From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 2005-01 —2007-09

Fair use rationale for Image:Selectionfromthebab.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Selectionfromthebab.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

People removing page from category "Manifestations of God in the Baha'i Faith"[edit]

Um, why? I would normally just revert the edits and not even ask but it's happened a couple times and has been changed by a couple different users so it would seem like someone has a reason for doing this, even if they aren't putting it in their edit summary (which you ruddy well should) Peter Deer (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See this discussion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion explains nothing. It was for a category called "Manifestations of God". The current category has a different name and clearly explains that it applies only to Bahai. Either the category exists or it does not. If it exists then this article belongs in it. If you don't think there should be such a category you are free to propose its deletion, but there is no more reason to remove relevant content from it while it exists than there is to remove Saint Peter from the categories "Eastern Orthodox saints" and "Papal saints". Paul B (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Peter Deer (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nomination is here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Dead Link[edit]

Hey guys, this article is super interesting. I was going through the references, and I noticed a link takes you to an error 404 from the BBC. So, I deleted the link and added a cite tag. I've been looking for another source, but I can't find it. If you've got some time, please look it up. Otherwise unreferenced material needs to be omitted. I'll continue to search for it as well. -- (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


how come nothing is written about His mother and father?

Father was : Siyyid Muhammad Ridá Mother was : Fátimih Bagum —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


i have added a small section about his mother and father, and also about his marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Early life[edit]

In Early life it is written : ... and the boy was raised by his maternal uncleḤájí Mírzá Siyyid `Alí, now Ḥájí Mírzá Siyyid `Alí is linked to Bab: is this link correct or wrong??? Bab and maternal uncle seems to be the same person??? --giorces (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC) mail

No, for example if Joe is only notable because of Frank the page on Joe redirects to the page on Frank where it's expected that one would be able to find out more about Joe. The same situation here and I've unlinked the name. T0lk (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely correct to delete what is effectively a self-link. Thanks, MARussellPESE (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


The article says between when he was 15 and 20, he joined his uncle in the family business, however many sources say that he was about 14-15. --Melaniegreyton (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The most-reliable academic sources are what are trying to be used in this article. Remember Wikipedia is not written in the Baha'i view, and must be written in a neutral point of view. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There are not very many non-Bahá'í sources written about the Báb. In addition, the Báb joined his buisness on attaining the age of maturity which for boys in Islam is about 14 or 15. --Melaniegreyton (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Interpreting age of maturity without a secondary source is original research, and/or putting together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources is synthesis and also considered original research and not allowed. There are quite a few non-Baha'i sources on the life of the Bab including Amanat's Resurrection and Renewal and extensive articles in Iranica and the Encyclopedia of Islam. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Resurrection and Renewal is written by a Bahá'í author --Melaniegreyton (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, his family is Baha'i, but he himself has significant issues with the Baha'i administration, and the House of Justice has indicated that he should removed from the Baha'i membership lists. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bab writes in his own writings that he was 15 when he began to work in the family buisness. "till I reached fifteen years of age I lived in the land which witnessed My birth [Shíráz]. Then Thou didst enable Me to go to the seaport [Búshihr] where for five years I was engaged in trading" Selections From the Writings of the Báb pp. 181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie1988 (talkcontribs) 11:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC) --Lizzie1988 (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Using primary source material without a secondary source commenting on that primary source is original research and not allowed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that interpreting something from a primary source that is not from a secondary source is now allowed. However if a primary source made a statement requiring no interpretation it is acceptable. From WP:OR Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Regards, T0lk (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No, you can only say that the primary source states something, not that it is definitive fact. For example, you can only state that the "Bab stated he was 15 when he started working" not that "The Bab was 15 when he started working". These statements are quite different, and only a secondary source can be used to state the second one. Also in this case the secondary source statement would still need to remain in the article as its different than the primary source. Furthermore, it's always better to use secondary sources: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Instead of trying to find small exceptions to the rules, stick to the best practices; use non-Baha'i academic secondary sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that if the Bab himself writes he was 15, then that makes it reliable. I do not really understand these 'sources' etc. --Lizzie1988 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Please read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, No original research, and Neutral Point of View as well as the guideline on reliable sources. Reliable sources are those publishers that have a record of fact checking. By definition primary sources do not have fact checking, and thus that why secondary sources are needed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


This section, in particular, reads as if it were written to make and emphasize certain points of faith or doctrine. Hoping someone with a good comfort level with the subject can clean this up. Dans tes rêves (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is completely cited with the with recent academic research, published from academic presses which are considered to be the most reliable sources, mostly from those critics of the Baha'is. Do you have specific sources that present any views other the ones presented, or is it just your feelings. You'll need sources to back up your assertion that the section is not neutral. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Also the current section does go over the variousviewpoints; that he wad claiming mahdihood right away, that he was claiming just being a the gate to the imam, and there was confusion among the public and his believers.-- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
No issue with sources; it just seems that an undue amount of time is given to demonstrating such ideas as "A number of his early followers had instantly recognized his station as a messenger from God with divine authority." This section in particular seems to argue quite a bit that the Báb is the Twelfth Imam and not just the "Gate" -- which may be a valid point of doctrinal discussion for Bahá'ís, but seems to be beyond the point of an entry in an encyclopedia. Dans tes rêves (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it as one view versus another view. Each paragraph deals with separate points. Looking at the section, one main paragraph is on what he himself believed his station was, as the Qa'im, then the other large paragraph deals with how his claims to the public were understood and changed. Then the final paragraph deals with how his message was understood within his followers itself, including both those that accepted his prophet-hood directly (the statement you quoted above) and those that understood it otherwise. If you read both Amanat and Saiedi you will see that both actually spend quite a bit of time on each of those things, including the confusion in the public regarding his station, and what he himself believed his station to be, and actually also MacEoin spends a significant time on the subject. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk)

The word "báb"[edit]

Should there be a link to báb?--Mátyás (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No because that definition is from Bengali, not Persian. The meaning is very different. Smkolins (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
That that meaning is arguably derogatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Shrine of the Bab[edit]

Hello Friends, I also made this mention on the page for the Shrine of the Bab, but with all the publicity in the last two days with the completion of the restoration, there seems to be an important fact omitted, that is, that there are the remains of three different people interred there: The Bab, Anis his companion, and 'Abdu'l-Baha. Does Anis have his own page and if so, is it under that title . . .I don't see one, and if his remains are co-mingled with the dust of the Bab, he really should be mentioned.--I'm Nonpartisan 17:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talkcontribs)

Sorry it took a while to answer… so Shrine of `Abdu'l-Bahá is mentioned in that article and the Shrines of each serve distinct purposes. The building and the shrine, in that sense, are distinct things. Anis does not have his own page that I know of. Noting the intermingling is not much mentioned save in the Execution of the Báb page. I suppose it could be woven in. --Smkolins (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually see Shrine of the Báb which mentions Abdu'l-Baha though not Anis…. --Smkolins (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Is it correct to say the Báb was interred in Israel when the country did not yet exist?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes but it's easier to say that he was interred when the lang was called Palestine. --Smkolins (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


His life would have been rather early in the age of photography, but are there any photos? Purple Chez 5/23/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been some claims to photos but the consensus is that they are all someone else. There is a painting or two but I'm not aware of any pictures of them. In any case none that can be loaded in wikipedia.--Smkolins (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Báb/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article seems to have been written by a beleiver in this faith.

Last edited at 09:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bab's photo[edit]

According to what Baha'is believe, the photo of Bab and Bahuallah should not be exposed in public, and they only reveal the photo on special occasions in Haifa. There has been a very long discussion about bahullah's photo which resulted in not showing his photo in the top of the page and instead showing the photo at the bottom of the page with a warning. In the persian(farsi) wikipedia however there are numerous photos/paintings of Bab and Bahuallah which makes many Bahai readers uncomfortable. I tried to change the photos and put photos of their shrine instead, but I was not successful(I did start a conversation though.) I ask any Farsi speaking editor to try to change/remove these photos as they are offensive to over 7 million Bahai followers in the world. Anonymous22001166 (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What's in the name?[edit]

The article gives the subject's name variously as

  1. Mirzā ʿAli Muhammad (infobox: birth name, transliteration)
  2. ʿAli Muhammad Shirāzi (first sentence, transliteration)
  3. /ˈs.jədˈæ.l.mˈhæ.məd.ʃiˈrɑːzi/ (pronunciation in International Phonetic Alphabet)
  4. سيد علی ‌محمد شیرازی (Farsi (Persian) script)

#1 is the only form with "Mirzā".

#2, #3, and #4 all end with "Shirāzi"; #1 does not. It appears to mean "of Shiraz, person of Shiraz".

#3 and #4 both begin with سيد / "Sayed", which does not appear in either of the others. It is an Arabic title of respect that Wiktionary defines as

  1. master, lord, prince
  2. mister
  3. sir
  4. gentleman
  5. Sayyid (title of a male descendant of Mohammed)

These divergences should be explained. I know very little about the Báb or about Persian or Arabic naming customs; I can only draw attention to the issue. --Thnidu (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Thnidu (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bab recanting his claims after his trial and the text of his letter of repentance.[edit]

The last section of the Bab's trial was somewhat unbalanced and did not follow Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy (NPOV). Claims were made that I could not find in one of the sources. In fact the source states contrary to what the editor has inserted in the Wikipedia article. The two last paragraphs also overlapped a lot and they were merged. I also added the relevant section of the Bab's letter of recantation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminator123 (talkcontribs) 21:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's quote this source being cited -

Most sources indicate that the gathering was held on the direct instructions of Muhammad Shah.[21] In its course, the Bab was questioned and given the opportunity to reply and, if he wished, recant. A fatwa condemning him was written by two 'ulama, Abu 'l-Qasim al-Hasani al-Husayni and 'Ali Asghar al-Hasani al-Husayni, two leading Shaykhi 'ulama of the city.22 A separate report of the trial, described by some authors[23] as having been penned by Nasir al-Din Mirza, but in the text ascribed to his uncle, Amir Aslan Khan, was written and almost certainly sent to the king, Muhammad Shah.[24] We also possess a document, supposedly written shortly after this arraignment, and apparently in the Bab's handwriting, in which the young prophet recants any claim to a divine mission.[25]

From this I glean various details about the reports: • The "official report" - ie the fatwa - is a separate document clearly penned by others. • A "separate report" was also clearly penned by others was also sent to the Shah. • A third document, for which MacEoin is citing Browne, is the claimed recantation - so it is neither the "official report" nor the "separate document" that was also sent to the Shah. So the unsigned undated account "supposedly written" by the Bab (I agree this is MacEoin reading of Browne's pov) was certainly not from any official report primary or secondarily sent to the Shah. Moreover according to MacEoin "one of the Bab's answers (number 6: 'I am that person you have been awaiting for one thousand years') occurs in some form in all nine sources, and I think we must conclude that it is the most authentic statement recorded from the trial." and "Certainly, we possess no single account which commands our unreserved respect." I see nothing substantiating an occurrence of a recantation is a trustworthy part of the reports of the trial. As the source does not make it a key point it should not be a focused issue in the summary form of the wikipedia article. What *is* the most trusted aspect of the diverse accounts is the claim quoted above.Smkolins (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)