image, link or nothing

I'm going to try and summarise the three views here. Feel free to edit it if I'm wrong or if I miss something out, but it would be nice if you also add what you changed at the bottom if you could.

Conflict summary

The picture of Baha'u'llah has been repeatedly added and removed for a while now. There are various arguments for each side.

Reasons for removal

Generally seems to be done by Baha'i (or at least pro-Baha'i) wikipedians. Their reasons seem to be:

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

Reasons for it being included

Generally seems to be done by just about everyone else. Their reasons seem to be:

  • Wikipedia policy (link?) is that factual information should not be removed from articles.
  • Wikipedia is not a Baha'i project. Many of the Baha'i articles are copied straight from leaflets and not written in the NPOV spirit of wikipedia that should include accurate details and facts.
  • The image does seem to be under the correct and legal copyright.
  • Other biographical articles have images of the person and it does contribute to the article.
  • Quite a few biographical articles don't include images (even though they could), but that doesn't mean we have to hold this particular one back from being better.

Reasons for converting to a link

Offered as a compromise approach after edit wars. Reasons for it:

Think carefully if offensive pictures are really necessary. Consider providing a link to the picture, and a warning of the picture's contents, rather than place it directly in the article. If you have concerns regarding the appropriateness of an image, discuss it on the relevant article talk page.
  • It is a compromise. Baha'is who don't want to see it don't have to. People who are interested can see the image freely.
  • Although Baha'is wouldn't like the image of Baha'u'llah on the internet at all, it is already there so asking it to be removed from wikipedia doesn't solve their problems.

Just to state my biases in writing this summary. I'm a Baha'i but I'm endorsing the third option. I have tried to keep this neutral, but if you feel I've failed there please write it below.

Lets try and keep from flaming each other. First time and neutral readers of this conflict are strongly encouraged to contribute their views. -- Tomhab 12:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tomhab's third option: inserting a link to the photograph is a reasonable compromise. I am a Baha'i and was shocked by seeing the photo...not by the image, but by the fact that it was there. Anyone--including Baha'is--who wants to follow the link to the image would be free to do so without giving offence to many people visiting the article. Thanks Tomhab for your common sense proposal. --Occamy 16:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am most certainly not a Bahai, nor have the slightest sympathies for that faith or its organisation. I do though believe mutual respect is A Good Thing and hence support the third option. Refdoc 16:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Of course, I agree with Tomhab's compromise option. I suggested the following format four days ago at Talk:Baha'i Faith. So far, no response from Martin2000 has been forthcoming. PaulHammond 16:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that it isn't the photograph that Baha'is object to, but specifically the act of looking at it irreverently, and in general the display of the picture in a location or context where people will look at it irreverently. There is nothing Wikipedia can or should do about the state of mind in which people look at Wikipedia. Baha'is wishing to avoid engaging in irreverent behavior towards their prophet can easily make their own personal arrangements. The compromise will not help because the vast majority of people who look at it will not be Bahai's and will still not look at it reverently even if they do have to click on a link. Those who are Baha'is will gain spiritually by learning to be constantly vigilant, for an encounter with the sacred can be found around every corner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I think you're right. The image won't ever get removed from the net and thats why I'm not endorsing the idea of removing it here (because what difference does it make?). People will happily enough look at the image everyday and I don't think it really makes much difference. As a personal preference though, I really don't want to look at the image of him without really being in the right mood and state of reverence. Think of it as a personal choice. I don't drink but am well aware that a great many people do, but it doesn't impose on me so fine. At the moment you cannot view this page without seeing the picture so it is imposed on me. I can see your point that you can't accomodate everybody's concern which is why we're having a debate now. -- Tomhab 21:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I understand that aspect of it. There is a page on Wikipedia with pictures that I really don't like to look at because the pictures are very upsetting to me. I have a phobia of caterpillars which is triggered by photographs of them. But this doesn't stop me reading about them on Wikipedia. My web browser (and all web browsers I've ever encountered) has controls that permit me to stop it downloading and displaying pictures. So if I wanted to edit caterpillar (and because my phobia doesn't overcome my scientific curiosity, I may want to) I would be able to turn off image downloads on my browser, visit the page without having to see caterpillar pictures, and then edit it. Afterwards I could turn on image downloads on my browser. It's only a couple of mouseclicks to do this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony, the point is obviously increasingly less a matter of concern for guys like Tomhab, Cyprus or the other Bahais actively contributing here because they know that the picture is here, and they can either prepare themselves or simply press the buttons, just as you suggested. Fine. But this is a growing project and it is used by many more people than just those who debate on this page - or are even aware of an ongoing debate. So I do continue to support to linkify the picture - simply out of respect - not for Bahaullah, for whom I feel little, but for the readers and the not-yet-editors. And with regard to the spiritual benefit for Baha'is by being constantly vigilant, I really was not aware that Wikipedia had such high aims....I do think we should probably settle on the rather lower ground to allow everyone in whatever spiritual state to contribute and enjoy this encycplopedia Refdoc 00:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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


Compromise: picture at page bottom, warning at the top

  • I have just been involved in a discussion about generally allowing the removal of images from being in-line. I am strongly against linked images - either they are appropriate or they aren't, and if they aren't then don't link to them. I would like to suggest an option that hasn't yet been mentioned. - Put the photo at the bottom of the main page - after a spoiler warning. -- SGBailey 20:22, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
I agree with SGBailey and the proposed solution. All modern browser allow users to disable images, so every Baha'i will be able to avoid looking at the photo.
The same discussion is going on in the German wikipedia - have a look at this version to see how this solution looks there -, and after more than 40 users have weighed in on the matter this seems to become the compromise which most people can agree on. regards, High on a tree 20:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm kind of wondering how my suggested wording of a non-displying link from 3 days ago ended up at the top of this page without comment, but I'll leave it here and add a couple of lines to where my comment appears below. - PaulHammond 00:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

"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 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)."

Hmmm. I think you can accidentally stumble across the image though so still prefer a link, but its better than being at the top. As long as the warning is clear I guess it could work... Just watch though, call me cynacle but Amir or Martin will put it straight back up to the top. -- Tomhab 21:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And yeah, you can block images but from a whole site. At the moment I can't see any images from the wikipedia upload site for this reason. Not really a solution though and doesn't address the issue. Just an opinion but Wikipedia really shouldn't offend someone to the level they have to block all images from its site. -- Tomhab 21:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another good compromise. Slightly odd to start with a picture of the grave and end with a picture of the man himself, but if it allows us to move on... Refdoc 00:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really like this idea. Be aware that on some large browser pages the pictures will still be visible immediately, although it may only be in the peripheral vision of the reader. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Would it be cheeky to ask if it could be RIGHT at the bottom though? As in below references, weblogs etc, then a line-break and a title such as "photo of Baha'u'llah". I guess if someone (who isn't just being unreasonable) should say no to this I won't push for it further, but just as a preference. -- Tomhab 01:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think that would be fine. It's unconventional layout, but layout is not paramount. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll change it now and see what people think. My money is on it being less than three hours before it gets reverted. -- Tomhab 01:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the photograph of Baha'u'llah, I re-emphasize the offence that Baha'is feel about being presented at the top of the article with an image of the reverenced founder of their faith. It should be accessible via a link or--failing that--placed at the very bottom of the article with an appropriate forewarning. Occamy 20:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tidying up image on page

Anyone who knows how - is there any way to fiddle the image of Baha'u'llah's shrine so that it doesn't cover the "l" in the word burial? - PaulHammond 19:16, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nice try. Don't waste your time (and other people's time), Bahaullah's picture belongs DIRECTLY to this article and IT WILL STAY. Even if you manage to stop that foto from being included in this Wikipedia article, what are you going to do about the whole of the Internet? Give it up, enough is enough. The rest of the world does not need to be subject to Bahai organizational censorship. --Amir 19:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Errr Amir what does your response have to do with the questionGeni 00:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It has to do with the fact that he first replaced the passport foto of bahaullah in the article with a picture of the house which was bahaullah's last residence (or Bahaullah Shrine as they call it) and then added this subsection in the discussion area asking his question trying to divert the attention to the new picture. I put bahaullah's foto back into the article and wrote "nice try". You may want to browse the history and discussion areas to find out what the issue at hand has been in this article, for some time now. --Amir 00:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Amir, no I didn't. I removed Baha'u'llah's photo from the main Baha'i Faith article, and then after finding your ongoing campaign, have made suggestions for compromise to avoid offending Baha'is. Do not presume to tell me how I can and cannot edit. This is Wikipedia, and people don't do what you say around here EVEN IF YOU TELL THEM SO IN CAPITAL LETTERS. And get your facts straight. - PaulHammond 16:32, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Some input in the debate above (about the posibility of putting the image at the bottom of the page rather than the top) would be nice Amir. -- Tomhab 01:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Picture, part 2

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. →Raul654 03:31, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. For some reason it seems bahai mentality and culture is that the rest of the world should conform to what their authorities say (and this is when they are nearly a non-entity in terms of quantity, can you imagine what they would be like if they ruled the world?! -- they actually do dream of such day and they call it "the golden age" of their movement). Folks, wake up and smell the fresh coffee, this is year 2005 and we are well into the iformation age. The Internet was not invented by the Bahais, nor is it being sponsored by your Universal House of Justice (or lack thereof). Please do not abuse the open nature of the Internet, and in this particular case, the Wikipedia project. If a place like Wikipedia can be so "offensive" to you then simply limit yourselves to bahai sites. Using a metaphor, if a part of town is "bad" and "rough", and you are such a goody-goody, simply stay away from that neighbourhood. Don't go there and whine about why they don't live conformant with your rules and standards. --Amir 04:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My opinion has always been that "if it offends people, is it really all that necessary" which I might add is wikipedia's explicit policy [4]. Standard formatting??? If we're talking about settling an arguement (which will go on) regardless of what is decided in the next few days here, surely one can put aside standards in formatting. And we all know this encyclopaedia is not a Baha'i one (I suggested adding a bit about the Baha'i review and how it restricts freedom of speech to the Baha'i pages), but that doesn't mean you cannot take in other people's concerns.
I don't mind the idea of a consensus reaching the decision that we need a picture at the top, but the fact that we had several people talking about it above attempting to come up with a compromise which you ignored and not even responded to directly I find as a wikipedian infuriating. -- Tomhab 10:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia, but I understand its purpose is to make NPOV information easily accessible to users. Editors of this article on Baha'u'llah should therefore not hide important information about him, but neither should they use it to introduce or support their own POV. SGBaily is strongly against linked images: "either they are appropriate or they aren't". But the situation here is somewhat unique, involving Baha'is' reverence of Baha'u'llah while the image is not otherwise offensive to non-Baha'i users. Use of a link for the image is therefore the best compromise. This would be an unconventional solution to an unconventional situation. --Occamy 10:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Similarly to Raul above I did not consider myself exactly party to the conflict(though it seems I have become one), as I am not Bahai, am not offended by the picture, and would personally prefer it to be at the top. But I do think the objections made in the above comments by contributing Bahais are perfectly understandable and should be respected. The aesthetic loss by using a link or an unusual design of the page would be minimal. The benefit though would be clear and has been discussed ad extenso. So I remain of the opinion the picture should be moved in one way or another. And if Amir would stop being so gratuitously offensive to everyone around - this would be a huge improvement. Refdoc 11:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Put the image at the bottom of the page and create an internal link to it in a one line warning at the end of of the first paragraph (ie somethine along the lines of His photograph can be found at the [[Bahá'u'lláh#Photo of Bahá'u'lláh|bottom of this article]]Geni 22:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FVW has also used "normal formatting" as the reason dor putting the picture at the top of the page however Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) does not mention thisGeni 22:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


In order to avoid a Revert war, I'd like to express that nowhere in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) does it state that a picture is at all required, and even states the following:

"Writers are NOT expected or required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required. Copy-editing wikipedians will be referring to these pages and pages will be gradually made to conform with this guide."

Because we are not required to follow the editing rules (which don't state that a picture is required anyway), if the presence of this picture offends those of the Baha'i Faith, what possible reason is there not to just put it at the bottom of the article, where those who wish to view it may, and those who don't do not need to. Considering that this is a religious issue, for a man affiliated with this religion, I see no reason that we should not just move the picture to the bottom... Cabhan 07:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What are the objections for linking the photo? its seems to be the most acceptable solution to everypart - --Cyprus2k1 09:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

198.165.90.75

The picture is still in tha article and is still on wikipedia. Extra info is added because of the picutes position. Btw why are you editing from an open proxy? Wikipedia disscourages this behaviour07:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I use Amir's argument. If we must move Bahaullah's picture to the bottom of this article to accomodate Bahais, should we also move the pictures of every unveiled woman in all wikipedia articles to the bottom of those articles to accomodate strict muslims who get offended if they open those articles and suddenly see the pictures of an unveiled woman?
This is the slipperly slope logical fallicyGeni 07:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Geni. Can you tell us how is my comparison a logical fallacy? Sounds very straightforward to me. If you want to move Bahaullah's picture to the bottom of this article, I suggest you first do it to these articles for starters (there is a lot more of course): Hillary clinton -- Margaret Thatcher -- Steffi Graf -- They are all unveiled females who do not conform to Islamic "hijab" dress code, and any "observant muslim" (to borrow your "observant bahai" term) will be offended to open those articles and "unintentionally see" those pictures, and risk going to hell in the judgement day. --Amir 07:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Becuase it makes the slightly wierd assumption that this should not be decided on an artilce by article basis. Now it is quite clear we cannot conform to a certian rather extream interpitation of the quran without messing up large areas of the wikipedia however the current case affects one artice. We lose nothing by putting the image at the bottom of the page and it gives a nice way to put the information about how pictures like this are viewed within the Bahá'í FaithGeni 07:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I doubt anyone proscribed from viewing photos for religious reasons would be carelessly browsing the internet without some mechanism to block images. It's seems unreasonable to expect Wikipedia to accomodate readers who don't want to see pictures. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 07:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Why? I have no blocks in place to prevent me seening stuff like tubgirl. It costs us effort to accomodate these reads does not destory any information and in fact gives a neat way to add information.Geni 08:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Every case should be judged on its own merits and according to the generality of the visitors of this site. This is a clear and unique case: of reverence of all Baha'is towards Baha'u'llah and that they would be shocked to be obliged to view his image immediately on opening the Baha'u'llah article on this, the world's largest on-line encyclopaedia. Taking Amir's example, people who view articles--here or elsewhere--would not be shocked to see images of Clinton, Thatcher or Graf without veils.
In constructively resolving this matter of the location of Baha'u'llah's image, how should we address the issue of the deep offence caused to Baha'is when the image is placed on this article? The suggestions so far are (1) a link and (2) placing it at the very bottom with a forewarning. --Occamy 08:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Then how shocked are Bahai followers when they see his photo prominently displayed on Bahai sites like this: [5] ? His photo is all over the internet. It's highly doubtful anyone will be shocked to find it in a Wikipedia biographical article. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 08:30, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
MPerel, that is a picture of Abdu'l Baha. There is no Baha'i taboo against displaying his picture, because he isn't thought of as the equivalent of Jesus. Indeed, Baha'is commonly display a prominent photo of Abdu'l Baha in their homes. - PaulHammond 16:26, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
his photo does not appear on the page you linked to. The only photo of a person there is of his eldest sonGeni 08:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ah...is the offense to Bahai with photographs in general, or just with photographs of the Bahaullah? If the latter is the case, then I do see merit in making accomodation to not offend. Perhaps I misunderstood thinking Bahai were prohibited from seeing any photographs. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 08:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
They are not even prohibited from see thing photo it is just they are only meant to see it under conditions of respect and reverence which are a bit difficult to meet on wikipediaGeni 08:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I just came across this relevant letter [6] and I grasp the issue better now. It does seem an easy accommodation then to do as you suggest and put the picture at the bottom. Another option I've seen done on Wikipedia regarding potentially offensive pictures is a special template that filters the picture from displaying unless the reader clicks a link to see the picture. I don't recall the name of the special template, though, I'd have to investigate. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 09:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'd rather not use the template (because clickthrough when wikipedia is slow is a pain in the neck) If you look at the page history you could see the verison with the picture at the bottom[7]Geni 09:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As the letter that MPerel linked out mentions (and it is from the Bahai Universal House of Justice) it clearly says that on non-Bahai sites there is not anything they can do, and therefore, it is clearly implying to stop harrassing non-Bahais about this issue. Anyway, if the picture is going to move to the bottom, I will also request that all unveiled female pictures of various articles also be moved to the bottoms of those articles. I have already given a few example page links above. --Amir 09:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well you can request it article by article and see if you can get a consensusGeni 09:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Geni, give it up. As mentioned in the comments by someone else, many people, including a number of admins have already expressed their opinion that this article is not going to be an exception in the whole of wikipedia. The picture is going to stay where it belongs, and your behaviour will only motivate people to take their sweet time to go around the Internet and plaster this picture in as many sites (in multple languages) as they can. Just accept the fact, as the bahai Universal House of Justice has realized per their official communique, that there isn't anything the Bahais can do to stop the natural, open and uncensored expansion of the Internet. --Amir 09:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Many? at the moment the numbers are slightly in favor of the put the thing at the bottem. The talk page seems to be even further in this direction As for admins remeber I hold adimin powers as wellGeni 09:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you hold admin "power" then you obviously do not deserve it, since you are clearly incapable of keeping a level head in the interest of the project. Wikipedia should not have to conform to the demands and requirements of any religious or ideological organizations. You are clearly trying to "help" this article conform to bahai demands. If you continue this, I will not hesitate to not only bring this issue more openly on the admins board, but also I will question your qualifications to be an admin around here. --Amir 09:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)~
Amir, you say the same thing to everybody who doesnt seem to agree with your viewpoints - --Cyprus2k1 10:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hello Amir, rather than threats and revert wars, I suggest the involved editors here put the picture question to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. My guess is that most editors not emotionally entangled in this dispute would likely support going the respectful route of placing the picture at the bottom, but whatever the outcome, it would be good to get outside feedback. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 10:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to bring this issue to the admins board I have no objection to my edits being reviewedGeni 10:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hello MPerel. What you seem to be unaware of, is that this issue has already been discussed a nubmer of times, but the bahais keep trying and trying and they basically want to force their preferred "version" of bahai articles here. The issue is actually quite simple: this is an article about a man, there is a public domain photo of this man, and there is nothing wrong with that photo (other than the fact that the owner of the photo looks like Rasputin) and it is an authentic photo from the man's own passport. The bahais around here are saying that we don't want this photo in this article because our religious organization has told us that we must only view it with "reverence" !!! this is such a stupid argument it is actually entertaining. What if next, some religious muslim says my religion tells me unveiled female picutures are illicit and should be removed or at lease, for our sake, moved to the bottom of their respective articles? --Amir 10:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I understand your perspective, and as you see I too initially protested what I thought was censorship and imposing religion on Wikipedia. However, putting the picture at the bottom seems an easy and reasonable accommodation. And in the case of unveiled female pictures, it would also be reasonable to not post them in articles on Islam, out of respect for Muslim readers, do you agree? --MPerel( talk | contrib) 10:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
please see the aboves dicussions, on what are the reasons. (no time to copypaste them) - --Cyprus2k1 10:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

198.165.90.75 reverts to the image at the top arguing that there is a standard format. 198.165.90.75 should read the extensive discussion connected with this article, which shows that these is no standard formatting for situations such as this; concern about the offence caused to a large number of users should be paramount. How does 198.165.90.75 propose to address the offence deliberately caused? --Occamy 08:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

linking the photo

What are the objections for linking the photo? its seems to be the most acceptable solution to everypart - --Cyprus2k1 09:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you even take a cursory look at the discussion page before posting? Immediately above your new topic, this very issue has been discussed. --Amir 09:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
linking does not work to well since clicking through can take quite some time when the wikipedia is going through one of it's peroidic slow patches. That is why I prefer putting the image at the bottom of the articleGeni 09:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
hum... this doesnt seem to make much sense to me. since not everybody would click on the photo this would mean less traffic for wikipedia. - --Cyprus2k1 09:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not worried about traffic (the amount would not be significant) it is just much less time to wait for one page to load than two when wikipedia is slow (we are talking minutes)Geni 10:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
then the link could be directly to the photo - --Cyprus2k1 10:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


at the moment when you load the article page the picture is also loaded (where ever it is in the article). If you only link to the picture you lose this.Geni 10:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
when you (down)load the article page, the browser phrases the html and then GETs the photo.
with a (direct) link to the photo, the seccond GET would happen only if the user clicked on the link. - --Cyprus2k1 10:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But you can read the text while the image is appearing and if it is at the bottom it will probably be up by the time you get to there. With the click through option you have; click wait a couple of minutes view page, click wait anouther couple of minutes to view image. Geni 10:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
that´s a fair critique. --Cyprus2k1 11:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know about this other option when people were talking about putting a [[Media:Picture]] type link in here. This sounds better if it's easy to do. AIUI, the article would first load with a blank picture box, and then anyone who wants to load the picture to go with the article can click again to download it? That's much better than a link to just the photo, IMO. --PaulHammond 16:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

didnt someone said there was a template that allowed the photo be shown when clicked? doesnt such template exist? - --Cyprus2k1 11:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

assuming the vote for deltion failed it exists but it is just a fancy form of a click though (Ie the template just contians a link to the imageGeni 12:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I mentioned the template, but I can't seem to find the example I had in mind. Meanwhile here are ways to link to pictures without displaying them --MPerel( talk | contrib) 12:17, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, here is the template I was thinking about, {{linkimage|Bahaullah from miller.jpg|Passport Photograph of Bahaullah}}, which looks like the following. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 22:41, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Linkimage

Vote

I would suggest a vote to clarify who stands whree. A lot of people have changed their views in light of the arguments given (well except some).

I suggest a vote acc following lay-out.

1)Remove picture from page completely

2)Hide it somehwhat from view (link/bottom)

  • Support - --Cyprus2k1 10:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 10:22, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Geni 10:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Occamy 10:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Refdoc 10:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support PaulHammond 16:22, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Cabhan 18:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose link only solution, support image at bottom. This vote layout is severely flawed because it doesn't discern between these two solutions. regards, High on a tree 01:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This is not a case of censorship. I'd like to remind all about censorship being restricting freedom of expression. This is a case of hiding images from view so that only those who CHOOSE to view it will. Censorship would be to remove the image all together from wikipedia, and you may notice no-ones voted for that. -- Tomhab 17:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3)leave it in the upper corner

  • Support Ausir 16:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This censorship is nonesense. →Raul654 16:34, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • I would also like to add that this situation is a perfect example of using a poll to substitute for good editorial judgement. →Raul654 03:50, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I would be for a seperate censored/nopics article like the one for Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. However, the main article itself shouldn't be censored. Informing people should be our first priority. Ensuring that we don't offend anybody should not contravene this goal. Whoops, I think I misread it. Nonetheless, I think I'll keep my vote here, because if we move this image, it'll be opening up a whole can of worms that we really shouldn't get into. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support leaving it in place. — Dan | Talk 01:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nadavspi | talk 01:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Trying to have a vote on this is nonsense on stilts. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, and the same for other images including autofellatio and goatse. --SPUI (talk) 03:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. For this article only. Ambi 05:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
for this article only? - --Cyprus2k1 17:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We are getting caught up in the wider conflict over imagesGeni 17:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, our goal is providing information, even if some groups believe this is wrong in certain cases. --fvw* 05:53, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
But for the nth time we don't lose any information. Put the photo at the bottom and it is still in the articleGeni 19:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
just a thing, by "removing picture from page completely" i assume you mean deleting from wikipedia. right? - --Cyprus2k1 10:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Aye, Refdoc 10:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Voting doesn't work in this case. First of all, as we all know there are a number of bahai sockpuppets here. Secondly, wikipedia articles must follow a set of standards and they should be in conformity and consistency. Besides, taking votes in a religious article where naturally the majority of the "regulars" are the follower of that religion and they all have this page and its related pages in their watchlist, is anything but democratic. --Amir 10:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Amir. If you are going to use this kind of language to support your campaign, then I strongly suspect that Martin2000 is your sock puppet. Some of the higher-level admins can find out for sure, so if you're going to open this as a topic for debate here, you'd better be damn sure you won't end up with egg on your face for making such accusations. btw, I presume we can count your comment here as two votes for "leave it at the top where it causes maximum offence to my enemies"? - PaulHammond 16:20, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
You can suspect that Martin2000 is me all you want. As if I need to hide my ID to speak the truth about Bahism. heh. I insist that you to go to your high-level admin friends and ask them to determine if I have any fake ID's ... I DO NOT. But it is obvious that you guys (the few weaky sneaky cheaty bahais here) have sockpuppets. Every time I have introduced a fact in these articles, a new Bahai ID was created (the last one was User:Occamy which was created almost immediately after I introduced some new facts in the articles) to "refute" it or to fight me out. Ask your high level admins if I have a fake ID or if Occamy is a fake ID of someone who is a regular here -- and there is more than just one bahai sockpuppet here. I have to prepare for some exams these days, but afterwards, I will balance these bahai articles out more with facts. Stay tuned kiddo. --Amir 11:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
First can you support you acusation of sock pupets? Second Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) has no mention of photos so there are no standards here. Third this article has recived quite a bit of publicty lately for example I'm pretty sure that neither of the admins who claim support you are follows of the relgionGeni 10:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Amir, you are free to contact all the contributors to the discussion pages to solicit their votes. Sockpuppets? As you do, Baha'is feel deeply about the subject and will intervene through their own volition. --Occamy 10:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I suggest the vote be taken at Wikipedia:Requests for comment to get an outside perspective. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 10:42, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Listing it at Wikipedia:Current_surveys would be standard practice Wikipedia:Survey guidelines may also be of interest (if anyone was wondering I was treating this as a straw poll)Geni 10:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'straw poll' - this is exactly what I was looking for. A number of people came onto the page and changed their opinion half way through (myself included) on the matter of the picture. So this is what I want to clarify. Refdoc 10:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was not a binding vote, neither publically announced, nor running for any major lengthg of time. but it seemed to encompass everyone who was active on this page over the last few days and a few beyond. As major changes really need consensus particularly if they need to be enforced against the odd troll, my suggestion would be for those who want the picture off the upper corner of page to accept that such consensus is - at the moment - impossible to achieve - even when one discounts the trolling of one particular contributor, who might well end up being banned for good if his career continues in his usual disruptive ways. So my suggestion to those offended by the picture is to leave the picture where it is, in the upper corner, continue to build the article itself and not to sink into the abysses of a real edit war. The alternative is to call for comments via the RfC page and possibly even ask for an arbitration i.e. go down a more formal route - but be aware that such a route can usually be gone only once and a result would be binding - with little hope to convince people gradually and achieving a better result slowly and with time. This is easy for me to aks from you as I obviously am not offended by teh presence of the picture, but I still think it is sound advice Refdoc 22:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion about avoiding edit wars and taking more time to achieve consensus. However, I think it unfair of you to characterize an editor with a dissenting opinion as being a troll. I certainly don't view the dissenter as a troll. I see valid argument for perspectives on either side, both representing Wikipedia ideals. Religious accommodation is not a Wikipedia obligation, but then there is also no absolute standard about where and how pictures are placed in articles, and so there seems reasonable flexibility to attempt to format the article in a way that would satisfy readers from various perspectives. Negative labeling of or veiled threats to editors won't help build consensus, however, and I've seen it coming from both sides on this article. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 23:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

As it is I have no problems labelling user:Amir1 a troll - not for his opposition in this particular matter, which is fine by all standards and defended with using a miture of valid argument and other not so valid ones, but for his behaviour across a whole section of the site. Indeed I have so far not seen much constructive at all coming from him. And I did not make any veiled threats but simply made a prediction. Prophetic speech, so to say... He got himself banned yesterday due to his abusive behaviour, but appeared to continue to edit via open proxies - so I assume he has little or no respect for the commuunity and will continue to walk on a path which leads into wilderness. Unelss of course he changes tack dramatically. Unfortuantely he will see this particular episode as a victory for him and not as a normal and common process on Wikipedia, hence my pessimism wrt him. The proof really from my point of view is the edit summaries [8] [9] he left on several recent page changes and the small caption[10] he had tried to put into the top of the Bahai article about the pictures used. Finnally you may have a look at some of the personal attacks he made on this page in the section on language ( a bit up from here) Refdoc 00:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"other wikipedia users may come in defense of the troll" - this is exactly what is happening here with all those votes on number 3) . very unfortunate - --Cyprus2k1 11:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We're coming in defense of a position, not a person. --SPUI (talk) 23:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
then support the position. Provide a decent set of logical answers to support it the last lot have been slightly shot down. At the moment your comments suggest you are supporting a cause rather than a positionGeni 23:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Understand One Another

Dear readers,

In the Baha'i faith, it mentions that the picture must not be portrayed in an environment that does not respect the portrait of Baha'u'llah. In other words, this is a belief that all Baha'is agree upon.

To friends,

I understand your need of "Freedom of Expression", for the progress of the world "depends" on such value. However, if we do not respect each other and freely express our views among one another, nothing can be solved. We have to learn to respect each others views, and not to impose our views among others because we are either oppressed by our Government that censors everything, or forcing the view that I need that information because it is vital to knowledge. I agree with the second thought, it is important for our knowledge, but must everything be available for the sake of Human Knowledge? Should we post the guidelines in Making Bombs and Dynamites "for the sake of improving the world" by giving in Information? Let us forget about bombs now. How would you like if the portrait of your dear one be portrayed badly? Although it is hard to understand why Baha'is really do not accept the portait to be posted within Wikipedia, but the sensation of how Baha'is feel is similar to the feeling of having a portrait of your loved one be portrayed in a very poor manner. The only way we can solve this is to understand one another.

"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah

"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5

Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)

Yoruba: (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."

"The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form" Shinto

With warmest regards,

--ABehjat 10:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

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