Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archives

1. /Archive 1 comments from 2003, Orthodox Bahais, some factual (in)accuracies, Baha'ullah's wives and the picture
2. /Archive 2 contains more debate about the picture and the wives
3. /Archive 3 about Mirza Yahya and a lot more about the picture
4. /Archive 4 Has not been parcelled out to the other archives yet. Cunado19 02:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
5. /Archive 5 Has not been parcelled out to the other archives yet. Cunado19 17:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
6. /Archive 6 06:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Archives have been reorganised as follows to make it easier to follow the discussion threads:

• /Archive Exile
• /Archive Format
• /Archive language skills
• /Archive NPOV
• /Archive Orthodox
• /Archive Picture
• /Archive Wives
• /Archive Personal_Attacks

The original Archives remain unchanged for the time being. --Occamy 22:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Family Origin

There is a Tablet by Abdu'l-Baha that states that his family comes from "Afghanistan and Iran" The Tablet is found on page 1 of vol. 4 of Selected Writings of Abdul-Baha (Persian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.206.208 (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo opinions subpage

A sub-page Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo has been added to post opinions regarding the photo issue

Photo edits

Edited photo to make it collapsible. This will satisfy both sides of the photo argument (hiding the photo for those offended by it, but making it expandable for those who still choose to view the photo). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.205.224.64 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Bahá'u'lláh's names and titles

Rúhíyyih Khanum comiled a book with these titles. Would it be an idea to have a list on a separate page? Wiki-uk 05:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a seperate page is a good idea. And I'm not too fond of including a list even in this page, unless it can somehow be placed in the prose. -- Jeff3000 14:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We'd all do well to review WP:Notability. Obscure information, no matter how interesting, genuinely might not belong in an encyclopedia, even one trying to play one on TV. MARussellPESE 15:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It could become more listcruft, you know. And it depends on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia might not allow it, but a hypothetical Obscuropedia could. 74.38.35.171 06:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be just as relevant as Names of God, 99 Names of God in the Qur'an, etc. As to its obscurity, the invoking of these names is a form of worship in the Bahá'i faith, so I can't say what leads you to label it as obscure, save perhaps that it is obscure to your personal perspective. I don't intend to make the page, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be made. 68.127.51.196 (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

photograph

Moved comments to Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo Cuñado - Talk 06:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Shrine Image

This note is for everyone who is interested in looking for pictures. I believe that the image of the Shrine of Baha'u'llah is very old looking, unclear, poor resolution, and lacking vivid and realistic color. In other words, by replacing the nicer picture with a free use picture, we have sacrificed quality. In fact I should say that it is very sad that we would choose something that looks like a scanner image from the 1970's or 1980's. This is very unprofessional and it shows poor quality standards. My recommendation is that we look for a new image of the shrine, one that does not look dull and old. This does not have to be a copyright image. But please, I think we need a newer replacement. Nmentha 06:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The only Shrine picture that we have that is free is the current one. Non-free images of buildings that still exist have been deleted on hundreds of pages, and will be deleted. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide a free encyclopedia, and that is why the admins have deleted non-free images, and we must work in the same vein. If you have a better photo, that can be released under a free license (GFDL, CC) upload one. -- Jeff3000 14:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The overhead photo of Bahji is still in the article, and is credited to the Baha'i Media Bank. Couldn't we take a better image of the Shrine from there? I thought the one here[1] (or one very much like it) had been used before, with proper Fair Use justifications. --Twilightsojourn 08:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use doesn't apply when a building still exists and a photo can be taken of it, or when a free alternative exists. That there are media bank images still on Wikipedia, doesn't make it right to use more media bank images. The admins will delete the image when they get to it. The solution is to find nicer free images. -- Jeff3000 08:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. However, if an image is licensed in such a way that allows it to be used for free with proper attribution, there is no legal reason not to do so, unless a better free image can be found. Since the Media Bank images are legal for use here, why shouldn't they be used until a better free image is found? --Twilightsojourn 07:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the admins have already deleted many images from the media bank for specifically not abiding by the fair use criteria. These images include some House of Worship pictures, the Shrine of Baha'u'llah pictures, the House of Justice pictures, some maps, the Archives building, the Centre for the Study of the Texts, the Mansion of Bahji, 10 Haparsim Street, the Haifa pilgrim House and others. That there are some media bank images still left is not reason to add more. We must try to ubhold Wikipedia standards rather than find exceptions. Find a free picture. -- Jeff3000 14:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, my friend. I had been under the impression that as long as images were licensed for free use in the way the Media Bank images are, that they were allowed on Wikipedia. It appears that the Wikipedia stance on this has changed since I last checked, hence my confusion. I was not suggesting that we should try and "get away" with using Media Bank images when such is discouraged, or not allowed. --Twilightsojourn 01:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am working on it. However, I am very suprised that we can only find one picture! Nmentha 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remove photo

Moved comments to Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know how to make a wiki editing talk. But truth being said, no Bahá'í text can assure that such a picture is a picture from their prophet. So, my question is: how accurate can this be? (unsigned)

It is authentic - albeit a rather bad photo - that has never been the point of controversy. The question has been - should it be there at all? The Baha'i position is NO - basically because posting it openly on the web like this is considered to be treating Baha'u'llah's image with disrespect. Many Baha'is (myself included) have been shocked and upset by this, and would honestly rather it were removed. It remains on the page (in spite of being repeatedly deleted, presumably by casual Baha'i editors) because the non-Baha'is want it to remain, and thoughtful Baha'i editors have generally decided that it is not our place to dictate to non-Baha'is how they want to do anything, even to displaying images of Baha'u'llah. Wikipedia is after all a secular site, not a Baha'i one, nor connected in any way with any other religion. Do click on this link Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo if you are really interested - to view some of the (at times heated) controversy around this issue. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, religion is not about idols so there is no need to keep this picture up and the fact that it keeps being re-posted means the picture is being posted by someone who doesn't understand the fundamentals of religion in the first place. So if you actually want to know about the baha'i faith go to a legitimate site instead of reading the views of someone willing to disrespect a religion to show their "human right" to copy and paste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.174.239 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If there was a photo of the prophet Muhammad on a web site like this, there would probably be Muslims on the streets shouting and burning like we see now with the film about Muhammad. And as a result the editor of the web site would feel compelled to remove the photo. But as Baha'i is a peaceful religion Wikipedia editors seems not willing to show due respect and remove the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.150.51.26 (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC) 2.150.51.26 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually there are informal uses of representations of the Muhammad - they are just done more tastefully. The picture in question is not owned by Baha'is so Baha'is cannot decide how it is used. A long process was undertaken in which compromise was actually taken. See Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Archive_Picture. Smkolins (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Section positioning

Per WP:LAYOUT, the works section is an appendix to the body of the article. The body includes the extensive discussion of this apparently controversial image. It seems odd here, and clearly tangential from Wiki guidelines, to move the image to the bottom of the article. This makes the article go from Lead to Body to Appendage to Body to More Appendages. --Veritas (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I could see it going either way; before or after the "Works" subsection. The current "Works" subsection is quite poor, but I don't think its intent was just to be a list of works, but a section describing the types of books, letters, etc that Baha'u'llah wrote. Regardless, both before or after I think can work. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if it were to be a general discussion of his writings then, yes, it would belong in the body. However, that is not what the section is in its current form. Rather, it serves as an appendix to the biography. That's why I think it should be brought into standard for of the other biographical articles on Wiki where the body is placed before the publications - for the sake of consistency if nothing else.--Veritas (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles

There should not be a disclaimer in this article. The image should be at the top, along with every other article about anything or anyone. This article is setting a terrible precedent. This needs to be changed. There are no "compromises" in censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. Period. With this being here, we'll have to do this at Muhammad, as well. We need to be consistent. We'll also have to do this at articles such as Prince Albert piercing. нмŵוτнτ 02:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Have to do the same at Muhammad???? Just have a look at that article will you, and explain to me where the picture of Muhammad is??? There isn't one at all!! In practice Wikipedia veers to a more gentle version of neutrality, often bowing slightly to group sensitivities without banging the "no POV" drum to the point of making "standardise formats at all costs" a POV in itself.

This question is actually a very long running sore - with many people objecting to the picture being there at all, and others feeling, like you, that it should be at the top. The current setup is a sensible compromise, although it obviously does not please everyone.If you really want to wade through all that has been said on the subject then try Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo. Someone will probably move this exchange there actually!! Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he was on this page... I was referring to pictures of Muhammad on the Muhammad page... and PA piercing on the PA page. That's also your opinion of of Wikipedia's views. Wikipedia doesn't slant it to benefit any specific group of people. If you want the image on the bottom, okay, but there will be no disclaimers. That's unencyclopedic & ridiculous. If one doesn't want to see him, don't look him up in an uncensored, illustrated encyclopedia. нмŵוτнτ 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not just go editing it out like you did. There has been discussion on this for months, see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo. Peter Deer (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm aware. See my response to your revert on your talk page. нмŵוτнτ 23:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How is a disclaimer identical to censorship which to me would be not having the photo on at all? mike4ty4 (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Replacing missing link

I've added Who is Baha'u'llah back in again. From Personal web page:

"..typical personal web pages contain images, text and a collection of hyperlinks. Many can contain biographical information, résumés, and blogs. Many personal pages will include information about the author's hobbies and pastimes, and information of interest to friends and family of the author."

On the contrary, Who is Baha'u'llah, is solely devoted to an explanation of the history, teachings and writings of Baha'u'llah. Furthermore, on the about page, it specifically says:

"The purpose of this site is to enable anyone who is interested to investigate Baha'u'llah's message. In addition to giving an overview of the main aspects of the Faith, it links to a wide range of other information. Because the site is independent of the Baha'i administration, it contains information not found on official sites and presents the faith in a different way to those sites."

The reason this site is important to include is precisely because it assists in Wikipedia's NPOV policy and provides translations of works by Baha'u'llah that are not provided in the other external links. Sufisticated (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Many personal pages will include information about the author's hobbies and pastimes, and information of interest to friends and family of the author."

The website in question, in the "about this site" says:

"Alison loves to study Baha'u'llah's writings and has a particular interest in the mystical aspects of the Faith. She also studies classical and Qur'anic Arabic, Sufism, and aspects of the other major religions."

Judging by the About This Site page, it is the personal site of Alison Marshall. Peter Deer (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In which case, you'd have to remove like references to Jonah Winters' Baha'i Library. But in the spirit of compromise, I've directed the link to the valuable contribution from the site, which is the index of translations of the Writings. Sufisticated (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy is policy, Alison Marshell's website is not acceptable, as whoisbahaullah clearly states that it is the views of a single individual . As you well know baha'i-library.org is run by no definition a personal website, since it links and aggregrates scholarly works that have been published in other souces. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is my problem. I'm trying to add in an external link to a source that provides translations of some of Baha'u'llah's lesser known works. The best list I have seen on the web of such material is Baha'u'llah Explore. Now these translations are available elsewhere on the web, but they are scattered (see for example, here, here, here, here, and here). It seems redundant to list all these sites, which also include other materials apart from translations of Baha'u'llah's works, when Alison at Baha'u'llah Explore has done a very good job of collecting them and providing them on her site, a smaller version of Jonah Winters if you will. Can you give me recommendations as to how to solve this quandry? .o0o.Sufisticated.o0o. (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A personal website is a personal website, and synthesis of other works is considered original research, and not allowed in Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that the three last links that you provided are also personal website; personal translations that haven't been published in a reliable source, and are also not admissible. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ Jeff, the translations are all from respected academic authorities in the field of Babi and Baha'i studies, and have been published (not just through official Baha'i administrative channels). H-Baha'i, for example, is part of H-Net, which is an international interdisciplinary organization of scholars and teachers. The translations list on Juan Cole's translation site, list the academic publications the translations have been published in next to each link; likewise there are links to the places of publication for the translations provided by Dr Lambden, and if you click on each translation by Khazeh Fananapazir he provides individual publishing details for each one. Admittedly most of these have been published either through H-Net or the Baha'i Studies Review, but they are important contributions to our English-language repository of the works of Baha'u'llah..o0o.Sufisticated.o0o. (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff that personal websites should be discouraged, and in particular I think the Allison Marshal website is unprofessional. The idea that this is an appropriate site to point people for more information is laughable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The key point about personal websites is that they are not reliable. Marshall's "translations" should be treated with special care as she, to my knowledge, doesn't have access to authentic texts, nor does she have any training in either Arabic or Persian. She offers no sources for either the original texts nor the translations on any of her sites. That kind of intellectual irresponsibility is exactly why personal sites are viewed with such a jaundiced eye here. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The translations that Alison provides on the site, are not her own works MARussellPESE. They are the translations of respected authorities in the field (please see above). I think perhaps there is some confusion over the difference between "being published by a Baha'i publishing body" and being published by any other body including non-Baha'i publishing bodies and individual academics. The latter does not mean they are unreliable, it just means they are not considered 'official' by the Baha'i administration. But for the purposes of Wikipedia that is not a meaningful distinction..o0o.Sufisticated.o0o. (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a few minor points. We do allow personal websites when they are the official website of an acknowledged professional researcher or journalist who has been previously published by third-party sources in their field. (That's a mouthful.) So we would allow say the personal website of Ted Koppel. On a second note, synthesis is not necessarily original research. It has to be synthesis which advances a novel position. "Novel" here not just meaning the simple "new", since almost all of Wikipedia is "new" synthesis, but rather "Novel" meaning something more like "unusual, obscure, abnormal, remarkable". I would recommend a trip to the reliable sources noticeboard if the editor seeking to add the material thinks this finding is unwarranted. Wjhonson (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wjhonson and everyone. I've posted a question up about the reliability of Baha'u'llah Explore at: [[2]].o0o.Sufisticated.o0o. (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If the scholars have published their translations, then link to the translations in the scholaly sources, not to a personal website, which cannot guarantee the reliability of the translations. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, Baha'i Explore gathers those scattered links over a variety of URLs and provides them in one direct location. I think I have made a good case for including Baha'u'llah Explore, which directly provides those translations of other scholars' works with their direct permission. I fail to see how it is *not* a reliable site by definition of Wikipedia..o0o.Sufisticated.o0o. (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The website is not being used to source statements in the article, it is being used in the external links as a source of further information. I would first ask the question, "what 3 or 4 websites are the most reliable, relevant, and provide useful further reading." This personal site is definitely not in that group, and the value of her compilation of translations including a few previously untranslated letters is insignificant. The unprofessional nature of the website, including a blog-style layout and personal stories, damages her credibility as a source for further reading. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Compliments on an excellent article

I read this article with much interest and found it to be excellent. I also appreciate the civility demonstrated on this talk page. I hope the photograph dispute can be resolved in such a civil manner.

I do not know what the qualifications (or disqualifications) are to be a featured article, but speaking objectively, I think this article deserves recognition (although I would like to see the photograph dispute resolved first). However, I am a Baha'i, and so it is difficult to be impartial -- I'd like to see this article have its moment in the sun for personal reasons as well, but my recommendation that it merits being featured is primarily based on it's excellent cross-referencing, language, and informational content.

Another caveat is that I do not know how Baha'i laws would apply in this case. Is there an admonition that this action would be improper? --98.25.183.242 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The photograph issue will likely never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and an article with such a dispute would never qualify for featured article status. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Editations getting deleted?!

I have noticed that my editorials have been deleted quite a many times by now.

Here is one Bahai edit. I added a new section but it disappeared into thin air:

Muslims Reaction

Bahá'u'lláh is considered to be a dajjaal among the dajjaals that will apear before The Dajjaal(Antichrist). As mentioned in a hadeeth (saying of Prophet Muhammad) in Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) said that there will be forty liars (dajjaaloon kadh-dhaaboon), each will claim to be a prophet. The hadeeth continues, and the prophet warns his followers against the Greatest Dajjaal who will deciet people and make them worship him as a god.

Muslim scholars all agree that Bahá'u'lláh is a decietful liar. Since he didn't take back his claim anytime throughout his life, he can easily be a Dajjaal. Based on this information, most Muslims believe that Bahá'u'lláh will be in the Hell-fire (Jahannam) as a punishment for claiming to be a prophet even after he knew he wasn't.

Thanks for your considerations,

--77.30.34.154 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Yahya Al-Shiddazi

Would you like a similar Christian edit on Muhammad article? People have different religions. Almost everyone follows the religion of their parents. If you had different parents you might be putting edits like that into Muhammad's article. How does that make you feel? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions fail several Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV, WP:V, & WP:CS. You're clearly trying to present Muslim apologia into what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. — MARussellPESE (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have figured out both of you are Bahais. That's why you took out my editorial(s). Here's my proof:

I am a Bahá'í, and have been one since birth. I seem to be following these articles with interest. — MARussellPESE I am a member of the Baha'i Faith but in many respects a very bad example of what a Baha'i should be. I try anyway. — Soundsofthemusical

My edits are perfectly Justified. I will continue to replace my edits untill some non-Bahai Administrator advises otherwise.

I believe that all WikiReligion articles should mention the "Reaction of Other Religions" in each religion article. Once again, thanks for the cooperations.

-Yahya Al-Shiddazi

Sorry, your additions are far from meeting Wikipedia policies noted above, and not permissible. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry once again, but I mentioned that I needed a non-Bahai Administrator . Jeff3000 is another Bahai! Look:

My religion I am a proud Baha'i. I have no bias, however. I believe everyone is inclined towards the religion they are born in.

Therefore, I will plead to get a legitimate comment from a real administrator, yet for now, I am adding my section.

Partial Thanks,

Yahya Al-Shiddazi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.133.148 (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia policy is assume good faith. Based on that policy, itt has nothing to do with religion, but with the core content Wikipedia policies noted above. Your additions don't meet those policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you edited (vandalized) my userpage to note what you wrote above. Your actions are not quite honest, are they? Regards, -- 15:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You are a true Wikipedian! Thanks for commenting politely. Yes, I agree, perhaps it was not quite honest. But it was a little funny...I apologies only to Jeff3000 AND NOT TO ANY OF THE OTHER bahais. Yet I will continue to be monitering the Bahai paged.

-Yahya Al-Shiddazi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.55.200 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yahya, your accusations of bias based on our affilations are personal attacks and not allowed here. If you were not editing from anonymous IP accounts, you'd have been formally warned against this. You can be blocked from editing, even from IP accounts. Please tone it down, stop making personal attacks, stop disrupting this page to make your particular point, and assume good faith. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yahya, this vandalization of another editor's user page is totally unacceptable. If anybody needs administrator sanction, it's you. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mountains of Kurdistan and Sulaymaniyah

Text on Wikipedia:

On April 10, 1854 Bahá'u'lláh, leaving his family to the care of his brother Mirza Musa, left with one companion to the mountains of Kurdistan, northeast of Baghdad, near the city of Sulaymaniyah. He later wrote that he left so as to avoid becoming the source of disagreement within the Bábí community, and that his "withdrawal contemplated no return".

Referenced text:

Factions of Babis formed in Baghdad who were loyal to either Baha'u'llah or to Azal, and the ensuing jealousies and rancor so disgusted Baha'u'llah that in 1854 he secretly departed from Baghdad, taking with him only one companion, a merchant, and went to Kurdistan in the north where he lived the life of a mystic. After some time, his friend was killed by thieves. The Kurds practiced the mystical form of Islam known as Sufism, and a branch of the Naqshbandi Sufis in Sulaymaniyyah heard of Baha'u'llah's piety, inviting him to their center.

I don't see any references to a mountain, is this a fact or just added here for dramatic effect? Mavromatis (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

see Kurdistan - "is an extensive plateau and mountainous area"..."Kurds have no friends but the mountains". Smkolins (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

also specifically Sulaymaniyah which is mentioned elsewhere as one place in Kurdistan where Baha'u'llah went. Smkolins (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

which is to say Sulaymaniyah is in "eastern Iraqi Kurdistan" which is then described as "largely mountainous". So when you are satisfied, please delete the tag. Smkolins (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the specific reference from Smith, Peter (2008). An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 17. ISBN 0521862515. which states "Baha'u'llah decided to abandon the city to pursue the life of a solitary mystic in the mountains of Kurdistan, leaving his family to the care of Mirza Musa." Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Names of places

WP:EN states that what is prominent in English should be used in Wikipedia as per reliable sources. The following sources state that Constantinople's name was changed to Istanbul in 1930. As regards to Edirne/Istanbul, the name of the city in English publications was still Adrianople by 1911 (1911 Encyclopedia Britannica). Furthermore based on the following source , the city was still called Adrianople by Europeans until the 1920s when Turkey adopted the Roman alphabet.

It is thus clear that while Baha'u'llah (1860s) was in Constantinople/Istanbul and Adrianople/Edirne the names of the cities in English (not the local language) as per the sources noted above were Constantinople and Adrianople. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

References

marriage

i have just edited and added some information about his marriage and wives —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjames 9999 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the content that is either more about the wives, and not Baha'u'llah (since that is not the principle subject of this article) and statements about the wives titles, which is also not the subject of this article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Jeff3000's reverts. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Photograph - Question of TASTE

Moved to Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo. MARussellPESE (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Perception

I'm not trying to be contumacious but the section regarding Baha'u'llah's declaration is central to the article and subject itself. It is therefore particularly important to be neutral, concise and precise in this paragraph. Using "percieved" can suggest that the subject doubted his own claims or later refuted them and this is clearly not the case. I'm as bad at using weasel words as anyone but in this instance I 'perceive' that we are diluting the clarity with which these statements were made.

I have limited experience in wikipedia and will obviously defer to the judgement of editors who have contributed far more me than me but I have re-edited this section one last time.Nernst (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Being neutral means not stating anything as fact. Your wording of "that he was a Messenger of God" takes the Baha'i viewpoint that he WAS a Messenger of God while most of the world would disagree. It's always better to have neutral wording as this article can be very controversial. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's a problem of perception ! My previous edits stated that Baha'u'llah SAID he was a Messenger of God. As far as I am aware, this is not in dispute. Baha'is are more likely to agree with his assertion while non-Bahai's (by definition) are not. I would respectfully disagree with your definition of neutral since wikipedia would be lost without facts. Perhaps 'precise' would be a better adjective. I have once again re-edited the section on the assumption that I was not clear previously with my reasoning. If you do feel strongly about it, feel free to change it again. I am certainly grateful for your guidance and view.Nernst (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I do feel strongly. I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree with you conclusion. Not everyone will read it as such, and being on the safe side is always better for neutrality. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Jeff3000. Gramatically "he was" is definitive. "His perception of" is not. WP:NPOV requires that definitive statements be generally accepted by neutral observers — hence the reliance on secondary sources rather than primary one.. Leaving this up to the reader is not what WP is trying to do. MARussellPESE (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you not think your "warning" was a slight over reaction ? Nernst (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, since clearly you didn't know about the rules, and part of the Wikipedia etiquette before asking for administrator action is to warn the other user. Please read Wikipedia:3RR. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree: It wasn't. You're relatively new and the warning was of the lowest level — assuming your good faith and simple misunderstanding. None of us would like to see you take a block for such a reason. MARussellPESE (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am very surprised that telling someone on their homepage that they appear to be involved in an 'edit war' is considered 'low level'. Still I obviously have much to learn about wikipedia. As I have said before I'm happy to go along with the consensus and that appears to be in favor of using "he perceived", though it doesn't look like I have much choice!Nernst (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

'Tis much better than being told that you "are" edit warring and being blocked for it. Blocks are permanent blemishes. MARussellPESE (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Having no religious affiliation whatsoever, I look to the language itself, and find myself allied here with Nernst. If we are using the statement as an indirect quotation, then did B declare "I am a Messenger of God?". If he did, then it is fair to so state without further qualification. (The "perceived" part is covered in the lede, and this same approach seems to be what is used in the article on Jesus, for example. There is a difference between assessing a person's claims -which we should do through reliable secondary sources, and not our own choice of unreferenced qualifiers, and presenting what he/she actually said. To get around the problem, may I suggest that you quote the exact words he used, and then follow with an acceptable translation, or go straight to the acceptable translation? // BL \\ (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not think or expect the change in question would warrant this level of discussion or response. I suspect, therefore that either my approach or the clique response to it was flawed. I defer to experience and will avoid further contribution in this area. Either of the last 2 edits seems fine Nernst (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We have strayed far from the point here. To get back to it - from the point of view of Baha'is (and of course Baha'u'llah himself) He was diectly called by God to His mission to become a Manifestation of God. This article, however, is not Baha'i literature, but an attempt at a fair account, from a neutral point of view. We Baha'is are a tiny minority - most people (alas) do not believe Baha'u'llah actually had this mission, even if they admire His teachings, or find inspriration in His life. Hence the word "perceived" - every fair minded person would admit that Baha'u'llah was at least sincere, that is that He believed in his mission himself. This is also something that, at least in this context, Baha'u'llah's own disciples shuld have no problems with. It is NOT a tautology (a word that adds nothing to the meaning of a sentence) - it is certainly not "bad grammar" (whatever that is). It IS worthwhile in that it makes the article read less like a Baha'i tract and more like an encyclopedia article!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverence

Hey i wasn't sure how to formally add my opinion to this so i just decided to edit. As a secular web-sight wikipedia has every right to put up the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, however as a Bahai I cannot help but be slightly offended. This is clearly offensive to most Bahais and I see no reason why removing the photograph would damage the neutrality of this web-sight or otherwise weaken the validity of the information conveyed in this article. There can be no doubting that you have the right to put up this photograph. As a secular agent of free speech this right is instilled by nature. Yet with this in mind i would question wikipedia's moral responsibility toward reverence. Is it right and fair to let everyone know and see everything despite its arguable significance or insignificance; despite how it is viewed, interpreted, used or accepted? I do not know the answer to this but i worry that a bad photograph of a highly respected person (or prophet in my view) does not represent enough information about a person to outweigh the offense it brings to so many.

For years i have referred people who want to find out about the Bahai faith in a secular and unbiased way to wikipedia. I strongly considered it a good way to find well founded and reverently displayed information on the faith. It saddens me however that i cannot in good conscience do this anymore because this websight, while still being mostly neutral, has become disrespectful. In that sense it has become biased toward all those who feel the way I do. Thank you, i seldom edit or contribute to wikipedia discussions but i felt moved to express my opinion in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.12.241.82 (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole article about Depictions of Muhammad, and the page on Muhammad also caused a continual controversy about his images being in the article, and those are not even photographs. Unfortunately for you, there isn't justification to remove the image of Baha'u'llah. You may wish to review the advice of the House of Justice that "there is little, if anything, that can be done" about removing the image from non-Baha'i websites. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What is justification? For the Baha'is there are no justification to post the image of Baha'u'llah on an official site. But you (the administrators of Wikipedia, I guess) have not recognized the station Baha'u'ullah and am not willing to respect the religious sentiments religious peoples, at least not in this case, and consequently see no justification to remove the image. Justification depends on your ideological and/or religious views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.150.51.26 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Vernonica, your concerns have been echoed for years. If you'll look at Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo you'll see a long discussion about it. Smkolins (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

mirza nuri

Isn't mirza nuri the first name and surname of baha'ullah? If so, should husain ali (his middle names) be put out of bold letters?Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Persian names don't work quite like that - without going into details. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll go into details. 'Mirza' in this instance is more of a title, denoting that He was a member of the Persian nobility, and 'Nuri' means 'of Nur', where His family was from. In reality, Hussein Ali, informally, is His name, not "Mirza Nuri" as western naming conventions would imply. Thus, it's closer to meaning "Sir Hussain Ali of Nur" than the first and last being names. Peter Deer (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct Peter Deer. The "i" stands for belonging to something. A bahá'í is a follower of bahá, a bábí is a follower of Báb, etc. And, after consulting a lot of books, if the name had been Hussain Ali Nuri Mirza, the meaning had been prince Hussain Ali from the province Nur. Nowadays Iranians use the same order as in West: Forename Surname.--Caspiax (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Instructions for editing one's css

I know that it is possible for a registered editor to add a line to their "css" page that will block a particular image, such as the picture of Bahaullah, from being displayed to themselves. I suspect that some editors would like to have the instructions for doing so displayed in a convenient place on this talk page. Could someone write up the instructions as a FAQ ("How can I block the photograph of Bahá'u'lláh from being displayed to myself?") and add it to the top of this Talk page? (Not being a Bahai, I personally don't need to have the image blocked for myself, but I think it would be sensible to make it easy for people to avoid having the image displayed to themselves.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure it isn't possible. One have to change the JavaScript ("js") page writing some code finding images <img src="/wiki/File:Bahaullah_from_miller.jpg"> and similar, and then replace them with any image of a personal choice, f.ex. "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Zeichen_101.svg/80px-Zeichen_101.svg.png"" (Just an example). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiplicity of Wives

I enjoyed reading the apologia about the polygamy in the Baha'i Faith, and wonder if would not be appropriate to find a mention of how the subject was handled in Africa when teaching the Baha'i Faith there, which was, that when a man with multiple wives became a Baha'i, no separation or divorce was required, but he could not take another wife. So, there would be Baha'i families in Africa with multiple wives if the marriage happened before conversion or declaration. I'm guessing that the reference would be in Lights of Guidance.I'm Nonpartisan 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h%27s_family#Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.AD_apologia — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems like it should perhaps be in the Baha'i Marriage article. Peter Deer (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No mention?

By the time that Iranians were getting ready to tear down the very foundation of Qajar monarchy in the course of the Constitutional Revolution, Baha'ullah officially sided with Mohammad Ali Shah. His son and successor Abd al-Baha went even further and was knighted by George V and under the British Mandate established the center of his vanity in Haifa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.182 (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Click on this link Baha'i Faith and Irani Politics where this kind of thing is thoroughly discussed.

I might point out that the Shah you mention was, like most Persian rulers (including the present ones), an enthusiatic if not rabid persecutor of Baha'is, and most certainly never received any "endorsement" from any Baha'i source - and that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá WAS knighted during the British mandate (shortly before he died) for philanthropic work in Haifa during the First World War - at the time he had already been in Haifa for many years having been specifically and deliberately exiled there by the then Shah of Iran and Sultan of Turkey. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Previous revert

I reverted the previous edit for the following reason. The edit claimed that Baha'u'llah claimed to be God, and that is only partly true. Baha'u'llah claimed that he was a Manifestation of God, which at times as the station of God, and at times the station of humanity. Even within certain of his writings he can be seen writing in both voices, such as the Summons of the Lord of Hosts. This evening when I have more time, I will write a section on it based on multiple secondary sources, and not hand-picking certain primary sources from the previous edit. I will also include the single secondary source from the previous edit. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adjwilley (talk · contribs) 21:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article over the next several days. Please feel free to communicate with me here, or on my talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	I'm a little bit concerned about some of the prose...I'll discuss this below. I think it's good enough for a pass though.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The WP:ALLEGED problem has been taken care of, and the article seems to follow the MOS adequately.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Good use of inline citations. I personally like the Harv citation templates, and I'm glad you're using those.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	It looks like the article is citing a variety of good sources from reliable publishers.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Looks like it covers the main aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Overall good, just a couple small problems. Some parts seem to come from a believer's point of view, but not bad enough to disqualify.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Article is surprisingly stable.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	I've checked the images and they all seem to be good.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	I agree with having the image of Bahá'u'lláh at the bottom of the article, and think it's a suitable compromise between not censoring Wikipedia and not offending believers. I realize there are people on both sides who will disagree, but congratulate you on finding a middle-ground.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Initial perception

I have read the entire article, and it passes the quickfail test. It looks like it's citing good sources as well. There seem to be several problems with the prose that will need some attention before the article can pass. The POV seemed ok, but will probably need some small fixes here and there. It is obviously too early in the review to make any conclusions, but I think this has a fair shot at passing.

As a side note, I do encourage participation here on the review talk page by interested editors, as I like to get to know the community a bit. It looks like the three editors who have the most edits to the article (who are still actively editing it) are Jeff3000, Wiki-uk, and Geni, and the nominator is Peter Deer. Also, I will be out of town from about May 26–May 29, and unable to edit or respond to queries during that time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Images

I need to check the licensing for the following images that need to be tagged for public domain in the US

• File:Bahaullah-passport.jpg
• File:Early_Bahais-1.jpg
• File:Bahaullah from miller.jpg

~Adjwilley (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked them over and they seem fine. I added a couple more public domain tags to a few. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Prose

Him who God shall make manifest

This term is used 11 times in the article, often making for awkward-reading sentences. Is there a shorter alternative for this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Baghdad section

For some reason this section doesn't seem quite neutral to me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems to come from the point of view of a believer. For instance, the use of the word "persecution" seems a little off, and there seems to be an effort to make it clear that Mírzá Yahyá was definitely not Him who God shall make manifest. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Allegedly

Just a note about this. What I want is to get rid of the word "allegedly" per WP:ALLEGED. Insead of saying "His ancestry can allegedly be traced..." we should attribute the view to whoever is saying it can be traced. For instance, "Baha'i's say that his ancestry can be traced..." The word "allegedly" needs to go. I'd make the change myself, but I'm not familiar enough with the sources to know who's making the claim. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Return to Baghdad section

The "Return to Baghdad" section seems a little out of order to me. The first paragraph talks about conditions in Baghdad before his return. The second paragraph talks about what he did when he got there, how he rose in status and then got exiled. The third paragraph starts out saying that he lived in Baghdad for 7 years and then talks about what he wrote while he was there. This strikes me as being out of chronological order, but I don't know enough about the subject to fix it. I think the section should end with the exile to Constantinople. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The third paragraph is (I think) not meant to be part of the history of that section, but viewing that time in terms of the way Baha'is see his station during that time. I've deleted some of the text, and moved some of it to the works section. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My changes

I appreciate Adjwilley's changes to the article, and they are definitely improvements. I have, however, reverted some of the edits which I document below, and the reasoning for them:

1. I have reinserted the word radical to describe the group of Babis who planned the assassination. The same description is used in the source, and it is important to note that it was a divergent group of Babis, and not the general ones who had that sort of militancy.
2. I have added who initiated the violent protests (the government) as it was not organic.
3. Added back "While the Báb eliminated the institution of successorship or vicegerency to his movement" because eliminating successorship is quite different that not appointing a successor, and it is well referenced.

I have also tried to fix the "messenger" clarification, and hope it is clearer now.

In regards to some of the comments on the GA sub-page. The term "Him who God shall make manifest" is sometimes abreviated as HWGSMM. The acronym could be introduced in the first use and used later on, though I'm not personally a big fan of such acronym usage. I hope the above explains my changes. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was hoping that somebody would see the changes and correct me where I went wrong. I also dislike acronyms and think HWGSMM would not be an improvement. Is there a layman's term that would also work? I think I saw "Promised One" being used at one point. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The term promised one could work. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bodhisattvas

Should Category:Bodhisattvas be added to the article? There seems to be an edit war going on over this, but I admittedly don't know enough about the subject. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of the editors think there isn't a reason to accept the idea but there is a difference between a segment in an article making the point and using categories. I'm not familiar with the rules about when a category is to be used this way. --Smkolins (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe each and every person who claims (or others say claim) to be a Bodhisattvas should be in the category. Most people do not accept Baha'u'llah to be a Bodhisattvas, even though some do, and it would be undue weight to add him to the category. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember there being a threshold for belief in a claim to make it categorizable. List of Buddha claimants or [List of Buddha claimants] give you the criteria, while popularity is an optional criteria, but not actually a mandatory criteria.--70.194.88.11 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

claimed to have attained enlightenment and become buddhas or

claimed to be manifestations of bodhisattvas or identified themselves as Gautama Buddha or been honored as buddhas or bodhisattvas due to: - being identified as the rebirth of one such (e.g., the Dalai Lama, the Panchen Lama) or - popularity or - "evidence" in the form of auspicious signs Notice the use of or rather than and, popular belief in a persons claim is not a mandatory criteria thought it helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.88.11 (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I should give particular examples Avalokiteshvara or Guan Yin or Kannon:Karmapa Lama, Dalai Lama, Mazu, Maitreya:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Budai, Adi Da, Guan Yu or Sangharama, Gung Ye, L. Ron Hubbard, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Lu Zhongyi, Claude Vorilhon or Raël, Wu Zeitan, Manjushri:Nurhaci, Copied from next category --70.194.88.11 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This should be more simple than everyone is making this. Direct bodhisattva claimants are people who claim to be a bodhisattva. Indirect claimants like Báhá'u'lláh, claim to be bodhisattvas like Maitreya and therefore should be included since Maitreya's Bodhisattvahood is non controversial.--70.194.88.11 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Maitreya claimants are Bodhisattva which seems to have caused an edit war

Yes, recently I was helping categorize urn categorized Bodhisattas or rather uncategorized Bodhisattva claimants in the Bodhisattvas category. This has needlessly lead to an edit war. For example, if a person claims to be Akashagarbha, Avalokiteshvara, Kshitigarbha, Mahastamaprapta, Maitreya, Manjushri, Samatabahadra, Sarvanivaraavishkambin, or any other bodhisattva, that's a bodhisattva claim, even if it isn't explicitly specified as such on that particular page. One of the three edit warriors claim there was no such claim on the page, to Bodhisattvahood, but as explained earlier there is a claim to Maitreyahood on the page which is the same thing actually. I'll copy and past this to the talk pages of all three edit warriors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.88.11 (talk • contribs)

I do not believe each and every person who claims (or others say claim) to be a Bodhisattvas should be in the category. Most people do not accept Baha'u'llah to be a Bodhisattvas, even though some do, and thus it would be undue weight to add him to the category. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be a proper mechanism for people who claimed to be a bodhisattva in their own right, but not for people who claimed to be one of the specifically enumerated bodhisattvas. For, example Avalokiteshvara or Guan Yin, Maitreya, Manjushri, and others bodhisattvas, have people who claim to be them, while the people who believe such people in particular to be bodhisattvas is much smaller than people who believe in the bodhisattvas they claim to be by comparison, such people have been included in the category in the past without controversy.70.194.88.11 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I should give particular examples Avalokiteshvara or Guan Yin or Kannon:Karmapa Lama, Dalai Lama, Mazu, Maitreya:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Budai, Adi Da, Guan Yu or Sangharama, Gung Ye, L. Ron Hubbard, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Lu Zhongyi, Claude Vorilhon or Raël, Wu Zeitan, Manjushri:Nurhaci,

As you can see above if you compared any claimant to the undisputed bodhisattva, they form a small percentage of belief by comparison. If you asked anyone if they believed any given claimant was a bodhisattva without reference which bodhisattva they were versus adding a reference to a known bodhisattva, you'd probably get a higher yes rate on the differently worded question. --70.194.88.11 (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I had this on a wrong talk page so I copied it here! --70.194.88.11 (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bodhisattva is well established within Buddhist traditions. There is a set of conditions for bodhisattvahood and one is recognized within the tradition as having met those conditions. Hubbard's claims to being "Maitreya" are convoluted. Maitreya is a bodhisattva, and one doesn't become a bodhisattva without meeting the conditions. Hubbard asked: "Am I Maitreya?" If you can find a reliable Buddhist source that answers in the affirmative, perhaps we could consider adding this category. However, since Hubbard considered Buddhism "failed" and seemed not to comprehend the Dharma teachings about spirit,[3] it is unlikely that he would have fulfilled the conditions for bodhisattahood within that tradition. Sunray (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The same goes for others who claim to be bodhisattvas. If a Buddhist tradition recognizes their bodhisattvahood and there is a reliable source to support that, then they can be included. Sunray (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In Buddhist theology, bodhisattvas are contrasted with Buddhas (and there are further differences between Theravada and Mahayana interpretations). There is some disagreement among Tibetan commentators, for example, as to whether Maitreya is a Buddha or a bodhisattva. As far as I know, no authoritative Baha'i text takes a stand on this, or specifically calls Baha'u'llah either "a Buddha" or "a Bodhisattva," although they do associate him with Maitreya. So it would be speculative and incorrect to apply either term to Baha'u'llah, since he might have intended the other, or been unaware of the distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.106.79.53 (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Titles of Works

All Bahá'u'lláh's works have Arabic/Persian titles - but it is logical to use these in an Article in the English language encyclopedia only when they are also the most widely known and used in English. For instance the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and the Kitáb-i-Íqán are so entitled, even in English language editions, while the Hidden Words are never entitled Kalimát-i-Maknúnih (the Arabic title) except in Arabic. This is untidy, but the way it is. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. --Smkolins (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bahá'u'lláh. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bahai.us/system/files/PublicationPhotosV8.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Photography and imagery spin off

I propose we spin off this section in too its' own page. 78.148.67.220 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the picture or discussion about it is notable enough, per reliable sources, to have it's own page.--Smkolins (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What about the inclusion of the other images, or at least linking to it on Commons? Also it clearly evident that there is at least three photos as shown on commons, how can we correct this without violating WP:NOR. Furthermore the Universal House of Justice shows a colour version of a picture on Commons http://www.uhj.net/photo-of-bahaullah.html 78.148.67.220 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

At the very least I suggest reviewing the talk history on the picture which will include questions of altering images, different images, notable sources and so on. At the very least you've also confused the Universal House of Justice with a webpage by a small splinter group.--Smkolins (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a skim review of the talk history. It doesn't appear to clarify the issue of why it says their is two images, but at least three are online. And with the issue of the UHJ shouldn't the splinter group be mentioned to keep the point of view neutral and to prevent undue weight? 78.148.67.220 (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)IUpdate I took a more through look and I think my point still stands. 78.148.67.220 (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The splinter group is less than a hundred people. Vs 7 million Baha'is in the main body. Balanced coverage is essentially no coverage. They haven't even been the same people across a generation and have argued with eachother when the briefly overlappped.--Smkolins (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if we give the splinter group no coverage the fact still remains that their is clearly (at least) three photographs, but the articles says that their is two. How should we incorporate this? 78.148.67.220 (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'd need a reliable source and beware of "photoshoping" and mistaking pictures of paintings. --Smkolins (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If you feel comfortable looking then look here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h 84.13.123.70 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC).

I"m familiar. Some at least have no real source. People are putting things around without good sourcing. --Smkolins (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Baha'u'llah's Wives

The current paragraph is extremely misleading making it look like Baha'u'llah had married in three separate occasions. This is while Baha'u'llah was engaged in a polygamous relationship. I have slightly modified this section to remove this ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminator123 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Reason for Baha'u'llah's Banishment

Article erroneously states that "His claim to divine revelation resulted in persecution and imprisonment by the Persian and Ottoman authorities." This is incorrect. The Persian authorities did not persecute him for making claims to a divine revelation. In fact, Baha'u'llah only started to receive revelations after he was imprisoned by the Persians due to suspicion of collaborating in an assassination attempt on the life of the Shah. This also resulted in his banishment. This has been discussed in the "Síyáh-Chál" section of the article. I have made changes to the starting section of the article to correct this error.Illuminator123 (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This is at best splitting hairs - the imprisonment in the Síyáh-Chál was neither the first nor the last instance of persecution, the assassination attempt was actually provoked by the execution of the Bab - and the imprisonment was part of a mass arrest of as many of the Bab's followers as they could locate, many of whom were executed. Sheeting this home to the assassination attempt itself is difficult, as it was in fact no more than an intensification of what the authorities had been doing before the assassination attempt, and in fact before the execution of the Bab. Still, we'll have a look and see if the lead section could be better worded. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look at your edits - as I say in my own edit summary - a blanket claim (or implied claim) that all persecution of Bahá'u'lláh consists of a single event when it continued for most of his life is somewhat grotesque. Adding specific, accurate detail to the Síyáh-Chál section (rather than the lead) could well be another case, especially if this is cited to a good source. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Read my comment again. I am in no manner speaking about Persecution. The persecution can be inserted elsewhere with sufficient proof. I changed that section because of this statement that is obviously false and is not backed up with any sources: "His claim to divine revelation resulted in persecution and imprisonment by the Persian...". Baha'u'llah's imprisonment by the Persians was not due to his claims of divine revelation but due to the assassination attempt. It is well know that Baha'u'llah only started making claims of revelation after he was out of Iran and even states that he first received revelation while he was imprisoned. Before that he made no claims (as I previously said there are enough sources on this topic in Síyáh-Chál section of the article). I'll also edit the Siah Chal section at a later date with supplementary info.Illuminator123 (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminator123 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The current minimal change is more accurate - without bizarre POV? To link the whole forty tears of banishment and imprisonment with the attempted assassination of the Shah remains very strange - Clearly, from first to last opposition to has been based on his being a heretic. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Succession

The following statement was deleted with the spurious claim that it is not reliable.

The official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy is disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants who, initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí and then Shua Ullah Behai, were also subsequently declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi.

So, what part of the statement do you perceive to be not reliable?

1) Is the official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy not disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants?

2) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí?

3) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not subsequently led by Shua Ullah Behai?

4) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi?

The works of Smith, Bausani, Momen, and other Bahá'í historians do not dispute these basic facts, although they would certainly disagree with underlying causes of the dispute. A35821361 (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Just stop already. Going from article to article doesn't make it right. It's clearly an unreliable source. Smkolins (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of things where your edit breaks Wikipedia's policies. First it's a self-published source which "are largely not acceptable as sources". Secondly views that are held by small minorities, don't get the same weight in articles, as those that appear in most reliable sources. See undue weight. In most reliable sources, the successorship from Baha'u'llah to Abdu'l-Baha, to Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice is the only one they mention, and if they mention anything else it is in passing. -- Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you complain about the source from Covenant-breakers, which is not self-published as you mischaracterized it, I will provide additional references from official Bahá'í ones.

The official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy is disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants who, initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí and then Shua Ullah Behai, were also subsequently declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi.

- Regards. A35821361 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The section as a whole now reads (at least so it seems to me) as a reasonably fair "warts and all" account of the facts. It has after all never been a secret, even in Baha'i literature, that many close relatives of Baha'u'llah were covenant breakers.

Wikipedia articles on contentious subjects (and all religions are essentially contentious of course) need to be as non-partisan as possible, without giving undue weight to every fringe variant. There are many policy and discussion pages on this site that one could refer to that reinforce and explain these basic wikipedia policies.

We need to avoid on the one hand an overly slavish regurgitation (in content and tone) of information given on official Baha'i websites (a needless duplication and essentially a waste of time from everyone's point of view). On the other hand we need to steer clear of anything unfair, distorted or simply untrue. In short, we must be fair - this is good sense from the detractors' point of view - a factual and moderate criticism is much more likely to be taken seriously than hysterical nonsense; as well as from the believers' side - we don't want the overall impression given to a casual unbiased reader to be of a clique of narrow-minded fanatics using Wikipedia to "promote" their religion. That's simply not the case, and "we" (speaking for the moment as a Baha'i, even if a rather intermittently practising one) have the most to lose by giving the impression. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Baghdad

This section was removed:

"The Báb had eliminated the institution of successorship or vicegerency to his movement, and had stated that no other person's writings would be binding after his death until Him whom God shall make manifest would appear. "

I referred to the source and realized the aforementioned statement is the claim of Nader Saeidi. Unfortunately, He provides no source for his statement. He fails to mention a even a single quote from the writings of the Bab to prove his point. It seems that the aforementioned statement is based on opinion and not fact. Thus I deleted it.Illuminator123 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware that lack of further citation is ground for removing cited content. Is there some question the above is not true? I'm not aware of any. There are many references to the progress of the things in light of Him whom God shall make manifest. I don't think the reference is controversial except for some historical obscure issues that were settled as discussed in Him whom God shall make manifest. Smkolins (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The cited content refers to a book written by a Baha'i author. The author is simply presenting the Baha'i take on this issue. The issue he is speaking about is very controversial and is the root cause of differences between Baha'is and Azalis. If the Baha'i author had provided some quotes from the Bab's writings in this regard, it would have been great and considered case closed, but he simply makes the claim that "The Báb had eliminated the institution of successorship or vicegerency..." without providing further proof. I believe this material cannot be used as reference unless the author cites some statements from the Bab to prove his claims (which he hasn't). In the current case the burden of proof lies on the claimant. I also referred to Him whom God shall make manifest and failed to see how the material there can be used to prove the aforementioned statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminator123 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no relevant community debating this history any more. Hundreds or less who feel it is a controversy and millions accepting the non-controversial move of the transition from the Babi Faith to the Baha'i Faith. The author is a well respected scholar and the source is academic. The strength of the matter is clear and the controversy, such as it was, is in the related historical development article. The material should stand. Smkolins (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Head section of article

It was stated that Babism is an outgrowht of Shi'ism. This is incorrect for Babism is an outgrowth of Shaykhism. The editor had provided p. 3 of Smith, 2008 as source while on p. 5 it is shown that Babism is an outgrowth of Shaykhism. New edits were made to fix these errors.

Furthermore, it was stated that baha'u'llah " in a broader sense claimed to be a messenger from God referring to the fulfilment of the eschatological expectations of Islam, Christianity, and other major religions".

There are two issues here: 1-What Baha'u'llah claimed was that he is a "Manifestation of God", not a "Messenger of God". These are two different concepts. This section was corrected.

2- Being a Messenger or Manifestation of God is not a "fulfilment of the eschatological expectations of Islam, Christianity, and other major religions". This is a separate new claim. I edited the article for further clarification of these issues.Illuminator123 (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think these changes clarify strong "errors" and there are overlapping uses of the terminology that argue against treating the labels too distinctly (instead of, say, one is a subset of the other,) but I do think these changes are of themselves a little clearer. Smkolins (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, Shaykhism was (is) a Shi'ia sect (as, essentially, was (is) Babism for that matter). Baha'is consider their religion to be an independent faith, but viewed entirely dispassionately (something which would be very difficult from either of our points of view) it COULD (just) be called a variety of Shi'ism. A non-radical, in some ways very liberal (and in others highly conservative!) variety of Shi'ism, but... I'm stretching things a bit but you can probably see my point. When I was a Baha'i child (in the late nineteen forties - following my parents' declaration of their faith) I can clearly remember being taught all about Shaykh Ahmad - if that revered teacher receives less emphasis nowadays than He did seventy years ago and more, that certainly does not mean that he should be ignored here and now. On the other hand - while for a Baha'i reader of the article the current text may actually be preferable, the question remains, is it more illuminating for the "general reader" (that nebulous being) who will probably have heard of Shi'ism, and perhaps even be aware of its essential differences from Sunnism, but never to have heard of Shaykhism - and to know less than nothing about it! The real point, already made by Smkolins is that accusations of "error" are hysterical rubbish, and frankly, do their author no credit. On balance I have not reverted the text - but if a renewed consensus preferred the original version I would be supportive. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Page 650 of Dawnbreakers (cite claimed for latest fabrication)

Anyone with access to a copy of this source (cited by Mr. A35821361) can turn to the page in question - which makes a perfectly clear statement in conformance to current text (not the strange statement propounded and reverted by Mr. A35821361). Sources used in a different (even the opposite) sense to their plain and clear meaning are obviously much worse than not citing something at all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The "current text" before your undoing of my edit did not mention the presence of Russians in Bahaullah's escort from Iran to Baghdad. The current text, as of my typing this response, does contain the reference to the presence of Russians. No need to obfuscate the point. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The "point" (which if there is any "obfuscation" is entirely on your part) is that the guard was Persian (according to Nabil a member of the Shah's body-guard) - an official from the Russian legation (not a guard in any sense) was "present at the departure". By all means mention him, in the actual words (or at least the correct sense) of the citation, if you really think it is notable. Nothing is said about either the single Persian Soldier, nor the ONE consular official accompanying Baha'u'llah as far as Baghdad - it would have been most unusual for the consular official to have accompanied him for any distance - and surely there would be a more specific reference to any such "escort" elsewhere. Nabil's implication is that the Russian official was there to witness his departure (to "see him off", we might say). Sorry but this whole thing seems to be more or less entirely in your head. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty sure "this whole thing" is in the reference I provided, and not just in my head. Is this an example of the assumption of "Good Faith" you were referring to? Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You might be "pretty sure" - I am ACTUALLY sure, as I have the book itself open in front of me. You could probably get hold of a copy yourself from a library or somewhere. I NEVER use a citation I haven't read - suggest if you did something similar you wouldn't get into this kind of pickle all the time. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I am very proud of the progresss you have made, now that you are reading the books you use in your citations. The book referenced is also available online. Anyone reading this Wikipedia article can verify the contribution I made is based on the contents of the reference. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It was your citation! I only assumed you hadn't read it because your edit bore so little relation to its content. I have however copied it from the talk page at the relevant point - although it joins quite a battery of them now. I have rewritten the whole paragraph, so that it makes better sense, is more NPOV, and is at least in English. You also now have your precious mention of the Russian official - but using (as you will notice) something closer to the wording of the source. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have included a direct quote from a second source to emphasize the fact that Bahá'u'lláh was accompanied with "an escort furnished of Cossack and Russian horsemen to protect Him," I would encourage you to read the original work, either in print or through the link provided in the reference. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As has been stated and should be very clear pilgrim notes are hearsay and not great support for any point let alone one like this. Other better sources contend differently. Please stop your edit war.Smkolins (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Soundofmusicals' compeer Mr. Kolins has joined in the removal of the reference to the Russians in Bahá'u'lláh's entourage during his exile from Iran to Baghdad. Ironic, that this removal of the reference to the source, Daily Lessons Received at Akka: January 1908, occurs on the anniversary of the date, January 4, that the authors, Helen S. Goodall and Ella Goodall Cooper, arrived in Acre in 1908, the experiences of which actually became the book. Their account is corroborated by other sources, such as the other one that was used in this section on this specific topic. Nabíl-i-A`zam, the author of that work, was such a zealot that on learning of Bahá'u'lláh's death he committed suicide by walking in to the Mediterranean Sea.

"Other better sources contend differently." Having been involved with Bahá'í Faith for a number of years in the past, I can assure you that I have read an extensive amount of the books about Bahá'í history in English, although I admittedly do no speak Persian or Arabic. I have provided two sources that state there were Russian soldiers in the entourage. What is your basis for the argument that "Other better sources contend differently"?

The presence of Russian soldiers in Bahá'u'lláh's entourage is a fact. While the Bahá'í Administrative Order and its publishing houses have revised texts posthumously through additions and deletions when predictions have failed (as has been the case for Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era by John E. Esslemont, All Things Made New by John Ferraby, Christ and Bahá'u'lláh by George Townshend, and Selected Writings of Shoghi Effendi by Shoghi Effendi), the same treatment has not been meted out to Daily Lessons Received at Akka: January 1908 and The Dawn-Breakers. So, Messrs. Soundofmusicals and Kolins and others can feel confident that the sources cited contain factual information unaltered by edits.

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have been connected with Baha'i affairs at any time you will be aware of the scholarly status of Baha'i "Pilgrims notes" - (frankly, very low indeed). Now, every single edit you have made to Wikipedia (at least under this user name) seems to have been aimed at "debunking" what you see as "Baha'i myth" (excuse me if this is not the case, but I am left with this impression). In view of this, frankly the last thing you could possibly want would be the admission of Pilgrims notes as Wikipedia Reliable Sources! - these are the greatest repositaries imaginable of "Baha'i Myth" (hearsay by people you would characterise. with perhaps some justification, as "dogmatic Baha'is" - open that particular door and the Baha'i articles could quickly be overrun with any amount of strongly Pro-Baha'i POV. This is very simply an unreliable source (unlike the Nabil reference, which is indisputably scholarly - and incidentally very much "warts and all" - i.e. truthful even when the truth is not particularly convenient). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

From a dogmatic Bahá'í's point-of-view, pilgrims notes are great. When pilgrims notes fit the current official narrative of the Bahá'í Faith, they are scripture. But when the pilgrims notes don't fit the puzzle, they become "Bahá'í Myth," as you put it. They become "Bahá'í Myth" even if published by an official press agency of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. They become "Bahá'í Myth" even if written by a Hand of the Cause of God, a Knight of Bahá'u'lláh, an Apostle of Bahá'u'lláh or, in the case of Helen S. Goodall, a Disciple of `Abdu'l-Bahá. In this particular case, while Nabíl-i-A`zam mentions the presence of "an official representing the Russian legation," he remains "indisputably scholarly" despite being a zealot who, on learning of Bahá'u'lláh's death, committed suicide by walking in to the Mediterranean Sea. The mention of "an escort furnished of Cossack and Russian horsemen to protect Him," however, renders the words of Helen S. Goodall (Disciple of `Abdu'l-Bahá) and Ella Goodall Cooper into the realm of "Bahá'í Myth."

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If you imagine all Pilgrims Notes support you then fine - in fact most of them wouldn't at all - and in that case you'd be the first to deride them as unreliable. Let's stick to reliable sources. You (and I understand this) don't want us to "push" a POV you have come to reject (I hope we don't either) - trouble is that you can't have it both ways - to create a more NPOV Baha'i presence on Wikipedia the way to go is a strictly factual presence, with no doubtful stuff from oddball sources, or irrelevant POV remarks. You pushed Nabil when you thought you could get away with crediting him with things he doesn't actually say. So he becomes a fanatic when it turns out he actually says something else? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly agreed to reliable sources. Should the point be made in them then it belongs in wikipedia. Right now the only source of a Russian entourage guard is an unverified report from a class of reports that are uniformly considered unreliable for scholarly work. Instead we need a reliable source for the content of wikipedia. And A35821361's conspiracy theory view is noted. Smkolins (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Head section and unification of mankind

The head section is to some extent misleading. It is stated that the purpose of Baha'u'llah was to unite humanity into a single society. It leaves out the point that this unified society has a common faith that will be ruled by the UHJ. I am adding sources and some explanatory notes. These are very important points.Illuminator123 (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Some editors are undoing the changes I made in the lead section. A friendly reminder: I am clearly following Wikipedia policy that states the lead section should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The ultimate goal of the Baha'i faith, namely, the creation of a Baha'i superstate from the lead section is a very important point (obviously more important than Baha'u'llah's photo which has a paragraph in the lead section). I have provided ample references from authentic Baha'i sources. Removing these crucial sections results in a half-truth that is extremely misleading. Illuminator123 (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Illuminator123. Furthermore, the changes appear to reflect the same canards that are often repeated, that are beyond controversial and are well-documented in both Bahá'í and non- Bahá'í historical records. For example, Bahá'u'lláh was imprisoned for a very specific reason, for being a follower of the Báb in the aftermath of the failed assassination attempt by some of the Báb's followers of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar. Another example, Bahá'u'lláh was further exiled from Edirne to Acre due to internecine violence between his followers and those of Subh-i-Azal. These specific reasons cannot simply be dismissed as "persecution."

Regards,

A35821361 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the reasons for his exile from Iran to Baghdad are a bit straightforward, but from Baghdad to Istanbul, Edirne, and Akka are a lot more complicated. For example, one of the reasons he was called to Istanbul was so that the Ottoman government could get him on their side and use the Baha'is to subvert the Persian Empire. Baha'u'llah ignored requests to schmooze from corrupt officials, and also wrote letters chastising them. He fell afoul and was sent away to Edirne, where he was poisoned and fighting broke out between Baha'is and Azalis. There is more. The point is, it's not exactly the stuff you put in the intro, use the history section to add those details. Inherent to all the exiles was his religious beliefs, either following the Bab or claiming to be a new prophet. Saying he was "exiled" gets the point across without going into too much detail. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeap. Thanks Cuñado.

"The point is, it's not exactly the stuff you put in the intro." Saying the reasons for his imprisonment and exile was "persecution" is fallacious. If a reason is to be given as to why he was imprisoned and exiled, the reason should be given. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Head Section more closely resembles a brochure distributed at the visitors center under the Bahá'í House of Worship in Wilmette, Illinois, than it does the contents of comparable encyclopedia articles.

The contents of the "Bahá'u'lláh" article's Header section more closely resemble a brochure distributed at the visitor center under Bahá'í House of Worship in Wilmette, Illinois, than they do the contents of comparable encyclopedia articles. The deficiency in the Header section is notable when compared to those of other religious figures' articles in Wikipedia (cf. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad), and to articles about Bahá'u'lláh in other encyclopediae. For example, here are the articles titled Bahāʾ Allāh in the Encyclopædia Britannica and BAHĀʾ-ALLĀH in the Encyclopædia Iranica. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

And neither article you refer to mentions the assassination attempt anywhere near the beginning. When Iranica does mention the assassination attempt, they immediately add "Bahāʾ-Allāh condemned the plan.". You conveniently ever mention that. Regardless, that level of detail is not appropriate for the lead. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I assumed the articles would be mischaracterized, which is why I included the links to them. The assassination attempt is not mentioned anywhere near the beginning of the articles because they follow a chronological order of his life. Neither article includes effusive descriptions of his teachings either. The header as it stands now has virtually no biographical information, but it does contain a summary of the Bahá'í Faith. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeff didn't mischaracterize them. Here, again, A358... you don't seem to be following the WP guidelines on lead sections. The elements you're adding are addressed elsewhere in the body of the article, but don't belong in the lead in as they do not "establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". WP reads differently from Britannica, Iranica, and other similar print-based works. Digital is cheap, so we can afford overviews in the lead ins, and details follow. If you think the biographical paragraph should precede the teachings (I'd agree btw), then swap them. But, none of the other articles you're using as examples go into the detail you are. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead In

Want to explain what is, in effect, a revert.

This version [4] seems, to me, to be better than this version [5], but it could be dressed better.

While an earnest attempt (thank you Cuñado), I see ambiguity and other problematic items:

"During years of largely one-sided conflicts with authorities (POV), thousands of members (Of what? The Bab's movement? Baha'u'llah's?) were killed, and Bahá'u'lláh was exiled in 1853. (From where?) He lived in Baghdad until 1863 (He did not, actually. He spent quite some time in Kurdistan.), then made his own claim to divine revelation before going into (He was sent, no?) a series of exiles ..."

Also, I've been away for a bit, but why is there discussion of the photographs in the lead? That's hardly notable.

Anyway, that's the reason for my edit. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I recognize all that. It's difficult to write a summary without going into detail. The introduction needs to give a brief history in just a few sentences. It's current form is not acceptable to everyone, so try to write a revision yourself. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox listing of spouses, children,and titles

The Infoboxes of other prophets in Wikipedia (including Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Huỳnh Phú Sổ and others) feature their spouses, children, and titles, not to mention photographs. Deleting this content as "not encyclopedic" is disingenuous. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Already acusing "disingenuous"? Smith's just says "Emma Smith & multiple others" for the wives. There is no standard here. It's all over the place. I don't see the encyclipedic standard in the various examples that don't have Jesus, Buddha, Krishna or Muhammad's "(see Names and titles of Muhammad)" Create a concensus and maybe something can be done. As it is your additions of spouses, children, titles, to the infoboxes. Smkolins (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Smith's marriages are a contentious point as certain Latter-day Saint denominations, such as the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS), deny that he practiced polygamy (i.e., they do not believe he had more than one wife). It is not "all over the place," as the spouses of other prophets are listed (cf. Muhammad, Ellen G. White, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad). Jesus was never married, so no spouse is listed for him. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The spouses and children are conceivably useful information, but the addition of a long list of obscure titles is strange. Filling out the info box could be useful, but A35821361, if you're only edits EVER are to promote a negative view of the Baha'i Faith, like bringing prominence to the fact that he had three concurrent wives (a common point of criticism that is already in the article), then others will continually correct your bias. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That he had three concurrent wives is in and of itself neither positive nor negative, but a fact. My edits are to promote an unbiased truth. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Context is unbiased truth. "My" is pure ego. The whole point of wikipedia is to make consensus based reliable referenced truth. Smkolins (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologies as this editor does not know how to attribute the first person possessive without use of the word "my." It was not this editor but another who made clear his intentions for editing on Wikipedia when he was interviewed on Warren Odess-Gillett's "A Bahá'í Perspective." Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone believes your claim of promoting unbiased truth. Months of obvious negative bias have proved your words false. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please point to a single edit that is an "obvious negative bias" from this editor. All of the edits made by this editor are well-sourced facts, the vast majority sourced from references approved by the hierarchy of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are two from yesterday: [6] and [7]. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those edits demonstrate an iota of negative bias. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

For example, what is the usefulness of saying "All of the current members of the Universal House of Justice previously served as members of the International Teaching Centre." What exactly does this have to do with anything? What is the meaning associated with this uncited "fact"? Smkolins (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)