Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 8

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

What are people's thoughts about including

Chadchumley (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC) More knowledge = more knowledge

Chadchumley (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Technically the Gregorian calendar is not Bahai either. Should we just put the Bahai calendar dates? No.

I don't think anyone would suggest using only Baha'i calendar dates either; I'd be in favour of using only Gregorian dates in the lead. I'm mainly concerned that adding Hijri years, while informative, would needlessly clutter the lead, rendering it less readable (especially for people who aren't familiar with them).

That said, I'm open to discussion on it. I think it makes sense to include some reference to the Hijri date of Bahá'u'lláh's birth, as that would allow for a discussion of His date of birth and why Bahá'ís now celebrate His birth as the Festival of the Twin Holy Birthdays (along with the birth of the Báb). I'm just not convinced that the lead is the right place for it. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I could see the dates down in the text clearly delineated but in the lead seems more likely to confuse at least in an English language wiki. Smkolins (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If someone has the right references, the article should explain the use of titles. When did Baha'u'llah start going by that title? Did he pick it himself? Also should explain what does Mirza and Siyyid mean. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I can do that once I have a moment. The Dawnbreakers discusses the origin of Bahaullah's title at the conference of Badasht. Rm9820 (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There's actually a brief mention of this already in the section "Acceptance of the Báb" Rm9820 (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed the page title and numerous occurrences throughout the page text have Bahá'u'lláh spelled with inconsistent ' and ʼ symbols. My personal preference is not to use smart quotes however if the consensus is to use them then they should at least be consistent. Can the article title and content please be updated to use either Bahá'u'lláh or Baháʼuʼlláh? Stefan939 (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIIW "Bahá'u'lláh" (no smart quotes) is Wikipedia MOS. Is there a reason why the current text is Bahá'uʼlláh (first quote smart, second straight)? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes; it has to do with the correct Bahá’í transliteration rules. The two different apostrophes represent two different Persian letters. Leejordan9 ^✉ 23:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

They sound the same - but they're totally different words you know. And even "Prophet" - the word that was, one suspects, MEANT in this case, is not quite right word - it is not NPOV ("neutral point of view") - "religious leader" is less contentious and more suitable for a general encyclopedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Bahaullah is the profit of the Bahai Faith. Labelling him as a religious leader is inacurrate and misleading. I attempted to make the edit myself but the system refused my changes. I am strongly interested in correcting this inaccurate public information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:A403:D2BA:4CE4:D2BC:BF48:606A (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reason why is an image of the Shrine of Baháʼu'lláh in the infobox instead of a picture of Baháʼu'lláh himself which is featured in the Photographs and imagery section? Cheers, OakMapping (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a debate settled long ago with a consensus to leave it as you see now. Basically, it is a tenant for Baha'is to not display his photographs and only view them on special occasions, such as pilgrimage. The photo on the page was published by an enemy of Baha'is. The consensus was to leave a section dedicated to the photograph issue, instead of a link to the file or on the top of page. See

Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo for the background discussions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk

20:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how do you know that he was an "enemy of Baha'is."?Serv181920 (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, you have done that twice? Why? Didn't Baha'u'llah say:

Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying imposter. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such a claim. Should he repent, God will, assuredly forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! -Baha'u'llah (Kitab-i-Aqdas)

I don't think I've seen that be a major theme in any academic article or general review of Baha'u'llah's life and teachings. It is relatively obscure and I'm not sure it deserves space here. Smkolins (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It is heavily redundant to the previous sentence, which says, "Baháʼu'lláh also taught that the cycles of revelatory renewal will continue in the future, with Manifestations of God appearing about every thousand years and the next one not to be revealed until at least the year 2852 CE." You can't just drop in a sentence and ignore the flow of writing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not. How is that redundant? This is something different, related to the topic. The reader should come to know the claim of Baha'u'llah about those who claim a revelation after him ere the expiration of 1000 years. Don't you think so? Serv181920 (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The main point to get across is that Baha'is expect no new prophets for 1000 years. The logical implication is that anyone claiming a revelation during that time is not actually having a revelation (i.e. lying or delusional). Why would you repeat the same thing two sentences in a row? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I looked through David Barrett's The New Believers and Carol Matthews' New Religions, and neither mentioned the 1,000 year issue. Smith's Introduction to the Baha'i Faith said, "Future Manifestations would arise under the 'shadow' of Baha'u'llah in the millennia to come, though none for at least a thousand years" (p.109). That's the only reference in 213 pages on the Baha'i Faith. Paula Hartz wrote, "Baha’is also understand that in time God will send yet more messengers to guide humanity. Baha’u’llah will not be the last. He promised that another messenger would come after him, after 1,000 years."

In general, quoting primary sources is discouraged. There are thousands of potential quotes from Baha'u'llah that could be added to the page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado Firstly the source that that I have put for lying importer quote is from secondary source so kindly stop calling it primary source. Secondly if something is said By Bahaullah and it has a secondary authentic source then it is inappropriate to revert it. Also I checked the edit done by Serv181920 and the user has put two secondary references. It seems its a common practice for you to just come and revert to pages which does not match your POV.Asad29591 (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The core content policies can be complicated, and in this case the quote you want to cite is a primary source. If the same primary source is quoted in a secondary source along with an explanation, then it can be appropriate to add it to the article as well. In the case of the doctoral thesis you referenced, it says, "Baha'ism is millennial as it prohibits the revelation of another charismatic authority before a thousand years have passed: 'Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor' (Baha'u'llah 1994, 346)." In a Wikipedia article you don't want to support every statement with a primary source, you want to write it as the commentary does that preceded the quote.

The commentary in this wiki article says, "Baháʼu'lláh also taught that the cycles of revelatory renewal will continue in the future, with Manifestations of God appearing about every thousand years and the next one not to be revealed until at least the year 2852 CE."

And finally, weight has to be mentioned. Your reference is a 139 page doctoral thesis about the Baha'i "history, transfiguration, and doxa". I have already mentioned several independent sources I scoured looking for a mention of the issue. Another is Cole's biography in Iranica, which has three paragraphs on Religious doctrines, and also does not even mention the 1000 year issue. It also writes in the style that I mentioned, summarizing the teachings of Baha'u'llah with little to no quoting of primary sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado

In short you are trying to say it does meet wikipedia criteria however its not matching Cunado criteria and hence being removed.

Reference for lying Imposter:

1. New Keys to the Book of Revelation By Ruth J. Moffett · 1977 -> Page 133.

2. Behai Quarterly -Devoted to the Teachings of the Great Sun of Truth which Appeared on the Horizon of the East "Beha'U'llah." · Volumes 1-4 -> Pg 17 and Pg 19.

3. Writings of Bahá'u'lláh -A Compilation By Baháʼuʼlláh · 1994 -> Page 161.

4. Baha'i Writings A Concordance By Hugh Carden · 1975 -> Page 81.

5. Baha'is in Exile -By Ph. D. Vernon Elvin Johnson · 2020 -> Page 114.

6. Bahá'u'lláh A Brief Survey of His Life and His Works By Shahrokh Monjazeb · 2007 -> Page 147.

7. The Face of God Among Us How the Creator Educates Humanity By John S. Hatcher · 2010 -> Page 140.

8. Promises Fulfilled by Nabil Hanna -> Page 215 under section Future Manifestation of God.

9. The world order of Bahaullah -> it is available on Baha'i Reference library under Authoritative Writings and Guidance.

10. Baha'u'llah in His Own Words By Peter Terry · 2009 -> Page 103. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad29591 (talk • contribs)

Hi Asad29591, The "lying impostor" thing is already there in the article. I would suggest you add more citations to it as Taherzadeh is not a very good source.Serv181920 (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Johnson is the best of those sources as far as meeting WP:RS. Please go ahead and add it. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I see you already added it. Please ignore me haha. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The ancestry section needs to be edited to clarify that he CLAIMED that ancestry. Right now, the section makes it sound like he truly does come from a long line of Kings. That claim should not be made on Wikipedia without extensive verification Science Is My Life (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I did a brief read through of the history of the discussion regarding whether or not to display the photo, but from what I can tell, there was never any real discussion regarding *how* to display it a respectful manner.

I am curious why no real discussions seems to have been had on either:

1. putting the photo where it normally would be and instead blurring it out with some JS and letting users click on it to unblur it or
2. putting the photo where it normally would be and instead making the photo collapsed by default.

The only discussion I see regarding making it collapsible is here [1] and it never gained much traction. kinda curious why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by For death and glory (talk • contribs) 06:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Because it is non-standard practice and doesn't solve anything. Years of discussion - years - have arrived at this concensus. Smkolins (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, the current solution is also non-standard practice and I don't see how my suggestions don't solve anything. Non-Baha'i's who want to view the photo can toggle the pic and Baha'i's who want to avoid the pic get their requirement fulfilled. Even more so in my opinion cause in the current layout, they may accidentally see it if they scroll down enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by For death and glory (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

See

WP:CENSOR, or Depictions of Muhammad#Wikipedia article, if you want to get an idea of the issue. Cuñado ☼ - Talk

20:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

However, we could put an item near the top of this talk page to explain how logged-in users can block the image of Baha'ullah from appearing for themselves based on Help:Options to hide an image. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur with others here, NOTCENSORED applies. the priority is to be informative, and appropriate illustrations complement the text in that regard. naturally, this will sometimes run afoul of religious or other prohibitions, but we shouldn't compromise on content just to appease a particular faction, however passionate they may be. Metropolitan's idea, just above, is a good one IMO. Xcalibur (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

To display an image of any Messenger is just not necessary. The physical image of anyone is not important. It's their lives work and the impact they had on humanity and the good they did that needs to be the focus, not the picture of what they looked like. That can lead to idolatry and worshipping pictures and things instead of worshipping The One and Only God. Which is the whole reason why He sends Messengers progressively over time in different parts of the world to bring the focus back on God and not the religion that had become stale and in need of regeneration. Then humanity repeats the process by literally killing them and their followers and we're sitting here wondering why the world is messed up because our leaders for the most part have been insane, narcissistic tyrants that we just love to put in positions of "power". Have Faith and pray and don't worry about that someone's body looked like, instead focus on their actions and words and deeds. Peace. 107.242.113.24 (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Point taken -- appearances are insignificant compared to words/actions/deeds. And in fact, the article is focused on the life and teachings of this prophet, with photos as a complementary detail. Naturally, some illustrations will offend religious sensibilities, but being informative takes precedence over the desires of a particular faction, however strong they may be. Otherwise, it would be impossible to have a neutral, informative encyclopedia. So, we follow the policies of adding proportionate photos/illustrations of the subject of interest. Xcalibur (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

His family lingue tracks to both Iran and Afghanistan as per Abdul-Baha, can someone add this in the right section?

"Bahá’u’lláh too is a lineal descendant of Abraham, for Abraham had other sons besides Ishmael and Isaac who in those days emigrated to the regions of Persia and Afghanistan, and the Blessed Beauty is one of their descendants. (https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/search#q=Afghanistan)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:AB41:8F00:CC21:32D0:294C:7ED9 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears this article hasn't had a major revision in many years. I've put together a draft rewrite of the page in my sandbox. If interested, please look it over and share thoughts. Meditating (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you spent a lot of time on it already. Thanks for your contributions, since this article could use a makeover. At first glance, your draft needs some cleanup and reorganizing before moving to mainspace. The main issue is that the tone should reflect how Baha'u'llah is described in neutral sources. For example, Iranica, BBC, Britannica, Pluralism Project, or Smith's Concise Encyclopedia are all good sources to get a summary and structure for the article.

If we can move some of the extra stuff in the lead sentence out (born Mírzá[b] Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí; Persian: میرزا حسین‌علی نوری‎ ; 1817–1892), that would help a lot. Excessive details in the first parenthesis make it hard to read. The other sources mostly just say (Arabic: "Glory of God") or something like that. Maybe it needs a new first section to describe the name, title, pronunciation, etc.

I'll try to work on the draft a bit. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Meditating, for your hard work towards expanding the article. It's great to see more information added, since some sections (such as the Writings section) are pretty piecemeal in the existing version. After Cuñado is done any changes he thinks are necessary, I have no issue with your new version replacing what's currently there.

I'm a bit concerned that the sources used are almost entirely Baha'i sources, which could lead to an over-representation of Baha'i views on the article topic and thus go against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (see

WP:RS

). Abbas Amanat is an example of a non-Baha'i scholar who has worked on the history of that period, though his main book on the topic only goes up to 1850 to my knowledge. Denis MacEoin's book The Messiah of Shiraz goes a bit further, I think.

Anyway, I think it's fine to publish your version with some tweaks and then make improvements from there. I'll keep the existing version in a sandbox just for comparison afterwards. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia's coverage of the Baha'i Faith! Gazelle55 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging comments, Gazelle55, especially about the added information which I am hoping builds a more well-rounded article. Your bit of concern about sources and NPOV is something I've been trying to work more on. After Cuñado brought up about neutral sources, I've been going through various info points in the article to replace sources I had used with others from publishers that should generally be considered neutral. I appreciate your shared thoughts/advice on ways to improve this article, which I'll try to keep in mind as I do more tweaks before publishing. Meditating (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Great to hear, and thanks again for your time and effort. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I don't see any free time in the next 1-2 weeks. If you want to move it over to mainspace sooner, I think that's fine and I can keep working on it there. Or if you don't mind the wait I'll eventually get to it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Per earlier input from you and Gazelle55, I've switched many Bahá'í citation sources to reliable non-Bahá'í references, reorganized and reworded parts, and cut some unimportant details. I feel the revised article now offers a well-rounded, more in-depth, NPOV view of Bahá'u'lláh for readers. I feel it's ready to move to mainspace, so I'll probably do that later today after some final tweaks. Thanks again to you both. Meditating (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• A tremendous amount of work. I think there are a few comparatively syntactical problems and I'm concerned about the picture 'Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh, with Mansion of Bahjí in background' [2] which seems to have had some photo editing attempting to highlight shadows or something. I'd prefer one that was more natural. Lot's to look over! Congrats! Smkolins (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest [3] or [4] as potential alternatives to that picture if the goal is to provide a more environmental look at Bahji. I favor the second one alittle though it looses a sense of the space. Smkolins (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Smkolins for the suggestion to use another image, after looking more closely at the one prevously used I see it does look like it may have been edited somehow. Meditating (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I've read about half and I have a number of suggestions for consideration:

Wow, that's a list of suggestions Smkolins. I'll try to respond to each below. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Soon after declaring his spiritual mission to Mullá Husayn,[f] the Báb sent him to Tehran to deliver a special tablet[g] to Bahá’u’lláh."

• My understanding of the sources is that Husayn didn't know it was going to go to Baha'u'llah at the outset - Husay determined Baha'u'llah was the intended one after spending some time in Tehran. So perhaps "…the Báb sent him to Tehran to deliver a special tablet[g] promising he would figure out to whom it was intended and picked Bahá’u’lláh."

Ok, I’ve made what transpired clearer & given a citation. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"In his teachings the Báb identifies himself as the first of two Manifestations of God whom the Creator …"

• 'Creator' might be replaced with the more generic 'God'?

It gets monotonous using “God” all the time, so for variety’s I feel readers appreciate some variety when terms such as “Creator” and “Lord” are used sometimes. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… at least 10,000 Bábís …"

• 'ten thousand' to me conveys the scale without the appearance of some kind of precision.

The citation from Saiedi says “about”, while others say it may have been more, so wording seems ok. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…in the notorious Síyáh-Chál of Tehran…"

Síyáh-Chál, the subterranean prison, of Tehran

Ok “subterranean” is good. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… a manifestation of God, the Promised One heralded…"

To me it is odd to capitalize one and not the other - and is not the 'Manifestation of God' the name of a thing and so should be capitalized?

“manifestation” isn’t capitalized as he is one of many in a category, but the “Promised One” is a specific being. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…1853 Baháʼu'lláh with family members…"

I suggest "…with three of his four family members, his newest infant too young to undertake the voyage…"

For an overview article, it’s always challenging to decide if certain specifics are necessary or not, as adding them can make things quite detailed and even tedious. I felt this wasn’t particularly important to add, and doing so would then require something being said later about how the child was finally reunited with Bahá’u’lláh. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… flagging spirits of persecuted followers of the Báb in Iran."

Suggest Persia for two reasons - one is period term and second is the looser definition of the lands included as Babis were beyond the strict land of 'Iran'.

In Farsi, the word for “Persia” is “Iran”. Also, control of borders for Iran have frequently changed as the political situations has fluctuated with its neighbors and other powers. Like with using different words for “God”, I think it’s fine to use either word on occasion. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…Yahya left Iran in disguise…"

Again, Persia?

Both words are really interchangeable, and it gets tiring to use one only – like with “God”, so using the other term once in a while is ok. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…advent of the promised one."

'promised one' should be capitalized because it is a specific person suggested, a kind of name of that person?

Yes, per what I said above – it is the specific “Promised One”. Thanks. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…by secretly spreading false rumors…"

I suggest 'privately' as it was not intended to be actually secret as it was meant to be shared. I'm open to another word, or even dropping the word.

Good point, I’ll simply drop “secret”. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… near Sulaymaniyyih in Kurdistan…"

add 'to the north' for general reference/readability.

Ok. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… reached Bábí friends in Baghdad they suspected it was Bahá’u’lláh and asked one of his relatives to locate and beg him …"

Perhaps 'reached Bábí friends and his family in Baghdad… and asked 'Abdu'l-Baha' to locate and beg him…

This basic description seems fine. Taherzadeh (in “Child of the Covenant, p. 65”) specifically says it was Shaykh Sultan, Mirza Musa's father-in-law, a staunch Bábí, who went to Sulaymaniyyih to find Bahá'u'lláh and beg Him to return. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… verdant Najibiyyih garden-park on the other side."

I suggest add 'at the invitation of an admirer.'

Ok, I put something about it. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…declared to his companions that he was…"

I suggest 'declared to some of his companions'…

Per H&M (and BIC booklet “Bahá’u’lláh”) his declaration was made to all companions, he’d specifically chosen them to accompany him. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…various government ministers of the sultan,… (and) the prime minister suggested the sultan banish …"

Should sultan be capitalized because it is a specific one?

Yes; fixed it. Thnx. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… to their Faith if he assassinated…"

I suggest 'religion'.

Okay. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…Yahya “always has been thinking in this way.” "

That quote needs a citation I think.

Done; tweaked wording and added citation. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"…he was God’s latest manifestation, the promised one of the Báb."

In this case I'm fine with 'manifestation' not being capitalized because it's a category but then Promised One seems to be specific and deserves capitalizing.

Yes, per up above re this. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"… the Báb’s teachings about the promised one…"

I suggest capitalizing to Promised One because it is specific.

Yes, per above. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Smkolins (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

About [5] my reasoning on the age was a way of conveying that Abdu'l-Baha was acting as the contact person, an assistant to Baha'u'llah. I agree the age itself isn't relevant perse but I do think conveying why the meeting was with Abdu'l-Baha is relevant. I'm open to how that can be done. Smkolins (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The Dr’s letter to The Times says Bahá’u’lláh “does not readily concede an interview to strangers… We were received by his son…”, so I’ll find a way to mention why it was 'Abdu'l-Bahá. Meditating (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll get back to general review and suggestions later but I wanted to address the Iran vs Persia detail more. In Farsi the words might be interchangeable and good writing aided by flexible word use, but in my experience in English the words are distinct. For example you never hear of the 'Iranian Empire' but only the 'Persian Empire'. Beyond that Persia conveys an historical reference whereas Iran conveys the more or less present, again, in English. This is also why we use period wikilinks in a variety of spaces rather than their modern connections. But I'll see what others have to say on this. Smkolins (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

On the last point, my sense was similar to what Smkolins said, that Iran is used mainly to refer to the modern state in English. However, Iran#Name seems to disagree, saying that the term Iran isn't only for the modern period. So in the end no strong opinion on which should be used, though I do support mentioning/linking to Qajar Persia specifically where appropriate.

More generally, thanks Meditating for your revisions and I hope to look at them soon. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Meditating, I think Cuñado's revisions highly meritorious - most especially moving the whole name grammar stuff down to its own section and overall shrinking of the lead sections. Smkolins (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

See

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)

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)

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)

Am not a fan of

Baha'u'llah but do you mind offering some credible sources for your false allegations, such as "..instigation of violence, including book burning and misappropriation of property, promoted by the Bab..."; and preferably sources that do not originate with state or seminary propaganda connected to the Islamic Republic of Iran? Qalandar303 (talk

) 08:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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.
  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.
  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:

*

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: -

*

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)

You seem to have your history and chronologies completely garbled, while verbatim regurgitating narratives made popular by state and seminary sources located in Iran. Qalandar303 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• 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
  )\

• 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
  )\

"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." [1]

"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." ^[2]

"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."^[3]

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,

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)

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)

Please offer credible sources for your false claims that are not located in state, seminary or hostile Qajar era sources. Qalandar303 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"The Bab gave very clear instructions to kill non-Babi's"

Where?

"..to burn non-Babi books..."

Where?

" and to seize the possessions of non-Babi's."

Under a Babi state in a Babi state, yes. But was there a Babi state in Iran between 1844-50?

"That the Bab's instigation of violence and disorder elicited a military response from the government was inevitable."

Actually, the violence was first instigated by the clergy followed by the state in toe. But the projection and cognitive dissonance here are simply amazing for anyone who knows this history as well as the history of modern Iran, since every last thing you are accusing the Babis are actually things that the Ayatollah Khomeini, his supporters and the Islamic Republic of Iran have actually done; that is, unless you forget that the Islamic Republic came into being by means of a violent revolution that overthrew the Iranian state under the Pahlavis. But you lot have the gall to accuse the Babis of wanting to overthrow a state, clerical elite and dynasty which itself came into being by violently overthrowing another before it: the Zands.

I don't think you want to walk down that road lest your unsourced, biased arguments blow up in your face one by one. Qalandar303 (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)