Talk:Baháʼu'lláh

White washing, biased, and imbalanced

The article on Baha'u'llah is highly biased in its current state. This first sentence is wishy-washy and uses the present tense for a deceased individual: -

Baháʼu'lláh calls upon individuals to live lives based upon spiritual principles by which solutions can be found for every social problem. Materially humanity has all it needs to resolve its challenges, what it still lacks is clear insight into what is possible and the spiritual maturity to unitedly act to do what must be done to realize oneness amidst its amazing diversity.[1][2][3]

This following sentence is white washing the situation. "For what he taught" fails to acknowledge the criminal charges Baha'u'llah faced for his role in civic and anti-government violence during the Bab'i uprising, and ignores the familial discord -- including murder plots -- which prompted authorities to act to separate him from his brothers: -

For what he taught, Baháʼu'lláh faced torture, exile, and decades of imprisonment, but he left a large body of writings that expound his teachings.[4]

Again, the following sentence is white washing the Bab'i Faith by failing to acknowledge the instigation of violence, including book burning and misappropriation of property, promoted by the Bab, which forced authorities to act: -

Bahá’u’lláh became a major proponent of the Báb, a young Persian with messianic claims.[5] The Bábí Faith spread rapidly, attracting violent opposition from Muslim clergy and Iranian civil authorities fearful of its influence.[6]

A more balanced approach is needed to present Baha'u'llah as he was, warts and all.

Drcombo (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding use of the present tense for a deceased individual: This is a matter of style. When ideas of a deceased person, particularly a prominent one, have survived to the present day -- for example in the person's writings -- it is common to use present tense to indicate their influence upon the living. The fact Bahá'u'lláh's teachings continues to affect millions today is a good reason for such usage. The Internet abounds with well-written usage of this writing style.

* "This following sentence is white washing the situation. "For what he taught" fails to acknowledge the criminal charges Baha'u'llah faced for his role in civic and anti-government violence during the Bab'i uprising" --> Well-researched information from academic scholars prove beyond a doubt that charges against the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh were motivated by religious prejudce, and any "civic and anti-government violence" was initiated by opponents of the Bábís (who only responded in self-defense).

* "ignores the familial discord -- including murder plots -- which prompted authorities to act to separate him from his brothers: -" --> Saying there were "murder plots" doesn't make it so. This article presents a balanced overview of historical matters relating to Bahá'u'lláh with scores of references from academic sources.

* "Again, the following sentence is white washing the Bab'i Faith by failing to acknowledge the instigation of violence, including book burning and misappropriation of property, promoted by the Bab, which forced authorities to act" --> Such a far-out statement would need multiple good academic resources to back it up to be acceptable in Wikipedia.

* "A more balanced approach is needed to present Baha'u'llah as he was, warts and all." --> By making the effort to look into the scores of academic resources given for points raised in this article one will see a very balanced approach.

Meditating (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think all the issues mentioned have been fixed, although the warts did not make the cut. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the lead is way too long and needs to be cut down to 4 reasonable paragraphs. I can't seem to accomplish that so I'm hoping someone else can take a stab. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The updates represent a considerable improvement. However, there are still problematic statements such as the following: -

"He was born in Iran to an aristocratic family, and faced torture and banishment due to his adherence to the messianic Bábí Faith."

Again, depicting his torture and exile as a result of his adherence to Babism is inaccurate: he was a convicted criminal and his association with anti-government and civic violence is well described in literature acknowledged as reliable by Bahai's, e.g. Nabil's Narrative describes Baha'u'llah inspecting fortifications erected to fight the government's army, and elsewhere describe his accessory to murder and intimidation of witnesses following the murder of an elderly woman in a Babi led attack on a village. It's also well described that his exile was often brought on by public spats with his brothers. It would be more accurate to describe Baha'u'llah's torture and exile as a consequence of his criminal and/or anti-social behaviour. Drcombo (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

But he wasn't a convicted criminal. He was part of a mass arrest and slaughter. When his own case was brought up the charges were dismissed and he was banished anyway. Smkolins (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

He was charged with crimes then sentenced to exile. His actual crimes were more extensive than those he was charged with (assassination plot). The bahai.org website even acknowledges that Baha'u'llah intended to join an insurgent military action against the government: "When three hundred Bábís sought refuge in a deserted shrine called Shaykh Tabarsi, Bahá’u’lláh set out to join them, but He was prevented from reaching His destination." (https://www.bahai.org/bahaullah/life-bahaullah/). Of course, here again, there is white-washing as "sought refuge" doesn't reflect the fact that the Bab instructed his followers to raise a flag and march with weapons -- clearly criminal activity requiring a government response. This article requires a greater focus on Baha'u'llah's track record of problematic behaviour. The current "innocent victim" narrative is historically inaccurate. Drcombo (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You over simplify "He was charged with crimes then sentenced to exile." He was charged, found innocent, and forced into exhile

• Alkan, Necati (2022). "'Abdu'l-Bahá 'Abbás". In Robert H. Stockman (ed.). The World of the Bahá’í Faith. Routledge World Series. London & New York: Routledge. p. 73. doi:10.4324/9780429027772-8. ISBN 978-1-138-36772-2. After four dreadful months in the dungeon, Bahá'u'lláh was proven innocent and released, but he had to leave Iran.
• Soli Shahvar; Boris Morozov; Gad Gilbar, eds. (Nov 30, 2011). Baha’is of Iran, Transcaspia and the Caucasus, The Volume 1: Letters of Russian Officers and Officials. International library of Iranian studies. Vol. 26 (annotated ed.). London & New York: I.B.Tauris. pp. 190–191. ISBN 9780857720689. OCLC 8902791418. Found innocent of the assassination attempt, he was released but was sent into exile with his family and a number of companions.
• and yes the older Saiedi source of his innocence: Saiedi, Nader (2000). Logos and Civilization: Spirit, History and Order in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh. Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland. p. 4. ISBN 1-88305-363-3. Smkolins (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "faced torture and banishment due to his adherence to the messianic Bábí Faith" is accurate and appropriate for a summary. This has come up before, and it's no easy thing to summarize this complex issue in a way that is technically accurate. The lead needs to be balanced for weight and reflect the subject as it appears in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Many details are below in the article on the subject of the attempt on the Shah and the conflict with Azal. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

These citations neglect the facts. It's not possible to acknowledge that Baha'u'llah adhered "to the messianic Bábí Faith", without acknowledging that this entailed criminality, given that the core tenets of the Bábí Faith included criminal activity (e.g. burning of books, seizing of property). That Baha'u'llah suffered consequences for his actions -- and contributed in part to the loss of 20,000 lives -- must be presented here. Depicting him as an innocent victim despite clear and reliable references to his active involvement in criminal and nefarious behaviour is a deliberate misrepresentation. You mustn't omit these historical facts on the basis of your faith, i.e. a belief that the criminality was a necessary part of God's plan to birth a new religion. Drcombo (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

While you are busy sweeping things along you keep ignoring the facts like the ones here and in the article. Back up your narrative. Citations. I've never heard any suggesting your narrative. Right now you are just waving your hands, or fingers, as the case may be. Smkolins (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous examples of Baha'u'llah's involvement in criminal behaviour and even his functioning as a civil war general. For example, in Nabil's narrative we learn about the murder of an innocent woman following a Babi attack on the village of Naẓar Khán:

*Zarandi, Nabil (1932) [1890]. Shoghi Effendi (translator) (ed.). The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl's Narrative (Hardcover ed.). Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Baháʼí Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-900125-22-5. [...] they pursued them until they reached a village which they thought to be the village of Qádí-Kalá. At the sight of them, all the men fled in wild terror. The mother of Naẓar Khán, the owner of the village, was inadvertently killed in the darkness of the night, amid the confusion that ensued. The outcries of the women, who were violently protesting [...] {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)\

We then learn of Baha'u'llah's visit to the village where the murder had taken place and his inspection of a fort which had recently been the scene of numerous bloody skirmishes with government soldiers. Baha'u'llah dispenses advice on the construction of the military fort, and makes a personal recommendation for an experienced and veteran fighter to strengthen the military position: -

*Zarandi, Nabil (1932) [1890]. Shoghi Effendi (translator) (ed.). The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl's Narrative. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Baháʼí Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-900125-22-5. Bahá'u'lláh, in the course of that visit, inspected the fort and expressed His satisfaction with the work that had been accomplished. In His conversation with Mullá Ḥusayn, He explained in detail such matters as were vital to the welfare and safety of his companions. 'The one thing this fort and company require,' He said, 'is the presence of Quddús. His association with this company would render it complete and perfect.' {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)\

It's clear that Baha'u'llah was involved in the bloodshed associated with this fort and was advising fighters who had days earlier committed the murder of an innocent woman. His exile and torture can't simply be ascribed to his "adherence to Babi beliefs", but rather for his active role in instigating civil and anti-government violence and creating anarchy and public disorder. Drcombo (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

All WP:OR. Not a single source of your narrative. You are lifting phrases and words for your narrative. Go find a published reliable source for your narrative. I've never seen it. Smkolins (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You asked for a source and I provided one that is widely cited and reliable. It clearly describes Baha'u'llah adopting the role of a war general for a military fort involved in bloody skirmishes with government soldiers, and advising individuals who had committed murder. This isn't [WP:OR]], rather it's a widely cited source providing historical context for who Baha'u'llah was. This wikipedia article needs to present facts not provide a favourable narrative fitting a strange agenda (a belief that he was God). Drcombo (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a single sentence in there that supports your claims. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It couldn't be more clear. During the building of the fort, individuals from nearby villages repeatedly attacked and were killed: -

• Zarandi, Nabil (1932) [1890]. Shoghi Effendi (translator) (ed.). The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl's Narrative. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Baháʼí Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-900125-22-5. In the course of these operations, they were continually harassed by the people of the neighbouring villages, who, at the persistent instigations of the Sa'ídu'l-'Ulamá', marched out and fell upon them. Every attack of the enemy ended in failure and shame. Undeterred by the fierceness of their repeated onsets, the companions valiantly withstood their assaults until they had succeeded in subjugating temporarily the forces which had hemmed them in on every side.' {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)\

Baha'u'llah inspected the fort and approved of it. The Shah was forced to organize an army of 12,000 soldiers to attack the fort: -

• Zarandi, Nabil (1932) [1890]. Shoghi Effendi (translator) (ed.). The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl's Narrative. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Baháʼí Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-900125-22-5. Within a short space of time, he had raised an army of about twelve thousand men, composed largely of the Usanlu, the Afghán, and the Kudar communities. He equipped them with whatever ammunition was required, and stationed them in the village of Afra, which was the property of Naẓar Khán, and which commanded the fort of Tabarsí. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)\

All 600 individuals who defended the fort were killed by the government. Countless government soldiers were killed by Babis in the fort. This was a major military conflict with the government which Baha'u'llah had personally endorsed and helped to organize. * Borjian, Habib (September 2006). "A Mazandarani Account of the Babi Incident at Shaikh Tabarsi". Iranian Studies. 39 (3): 381–399. doi:10.1080/00210860600808227. JSTOR 4311835. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcombo (talk • contribs)

This is purely original research (see wp:OR) which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Academic sources say that the Babi conflicts were defensive in nature:

"With the three major conflicts at Tabarsí, Zanján, and Nayríz, the Babis were accused at the time of insurrection by their enemies... In all three instances, the Babis were provocative in their assertion of their mission, but the fighting that ensued was defensive in nature, and in the case of the two urban struggles closely tied up with pre-existing social and political tensions within the towns. Again, there is no evidence of a coordinated plan of action."

"The Babis, in accordance with Shi`ite law, held that when an Imam is in the world, only he is allowed to declare holy war. War might be undertaken in self-defense, but attack was unacceptable without an explicit order from the Imam—i.e., the Bab himself. From the earliest days of the movement the Babis expected that such an order would come. The Hidden Imam was to wage war against his enemies and defeat them, and the Babis expected to join this crusade to purge the world of evil and unbelief. The Babis of Zanjan were ready, but the order had not come—indeed, the Bab is said to have prohibited Hujjat from ordering the use of force when he passed through Zanjan three years earlier."

"All three cases - Nayriz, Zanjan, and Shaykh Tabarsi - involved defensive action on the parts of Babis, who were surrounded and under attack from the Iranian army."

Tarikhejtemai (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Drcombo, you're piecing together primary sources and interpreting them. If you want to make a case, you need to find reliable secondary or tertiary sources, and even then, you need to demonstrate that your description is how the preponderance of those sources describe him. For example, Margit Warburg wrote: "as Babism gained in popularity, the government gradually began to consider the Babis a source of public unrest and a danger to the state. This was not without reason, since the Bab's claim of being the Hidden Imam in principle meant a claim on both religious and political leadership; his claim might nullify the legitimacy of the rule of the Shah. The Babis grew more and more radical with the increased opposition." The opposition was primarily religious, not political. It was the abrogation of Islam that made Mullahs rally mobs to go ransack and kill Babis, but the violent escalation was always initiated by the opposition, not the Babis.

The other thing you're missing is that you need to find your interpretation in summaries of Baha'u'llah by reliable secondary sources, and as mentioned several times, those don't exist. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

White-washing these battles with the government as defensive is a flagrant misrepresentation and is an article of faith without any rational or historical basis. The Bab gave very clear instructions to kill non-Babi's, to burn non-Babi books, and to seize the possessions of non-Babi's. That the Bab's instigation of violence and disorder elicited a military response from the government was inevitable. This article about Baha'u'llah must acknowledge his active and willing participation in the promotion of the Bab's violent ideology, and his prominent role in societal disorder and bloodshed.

Cuñado your claim that "you need to demonstrate that your description is how the preponderance of those sources describe him" is unacceptable and results in the article becoming an echo chamber for Baha'i ideas that are biased (e.g. he is infallible therefore we can't allow critical views). Drcombo (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts (starting more generally and then moving to the specific point of contention). I think many parts of the article use language that subtly or not-so-subtly glorifies the article subject. I have fixed a few but there is more work to be done. This article should not be a hagiography. A separate (but related) issue is the sources used. I think some sources like Taherzadeh and Hornby should be replaced, and some like Abbas Amanat (Resurrection and Renewal), Denis MacEoin (The Messiah of Shiraz), and Juan Cole (Modernity and the Millennium) should be included. (Doesn't have to be exactly those ones, but there needs to be significant recognition that the Baha'i narrative of Baha'u'llah's life is disputed my some respected scholars on the topic.) So both the language and sourcing are often biased. I appreciate Meditating's work expanding the article but I think the tone of the new version, intentionally or not, is apologetical.

With that said, Drcombo, while I agree with you more generally, when it comes to the specific sources you are suggesting, they are all primary sources. Nabil's Dawn-Breakers is certainly respected by Baha'is, but it isn't ideal as a scholarly source. The 2006 article you shared is a translation of a primary source. What we need is academic commentary on the primary sources (that is, secondary sources). See WP:PSTS. I do appreciate your effort to make the page more encyclopedic, though. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Drcombo your argument is a good example of why we don't write articles with primary sources. If you haven't already, read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially the part about weight, balance, and bias in sources.

Gazelle55 yes the tone needs some work, as noted before the changeout. I recently got a copy of Resurrection and Renewal and it was not very helpful for this article. Warburg's Citizens of the World has a lot of material, and she avoids the bias that comes from MacEoin and Cole being former Baha'is, the latter with an axe to grind. Also Hartz's book is quite useful for finding condensed summaries of topics for the lead. A lot of the materials go into depth without giving a summary. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Cuñado, sorry for my slow reply on this. Yes, I agree that Warburg and Hartz are good – I didn't mention them cause they're already cited to some extent, but yeah using them more would be great. And yeah if the Amanat book isn't helpful here that's fair enough, I guess it only goes up to 1850 anyway. I do agree that ex-Baha'i sources can have their biases and that Cole seems to have an axe to grind, and we need to take that into account (e.g., by attributing controversial points in the text). That said, Wikipedia does allow biased and opinionated sources to be used and it is not straightforward deciding which ones are most biased. Ex-Baha'is may feel some resentment or that they need to prove a point, but on the other hand having been both Baha'i and non-Baha'i may give them extra insight into the topic in some ways. On the flip side, we're definitely free to use Baha'i scholars like Smith, Buck, Stockman, Venters, Momen, etc. (and I wouldn't suggest we stop since they've done a lot of good work, despite again the potential for bias). I think it is more true to WP:NPOV to include all reliable sources and then explain disagreements between them, rather than just try to find one least biased account. Gazelle55 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

References

First sentence

See MOS:FIRST: "Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere."

Considering that Baha'u'llah had two names in other languages, one of which is actually made of three parts, I'd really like to not clutter up the first sentence with a long parenthesis. The footnote is an option, but I've mostly seen this addressed at the end of the lead, or in the first section. Generally I think this article needs some of the footnotes rolled back into article content, so I'd prefer the section method because there is significant explanation needed for the names. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thumbs up. I found the extended name information distracting so early in the lede. ThanksSmkolins (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Elected councils vs houses of justice

In the section on Baha'i administration, it talks about how Baha'is elect nine-member councils. Given this is an article on Baha'u'llah and not an article on the Baha'i Faith in general, I think the section of his teachings should focus on what Baha'u'llah spoke of, which is houses of justice. This is briefly mentioned in Peter Smith's 2000 encyclopedia on p. 185 but probably there is a better source that will go into more depth. I have no objections with explaining for context that currently a system of spiritual assemblies is used and that these are seen as the embryonic form of houses of justice, but the focus should be on what Baha'u'llah envisioned, with the houses of justice being administrative and also involved in criminal law (hence the name). I don't feel the current version gives a full or balanced view of the matter. Happy to help with improvements. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

strange article

the article seems like its written by a member of the bahai faith. It feels a bit biased. It also doesnt mention bahullahs real name in the opening section. The "spiritual unity" part of the intro feels strange. palisa (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

His birth name has too much detail and would clutter up the lead sentence. It's also unnecessary in the lead since he is only known by the title Baha'u'llah.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spiritual unity" part of the intro.

Regarding the feeling of bias, be bold! and make improvements. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Full name and photo

It's about time that this article gets updated based on our Manual of Style. Namely:

• Inclusion of the subject's full name in the lead sentence, per WP:MOSBIO and specifically MOS:FULLNAME: While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials). The MoS covers cases where cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference and it's clear that we should ignore this prohibition. In addition, the MoS gives an example of a long name in multiple languages plus a pronunciation guide, so claims about "clutter" are irrelevant.
• A depiction of the subject as the lead image, per MOS:IMAGES and specifically MOS:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. This is a biographical article and readers expect to see a depiction of the subject. This is reinforced elsewhere in the MoS, at MOS:IMAGEQUALITY: A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject.

I've looked through this talk page's history and can see that these issues have been brought up many times, only to be shut down by referring to some longstanding consensus. I can also see from the article's edit history that the name and photo have also been added many times, only to be reverted—again, referring to this consensus. But consensus can change, and if editors are repeatedly adding this content (or requesting that the content get added), then that's a sure sign that it has. I would also argue that any consensus telling us to ignore the Manual of Style—a guideline with broad approval across the project—is a local consensus that we should ignore. Woodroar (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Full name in opening sentence of the lede and image of the subject (if available in the right non-copyright status) is standard for all articles. There should be no exception here. Especially not if the argument for the exception is religious censorship. Silverseren^C 03:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Including full name and photo in the lead is the default thing to do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Support. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support (normally, though, we don't need to do this because editors usually respect policy.) Nythar (💬-🎃) 10:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We should absolutely not let religious sentiments dictate how an encyclopedia must be written, regardless of how many people oppose something due to them. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support including name/photo per above. Policy clearly indicates doing so. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the "consensus" being referred to by people to remove the image happened 17 years ago and was actually in favour of leaving the image in upper corner rather than hiding it by demoting it or with a link, by a 9-8 margin [1]. The fact that this consensus is being misused and wrongly described is also inappropriate. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: It was 9-9. You aren't counting HaeB's vote to move the image to the bottom for whatever reason. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: Ah I see it, I misintereprted it. But the fact is their still wasn't a consensus in favour to hide it unlike what you claimed. And only 8 were in favour of demoting it to the bottom, HaeB did not support demoting it to the bottom at all. So it is clear you are choosing to do what you like, instead of following any actual consensus. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: I have no idea how you are reaching such flawed conclusions. support image at bottom. was the exact phrase used by HaeB.
As previously explained, the discussion happened at Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Archive Picture with a summary posted at Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo. Ultimately, having the image on the bottom was the status quo and became the WP:EDITCONSENSUS. That's just how things work sometimes.
For the record, I'm also not doing anything. I'm trying to stay out of this since I've already made my opinion known. I'm allowed to have opinions even if they disagree with the majority.
Please, don't ping me again unless you correct your earlier and continued misgendering of me (despite the fact I've already made you aware of this). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: My mistake, I can be stupid at times and didn't carefully read that earlier. But it's still a 9-9 vote tie (yes this time I did properly count), so your claims are extremely flawed too. There was no consensus in your favour. And as for staying out, you got involved in the discussions. Yes you did mislead people. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: I looked at your accusation of misgendering, but the comment you linked was nowhere misgendering you. I only called HaeB a "he" which I do in general for anyone whose pronouns I don't know. Don't accuse people wrongly again please. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right. You only misgendered me once. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

When I wasn't aware of your gender. I use he as a general pronoun for everyone whose gender I don't know. Please apologise or I'll be reporting your conduct. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: No, I don't think I'll apologize. Feel free to report me. Though, I'd check with Cullen before you do. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The details and original Arabic of the name do not need to be in the first sentence. See MOS:FIRST: "Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere." There is a section dedicated to the name. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It is my understanding and experience that prior common editors of the article acted in good faith with the perceived norms and consensus reports of the past. That i know of, none of the people from the original period are here and none here now were present there then. As for the debate/vote, I see some overlap with the discussion about Muhammad as:

• Talk:Muhammad/FAQ (Q4 - Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 2.

The point detailed is what is the usual depiction? Muhammad's depiction has its particulars. In my experience when people depict the person of Baha'u'llah they use a rose on a chair or a picture of the shrine. How do we support consistency across articles in this case? To my reading none of the present editors favored removing the picture or removing the birth name. Smkolins (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support including the photo of this person and the birth name at the very beginning of the article. I disagree that the birth name is "clutter". Including it is standard practice in this encyclopedia. The Mohammed comparison is not relevant because nobody knows what Mohammed looked like, but we have a public domain photo of Baháʼu'lláh. That rose on a chair/ shrine photo stuff is fine for material published by the Baháʼí Faith, but is not appropriate in a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support including both name and photo. I'm seeing no argument based on policy that would support not including them. The Mohammad argument appears fundamentally flawed, as per Cullen328. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not true that "The Mohammed comparison is not relevant because nobody knows what Mohammed looked like…". If you look at the votes and discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 2, which agreed to use calligraphy in the info box, by far the most common reasoning is that that representation is the most common form used discussing the person of Mohammad. Comments that there was no picture are present but are rare. The most common arguments against the option is that it represented a double standard (meaning they supported one of the two debated images of Mohammad even if they were artistic.) Less common were arguments not using one of the two images was an example of censorship as well as the argument that an image was a better choice. As I read it the consistent position between those here wanting to use the picture top right and that discussion was for that article to use one of the artistic drawings (the so called 'unveiled' images), a position that failed 58 to 47 in my attempt to count things.

I'll comment further that dropping the image from this article here was never much in discussion here - the question was whether to have the picture top right in the info box or bottom in a section discussing the picture. That being said the fact that using calligraphy on the Mohammad article was least controversial was actually the second most cited reason for using it.

These seem very relevant to this discussion - the most common representation of Mohammad, especially when not being polemical, is not his picture. And the rational of not offending people was a notable reason why people voted for calligraphy. I'll note calligraphy was never much considered here. Smkolins (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Smkolins: I read through the argument you refer to about Muhammad. The common reason is that the there simply isn't an agreed upon common representation of any portrait or painting as they are a minority and there is no agreement on whether they're accurate. And that circles back to my argument on ANI about how there isn't a wide agreement about how or what religious figures and people before photography looked like. The images are not being hidden to appease religious sentiments of Muslims. Whereas with Baháʼu'lláh no one disagrees that it is his accurate representation and it is used in many places, especially non-Bahai. Your entire argument is flawed. And above all it is obvious that unlike Muhammad, the major reason to hide it here is respecting religious sentiments. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: I disagree with your analysis and it rings of OR. Literally that is not what people comment on save rarely - a fringe interpretation one might say. And those people were as clearly for using the artistic portraits. The fact there as no picture was *rarely commented on. Clearly there is a rush to judgement going on here with a fan wave of people who had no previous interest in the article leaping to conclusions and making sweeping unrefined arguments and accusations. The common reasoning used in the voting of that issue is *clearly* common usage and the secondary reason is *clearly* not wanting to be controversial. Your analysis fails a simple check of the facts.Smkolins (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Smkolins: Rings of OR? I commented after seeing the discussion. I clearly mentioned there is "agreed upon common representation of any portrait or painting as they are a minority". This was in reference to no commonly accepted depiction of Muhamnad, I don't get what's so hard to understand. And yes such things do happen due to: 1) No photography of such a person. 2) Relatively small number of portraits compared to say calligraphy. 3) Thus creating a lack of public consensus on what's the best representation for Muhammad. These are facts, not OR. You can see some voters explicitly commenting how such paintings/portarits form a minority of representations.

A few people do use controversy as a reasoning, but they are a minority and most opposers don't share the same view as them. So trying to use that as a reasoning as to why your censorship should be allowed is illegitimate, especially given none of the "consensus" you've cited here have been in your favour.

Whether you think my statements are OR or not, unlike that argument of Muhammad yours isn't based on any claim of common depiction. Your entire argument is based on not hurting religious feelings. So citing that discussion is pointless when your reasoning is not even similar. You shouldn't comment on people judging in a rush and decide for them what they cannot do. This isn't a website run by rule of the Bahai faith. Please stop imposing that. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Also upon careful examination, only 4 people opposed solely based their reason on it being offensive. 11 considered that since there is no commonly accepted depiction and calligraphy is the most commonly accepted depiction, it can eliminate potential for offence.

Which directs to the policy of WP:GRATUITOUS: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Also the lede part of that policy WP:OM clearly redicts to MOS:OMIMG when talking about offensive images and defines how offensive material is considered should be treated should be based on "typical Wikipedia readers". Which if you check the note means "majority of the website readers". Not a small group of religion.

Your entire argument is based solely on religious sentiments of Bahais. Not on policies. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support As per above arguments. A biography about someone should start with their name 166.205.97.48 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • As a note, the name has been removed again by user:smkolins 166.205.97.48 (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This needs to be split since people are conflating the name and photo issues. SMKOLINS didn't remove the name, he removed the provincial identifier. If you don't understand how Persian names work, don't get in an argument over it. If you had read the first section of this page, all the info is there. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, as long as the votes already cast are not discarded. If they are supporting both then both sections get the votes added to them. If they only support one, then the vote goes there. If it appears their vote is unclear, they should be asked which options they support. User:Woodroar I hope you have no problem. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections if people want to discuss the name and photo separately. I've been researching the name and was going to suggest a footnote to (hopefully) resolve the edit warring. So for example, we could put "Ḥusayn-Alí" in the lead but a footnote could elaborate: "Some sources give the name Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí [and then some explanation of what both Mírzá and Núrí mean]". But that can wait for its own section. Woodroar (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What? This section is clearly about full name And image. It is slightly misleading to derail my vote as for one and not the other. Thus article has been censored, and my vote is to give the article no special treatment. Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí is the common name, and is what we should use alongside the image. 166.205.97.48 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The first section of THIS PAGE is basically a big footnote that describes what you're talking about. This whole conversation is odd. After a revision in February 2001, the lead looked like this. It used promotional language and tried to stuff too much in the name in the first sentence. I threw out the old lead and replaced it with this, which was basically what it looked like until a week ago. Part of that revision was to move all the material on the name down into its own section and declutter the first sentence. The suggestion that I did this out of some kind of bias is ridiculous. MOS:LEADALT: "The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability. Use this principle to decide whether mentioning alternative names in the first sentence, elsewhere in the article, or not at all." I'm not even opposing putting the name in the first sentence, but his name is Husayn-Ali. This is not controversial. Yal need to go find Jesus or something. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Baha'i Studies Review cites his name as Mirza Husayn-Ali Nuri [2]. His father was also called Mírzá ʻAbbás Núrí. So we'd need a reliable source to confirm what you say. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth II could be called Princess Elizabeth of York. What was here name? Elizabeth. Princess is a title, and York is where she is from. Mirza is a title rougly equivalent to the English "sir". Nuri means "of the Iraniann province of Nur". What was his name? Husayn Ali. I can see why this gets confused, because he did not have a surname, as most people did not during that time in that part of the world. In the case of Elizabeth II, her full name would be "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary", but she could have gone by numerous titles so there is a page dedicated to her titles but her lead just says "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary)" to avoid clutter. Other name prefixes in Persian are Mulla, Hajji, Siyyid, Aga, Ustad, Amir, Imam, Khan, and others. Ladies get Khanum after their name. Depending on how complicated the name is, it might get stuffed in the lead sentence, or it might need to be shortened and elaborated elsewhere.

Amanat's Resurrection and Renewal' has a glossary that gives this definition for Mirza: "In the nineteenth century, if placed before proper name, Mirza indicates religious or bureaucratic training. If placed after, it indicates that the bearer is a prince."

If you want examples, Hartz gives the full name as Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri then after that uses Mirza Husayn Ali for short in the story until he took the title Baha'u'llah, then used that for the rest. MacEoin in World's Living Religions gives his name as Baha' Allah with no given name. In Stockman's A Guide for the Perplexed: "he met Husayn-`Ali of Nur (1817-1892), who later took on the title Baha'u'llah... Husayn-`Ali was raised..." (p. 76). Warburg's Studies in Contemporary Religion: "the prophet Husain Ali Nuri (1817-1982), known as Baha'u'llah" (p. 2), and "Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri (1817-1892), later called Baha'u'llah" (p. 11). Amanat's Resurrection and Renewal uses Mirza Husayn `Ali Nuri as the full name and Mirza Husayn `Ali in further instances of it. (p. 361). Cole in From Iran East and West: "Mirza Husayn `Ali of Nur, Baha'u'llah (1817-1892)" and "Mirza Husayn Ali, Baha'u'llah, the son of Mirza Abbas" (p. 1). Smith's Introduction...: "Mirza Husayn-`Ali, known by the Babi religious title of Baha (later Baha'u'llah)" and later "Mirza Husayn-`Ali - Baha'u'llah" (pp. 14, 16).

So the short form is more commonly "Mirza Husayn Ali", but best practice would be drop the "mirza" except for the infobox and section on name, where clutter is not an issue. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Cuñado. Your last sentence is offensive and dismissive of your fellow editors. Stop it. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Without tone I can see how that might not be interpreted as the light humor that was intended. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Telling people to go find Jesus after having a long frustrating argument over a religious article, doesn't come across as just a joke. It is bound to come across as mocking and dismissive. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry this has not been frustrating to me. It's about what someone's name is. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You're telling people to go find Jesus or something and stop doing what they are doing while having an argument with them. Please stop that. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

We are now at a point where conduct disputes are being discussed on article talk pages while content disputes are at WP:AN/I. This is utterly ridiculous. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That is because conduct disputes should be resolved before it reaches ANI. And you're deciding how an article gets to be written based on your religious sentiments, hence ANI was the appropriate place. You have also misled about consensus here. I do believe you should be banned from editing for not adhering to WP:NPOV. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)