Talk:Baháʼu'lláh

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

Hello, I am a Baha'i and am humbling requesting that the photograph of Baha'u'llah be removed from the page, or at least put towards the bottom with a disclaimer. It is currently there as a portrait. Baha'u'llah's photograph is considered sacred to us and only to be viewed in a setting of reverence, and by placing it on the Wikipedia page it opens it up to online desecration through photoshopping and idolatry. The Baha'i Faith has very similar rules about depictions of religious figures to Islam, and this matter is nearly identical to not having illustrations of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) on his Wikipedia page. I am asking you to remove it out of respect for Baha'u'llah and his followers worldwide. Thank you. Napoleondehuette (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, honestly, but standing precedent means the best we can hope for is an option to hide the image. Education-over-easy (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing the image in question based on its religious significance to certain people would violate the principle of neutrality that Wikipedia seeks to uphold. Wikipedia refrains from censoring its content in favour of any specific faith. Removing content that people find offensive while balancing that with neutrality would rapidly become impossible. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, removing or collapsing the image is not an option for Wikipedia. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Tone and Neutrality

Is it just me, or does this article read differently from others on Wikipedia?

It goes into extreme specifics about mundane, ordinary details and it reproduces the narrative style of the sources it relies on in many instances.

This article reads like it is based on primary, not secondary, sources and fails to adopt a consistent, neutral, and obective tone throughout.

I'd say it needs an overhaul.

Image24 (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Reposting my comment from August 2023: "This article was re-written in December 2021, discussed here. All three editors commenting on the proposal noted that the re-write has a neutrality problem and it needs further work. The lead was re-written but I think everyone currently active would agree that most of the article needs NPOV improvement... The article should present the subject with the weight found in modern reliable sources (independent experts that have done the synthesis of the primary sources)."

So yes, I agree, and I have a huge stack of sources to work with, but it would take days. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Picture of Baha’u’llah

It was my understanding that to view a picture of Baha’u’llah, one needed to make a pilgrimage to Haifa. Only pictures of Abdul’Baha were shown publicly. 104.247.231.251 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If you'd rather not see the image, there are instructions at the top of the page explaining how to do so. Woodroar (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Picture of Baha'u'llah

Bahá’ís prefer not to have the picture of Baha’u’llah displayed in public. Bahais will display the picture of Abdul Baha, Baha’u’llah’s son and the perfect exemplar of the Baha’i Faith in their homes but not the picture of Baha’u’llah. Bahá’ís are asked to treat the image of any Manifestation of God with extreme reverence. It is for this reason we could replacing the picture of Baha’u’llah with Abd'u'lbaha. It maybe a picture of Abdul Baha would be better than a blank. Dariush.farrokhi (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to hide the image (for yourself), there are instructions at the top of the page or at Help:Options to hide an image. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a photo of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá as the main image for an article about Baháʼu'lláh doesn't really make much sense. You can just do what Woodroar said and hide the image for yourself. Unpicked6291 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. WP Ludicer (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Photograph of Baha'u'llah

The Bahá'í Faith holds any images of Baha'u'llah as extremely sacred and it is a vital belief and consensus among all Bahá'ís that His depiction should never be publicly displayed. To all members of the Bahá'í community ,and many people outside of it, the inclusion of His image in this article is distressing and a sign of immense disrespect. This is not a matter of personal preference or exercising your rights, it is a matter of clear religious principle (such as avoiding the depiction of Muhammad.)

Wikipedia contains "Neutrality and Ethical Standards", striving for neutrality and respect towards all religious communities whether containing 5 or 5 billion people. Any image that goes against these religious adherents is purely contradictory to Wikipedia's standards and policy.

The existence of this image provides no cultural or significant educational value to the article and there are many satisfactory replacements for the image that can be found online (NOT including other photos of Baha'u'llah). Some examples include a calligraphic rendering of Baha'u'llah's name or a relevant artistic depiction. These solutions maintain the articles integrity while also adhering to Bahá'í beliefs.

Whilst many people argue that removal of these images could be considered censorship or a restriction of freedom of press, it is certainly neither of these. This is an acknowledgement of religious and ethical considerations. This a matter of respect towards tens-of-millions of people worldwide and a matter of respecting peoples religious beliefs. These images were never intended to be publicly released and they were only displayed after being stolen by 'Covenant breakers" (people trying to purposefully sabotage The Faith) and freedom of information is not inclusive of offensive content.

Ultimately, the image of Baha'u'llah on this page goes against Wikipedia's standards and isn't a matter of suppressing history or censoring knowledge; rather the removal of the image would be a solution to ensuring Wikipedia remains a inclusive and respectful platform. I would please ask, on behalf of many people, that you consider my request. Please feel free to discuss this matter further.

Thanks for your time.

Below is a message from the Universal House of Justice regarding the use of Baha'u'llah's depiction and photographs: https://bahai-library.com/uhj_website_photo_bahaullah

Dasino30 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dasino30 The same principle applies here as applies with images of Muhammad: they are used when they are germane to the article. The section above has instructions on how you can configure your account to avoid seeing the images. —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

But the image in this article is not really germane. Even though it has a slight relevance it doesn't provide anything additional to the article. Also, while some images of Muhammad remain on Wikipedia, many have been removed, or at least moved somewhere different. There is a precedent for modifying content in cases where an image is not essential to understanding the subject. The presence of the image is much more harmful and controversial, than it is informative. Allowing its removal doesn't go against Wikipedias standards but rather aligns with past instances where religious concerns have been taken into account.

Additionally, this is not only about individuals avoiding the image , but whether as a neutral platform it is acceptable to host an image that deeply offends millions of people. There are many other respectful alternatives, as I mentioned earlier.

Thanks. Dasino30 (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dasino30 <<His depiction should never be publicly displayed>>

It is a rule that ONLY the people of this faith should follow. The rules of each faith apply only to its adherents. GeorgeMarg (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

While your correct, you also have to consider the accessibility of Wikipedia and as a result of the image being on this platform many people's religious beliefs are being disrespected. Essentially, the photo Baha'u'llah on this page causes many Bahá'ís to essentially commit a wrongdoing. Additionally, this is not only about individuals avoiding the image , but whether as a neutral platform it is acceptable to host an image that deeply offends millions of people. There are many other respectful alternatives, as I mentioned earlier.

The presence of the image is much more harmful and controversial, than it is informative. Allowing its removal doesn't go against Wikipedias standards but rather aligns with past instances where religious concerns have been taken into account. Dasino30 (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dasino30 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that upholds neutrality and the free dissemination of knowledge. Removing a historical image solely because some find it offensive would set a dangerous precedent. Many groups, religious or otherwise, may find various historical facts or images objectionable, but that does not mean Wikipedia should censor its content to accommodate their beliefs.

You argue that the mere presence of the image forces Bahá'ís to "commit wrongdoing." But this is a matter of personal choice—no one is compelled to view the image. Claiming that its existence in a public space puts them in a moral dilemma implies an expectation that the rest of the world should conform to their religious rules, which is not how a neutral and open platform functions.

Furthermore, the claim that removing the image would not be censorship is incorrect. Wikipedia does not remove content simply because it offends certain groups—if it did, any group could demand the removal of articles, images, or facts they dislike. That would undermine Wikipedia’s role as a neutral and independent source of knowledge.

I fully respect that Bahá'ís choose not to view this image, and they have every right to do so. However, the solution is not to demand its removal for everyone. Those who do not wish to see it can avoid the page or use tools to block images. Free access to information should not be subject to religious restrictions.

Wikipedia is not a religious text or a place of worship. GeorgeMarg (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)