Talk:Baháʼu'lláh

Blatant pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia

"Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith)," - Muhammad talk page

True.

"Q4: Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad? A4: This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artists' depictions further down in the article. "

Blatant hypocrisy. The identical case here with Baha'u'llah, yet the picture is free for all to see at the very top of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_symbols#The_Greatest_Name

Wikipedia is clearly either foregoing neutrality to appease radical Muslims/applying a different standard to discussions surrounding Islam, or outright discriminating against Bahá'í and other religions by being more prepared to mock them.

This is 100% unacceptable. 145.40.150.167 (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@145.40.150.167 This is not the same case at all. The key difference is that we do not have actual photographs of Muhammad, while we do have a historical photograph of Bahá'u'lláh. The reason the Muhammad article uses a calligraphic depiction in the infobox is not because Wikipedia is "appeasing radical Muslims," but because calligraphy is the most widely recognized and historically relevant way Muhammad has been depicted in Islamic culture. However, artistic depictions of Muhammad still exist further down in the article.

In contrast, the photograph of Bahá'u'lláh is a real, verifiable historical artifact, not an artistic interpretation. Wikipedia's goal is to present factual and historical information, not to cater to religious restrictions. Removing a historically significant photograph simply because a religious group objects to it would be censorship, which goes against Wikipedia’s core principles.

If we had authentic, historical photographs of Muhammad, they would absolutely belong on Wikipedia as well. But we don't—so this is not a case of hypocrisy, just a difference in available historical material. GeorgeMarg (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The argument fails to account for the ethical and community-sensitive dimensions that Wikipedia also considers, especially in cases involving living religious traditions. While it is true that Wikipedia prioritizes verifiable information, it also seeks to maintain a balance between factual accuracy and respect for the beliefs of its global readership—particularly when a significant religious community considers a particular action to be profoundly disrespectful or harmful.

The comparison with Muhammad is more apt than the original argument allows. While Wikipedia does not use a photograph of Muhammad in the infobox (because none exist), it also chooses not to use certain historical artistic depictions in that prime location, precisely out of respect for Islamic sensibilities. This decision is informed by consensus among editors, not by fear or “appeasement,” and reflects a long-standing Wikipedia principle of avoiding unnecessary offense, particularly in lead images.

In the case of Bahá’u’lláh, the Bahá’í community—unlike many Islamic sects which have varied positions on depictions—has a unified and clearly expressed position: viewing images of Bahá’u’lláh should be done with great reverence and only in certain contexts. The insistence on placing his photograph in a prominent, potentially casual or disrespectful display contradicts the principle of minimal harm, especially when such an image is not essential to understanding the subject. Readers can still access the image through links or secondary sections, just as they do with depictions of Muhammad.

Therefore, choosing not to display the image prominently is not censorship—it is a considered act of editorial responsibility. Wikipedia is not obligated to present every verified artifact in every possible location, especially when doing so may alienate or harm a specific community. Neutrality does not mean ignoring the context in which knowledge is received. 2600:1700:D02:C64F:35A1:11D6:2B09:9C22 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@2600:1700:D02:C64F:35A1:11D6:2B09:9C22 I appreciate the thoughtful argument, but I strongly disagree with its conclusions, particularly with the framing of this as an ethical obligation.

Wikipedia's core principle is the verifiable presentation of knowledge, not the tailoring of content to accommodate the doctrines of any religious group—no matter how unified or sincere those beliefs may be. While sensitivity is important, it does not override the commitment to neutrality, completeness, or historical accuracy.

The comparison with Muhammad breaks down on a fundamental level: there is no photograph of Muhammad. Any artistic depictions are interpretive and culturally specific. In contrast, the photo of Bahá’u’lláh is a real, historical artifact—not a stylized or speculative rendering. That is a crucial distinction. The placement of calligraphy in Muhammad’s infobox is not equivalent to hiding a historical photo.

Moreover, Wikipedia does not exist to enforce religious taboos on the global public. Religious prohibitions are binding only on followers of that religion. It is not Wikipedia’s role to uphold them universally. If we follow the logic that anything deemed “disrespectful” by a religious group must be hidden, we invite a slippery slope of global censorship—where almost any content can be removed or restricted based on subjective offense.

And let’s be clear: offense is not harm. There is no demonstrable harm caused by the respectful display of a historical image. Readers who are uncomfortable can scroll past, use image blockers, or choose not to visit the page. That’s autonomy. But removing verifiable content to spare feelings is not editorial responsibility—it’s erasure.

Wikipedia cannot remain a reliable and neutral platform if it begins selectively applying religious deference to some traditions and not others. What you're proposing isn’t ethical sensitivity; it’s doctrinal accommodation, and that has no place in a secular encyclopedia. GeorgeMarg (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You frame your argument as a defense of neutrality, historical accuracy, and resistance to religious accommodation. But your framing conceals an important reality: what you call “neutrality” is itself a moral stance—one deeply rooted in the Western liberal tradition, which elevates individual autonomy, secularism, and unrestricted access to information as supreme values. This is not a neutral position; it is a value-laden one.

Wikipedia’s editorial choices are never value-free. Decisions about notability, relevance, imagery, and emphasis are all shaped by cultural judgments. Pretending that the inclusion of an image is a purely factual act, detached from moral or social meaning, ignores how knowledge is always presented within ethical and political frameworks. Upholding “neutrality” often masks the imposition of dominant norms while dismissing the deeply felt ethical concerns of others as irrational or inappropriate.

You argue that the image of Bahá’u’lláh is a “real, historical artifact.” That is true. But so are countless images and artifacts that Wikipedia does not display out of respect for cultural, ethical, or even aesthetic considerations. Museums and archives routinely restrict access to certain images—of the deceased, of sacred rituals, of culturally sensitive materials—not because they deny their historical reality, but because they recognize that respect and epistemic responsibility are also values. Refusing to show an image out of respect is not “erasure,” it’s ethical discernment.

The idea that offense is not harm relies on a narrow, individualistic view of harm. For Bahá’ís, viewing the image of Bahá’u’lláh is not just personally offensive; it’s a violation of a sacred covenant. The pain isn’t aesthetic discomfort—it’s a spiritual injury tied to a deeply held moral structure. Dismissing that as irrelevant because it doesn’t fit your preferred definition of harm demonstrates a lack of pluralism, not a commitment to truth.

Finally, your appeal to the “slippery slope” of religious accommodation presumes that every request for respect is equivalent. But editorial judgment is always about discerning boundaries. Wikipedia already makes nuanced calls about what is undue weight, sensationalism, or gratuitous content. The question here is whether the display of a particular image adds meaningful knowledge, or whether it violates the dignity of a religious group without sufficient epistemic justification.

To decline to display this image is not to “enforce” a religious taboo on others—it is to recognize that knowledge, when responsibly shared, requires humility, not just assertion. True neutrality doesn’t mean flattening every perspective into a secular mold; it means understanding that what is presented, and how, carries moral weight—and sometimes, restraint is the more ethical path. 2601:2C3:CE80:6FC0:A123:BB1E:72D6:DAE1 (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Likewise, the line of thinking I have articulated is not predicated on the notion that existence of the image on the page itself, but rather its prominence and centrality. Making the user complete additional steps to access the photograph is not censorship nor is it capitulating to religious doctrine. 2601:2C3:CE80:6FC0:A123:BB1E:72D6:DAE1 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia tends to use Muhammed as the example of how to hide an image that a logged in user doesn't want to see - Help:Options to hide an image. I'd by happy to work with anyone in that regard to what the entry would have to look this for this picture and where the logged in user would have to place it. Same applies to those who have objects to the various images related to Muhammed.Naraht (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@2601:2C3:CE80:6FC0:A123:BB1E:72D6:DAE1 I appreciate the philosophical depth of your reply, but I think you've taken a detour into abstraction that misses the operational realities of what Wikipedia is and how it functions. Yes, neutrality is not value-free—but that's not the gotcha you think it is. It's a recognition that, in the messy world of pluralistic discourse, Wikipedia must anchor itself in some consistent principle. And that principle is verifiability, not deferential pluralism.

You argue that my appeal to neutrality reflects a Western liberal worldview, but ironically, your alternative—suppressing content based on religious sensitivities—is itself rooted in a particular moral framework. So let’s not pretend that your position is morally agnostic or culturally transcendent. It’s not pluralism to enforce the ethical norms of a single faith tradition on a global knowledge platform. That’s doctrinal preference dressed up as editorial discernment.

Also, the museum analogy is seductive but flawed. Museums curate physical spaces with finite capacity and specific cultural missions. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia whose mission is open, accessible knowledge. A museum may restrict access to an artifact for conservation; Wikipedia, by contrast, has no such constraints—except the ones we invent to soothe discomfort.

You bring up “epistemic responsibility.” I’d argue that such responsibility includes resisting the idea that “spiritual injury”—a profoundly subjective concept—should override the presentation of factual, historical materials. By your logic, a community that believes maps of the Earth are offensive could demand flat-Earth cosmology be given equal prominence.

And let’s talk about your core point: that the issue is not the existence of the image but its prominence. That’s the polite way of saying: yes, you can show it, but hide it. Let’s not sugar-coat that for what it is: the suppression of verifiable content from the most visible, informative part of the article—not because it’s inaccurate, not because it’s offensive to most, but because one group finds it religiously inappropriate. That’s not a pluralistic compromise; that’s editorial surrender.

Wikipedia doesn’t show respect by dimming the lights on truth. It shows respect by offering accurate information with context, and trusting readers to navigate it with maturity. If that’s a liberal value, I’ll wear the badge gladly. But let’s not pretend the alternative is ethically neutral. It’s not humility to hide the truth—it’s abdication. GeorgeMarg (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

First, the claim that verifiability is the single principle anchoring Wikipedia in a pluralistic world overlooks the layered nature of Wikipedia’s policies. Verifiability governs whether content may be included—it does not determine where, how, or in what prominence it must appear. Those matters are shaped by editorial judgment through policies like Neutral Point of View, Due Weight, and the Image Use Policy. When these principles intersect, decisions about placement are not simply questions of access, but of presentation ethics—how factual material is introduced to readers in a way that maintains both integrity and respect for the global diversity of its audience.

Next, the objection that removing the image from the infobox imposes a religious norm on a public platform misrepresents what is being requested. No one is asking that the image be hidden, deleted, or even deemphasized in the article. The request is solely to avoid automatic display in the most prominent visual space, especially when doing so means overriding a deeply held religious conviction and historical context. This is not the enforcement of doctrine—it is editorial discernment based on documented communal norms, similar to the accepted handling of images of Muhammad in Wikipedia’s infobox policy practice. The platform has already established that there are circumstances in which placement—not inclusion—is negotiable when it risks violating the spiritual boundaries of major global communities. That is not surrender; it is coherence with past editorial practice.

The point about Wikipedia not having the space constraints of a museum is correct but beside the point. The analogy is not about physical limits—it is about curatorial responsibility. Museums and encyclopedias both shape perception by how and where they present material. In Wikipedia’s case, the infobox is a curated summary and visual identifier. Its contents are not purely factual—they are intentionally selective. Elevating an image into that space implies not just verifiability, but representational authority. In this case, it grants visual primacy to an image whose very presence in the public domain is ethically contested.

And that is where the matter of provenance becomes unavoidable. This image of Bahá’u’lláh was not released voluntarily. It was photographed without his consent and safeguarded by his family and followers with the express understanding that it not be publicly displayed. Its modern circulation arose from an unauthorized reproduction and digitization in direct violation of that tradition. If this image were of any other religious figure—taken against their explicit instructions, and leaked despite their descendants’ efforts to preserve its sanctity—there would be a very different tone to this discussion. The ethics of acquisition are central in any historical and archival discourse, and they must be part of how we evaluate how an image is used—not just whether it exists.

As for the analogy to flat-Earth claims, it collapses under scrutiny. The flat-Earth community does not hold a centuries-long spiritual tradition, globally observed, with a clear and consistent position on the sanctity of a particular image. Equating the Bahá’í Faith’s position with pseudoscientific denialism is not only a false equivalence—it is an erasure of legitimate spiritual harm under the cover of rhetorical flourish. Spiritual injury may be subjectively experienced, but its legitimacy in editorial practice is determined not by whether it’s felt, but whether it’s (1) widely recognized within the affected community, (2) well-documented, and (3) avoidable without compromising access. All three are clearly met here.

Finally, to call the request “editorial surrender” misrepresents what’s actually at stake. The image would remain publicly available, contextualized, and preserved. The historical fact of its existence is not in question. What is in question is whether ethical complexity—particularly around consent, representation, and cultural autonomy—should be flattened in the name of a narrow reading of “truth.” Wikipedia does not diminish truth by making it contextually accessible rather than forcibly prominent. On the contrary, it honors the full truth, including the truth about how that image came to be public in the first place, and what that visibility means for the community it concerns.

Refusing to place an image with such ethically contested origins and sacred implications in the infobox is not hiding the truth. It is refusing to elevate one way of seeing over another. It is not abdication. It is integrity. 2601:2C0:8E00:1750:8060:85B4:49D8:B39B (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@2601:2C0:8E00:1750:8060:85B4:49D8:B39B

Thank you again for a thorough and principled reply. I respect the sincerity behind your arguments, but I maintain that the proposed removal of Bahá’u’lláh’s image from the infobox represents a shift away from neutrality and toward deference to theological sensitivities that, while deeply held, are incompatible with the role and purpose of a public encyclopedia.

1. Presentation ethics must still be policy-bound.

You’re right that verifiability is not the only principle—but it is the bedrock. Placement, prominence, and framing are subject to other policies like NPOV and Due Weight, but none of those grants veto power to religious discomfort alone. The infobox image serves a well-established function: to present notable, representative, and factually accurate depictions of the subject. Unless the image is misleading, gratuitous, or irrelevant—none of which apply here—it meets the criteria. “Respect” cannot become a policy wildcard that overrides encyclopedic value.

2. The precedent from Muhammad is not analogous.

That argument keeps recurring, but it still doesn’t hold. Wikipedia articles on Muhammad do include depictions—some quite early in the article. The absence of an image in the infobox is not a codified editorial concession; it’s the result of historical image availability and consensus-driven pragmatism, not a policy of preemptive religious accommodation. No Wikipedia guideline mandates avoiding images in infoboxes due to spiritual taboo. And more importantly: the image of Bahá’u’lláh exists, is authentic, and has encyclopedic relevance. That changes the calculus.

3. Provenance, while ethically interesting, is editorially irrelevant.

We don’t retroactively erase public-domain material because the subject or their community might have wished otherwise. Countless public figures have been photographed, quoted, or recorded without consent. Wikipedia doesn’t censor based on the moral discomfort of how information became available—it curates based on factual integrity and relevance. The claim that using the image legitimizes an “ethical violation” is subjective and theological, not editorial. Wikipedia is not here to correct historical wrongs; it is here to present the record.

4. The image is encyclopedic, not ideological.

You say the image “elevates one way of seeing over another.” But that’s true of all images on Wikipedia. An infobox image by default privileges visual identification as a legitimate vector of knowledge. Are we to now weigh religious epistemology equally against that function? What of the millions of readers whose worldview does value visual context? Are their preferences less valid because they don’t carry sacred weight? Wikipedia is not about arbitrating belief—it is about information access for all.

5. Spiritual harm is subjective and unbounded.

This is a slippery slope—not fallaciously, but structurally. Once we agree that subjective sacredness warrants editorial restriction even when no coercion exists (users are not forced to click the article), then the door is open. Not to flat-Earthers—but to any ideologically motivated community who claims that harm arises not from the content's existence, but from its visibility. Wikipedia cannot operate under the tyranny of unseeability.

6. Integrity is not silence—it’s evenhandedness.

The truth about this image’s history, its sacred status, and its contested publication can and should be explained in the article. That’s what context is for. But removing it from the infobox says something else: that one worldview's discomfort overrides universal editorial standards. That’s not neutrality. That’s asymmetry. The image doesn’t preach, convert, or provoke—it just exists. To hide it from prominent view is to imply it shouldn't.

---

Conclusion:

Wikipedia cannot be all things to all people—but it can be fair. The fair standard is simple: verifiable, non-gratuitous, contextually relevant content should be included prominently, even if some find it uncomfortable. That’s not editorial violence—it’s editorial clarity. And it is precisely what protects the platform from becoming beholden to ideology, whether religious or otherwise.

Let us not confuse ethical complexity with editorial uncertainty. The image belongs in the infobox—not to offend, but to inform. GeorgeMarg (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Your argument is thoughtful and well-structured, but each point can be met with a compelling counterargument rooted in Wikipedia’s broader mission, community consensus, and the evolving norms around cultural and religious sensitivity. Let’s address each in turn:

1. Presentation ethics must still be policy-bound.

You rightly note that verifiability is foundational—but you downplay how Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Respect for Cultural Context also shape presentation. The infobox is not a neutral container; it is the most prominent visual element on the page and shapes first impressions. Including an image that is widely known to be considered spiritually transgressive by nearly all adherents of the subject’s faith is not neutral—it is editorially provocative. NPOV does not require maximizing information at all costs. It requires balance, and where an image has the potential to offend the overwhelming majority of those most intimately connected with the subject, that concern is policy-relevant under due weight.

2. The precedent from Muhammad is not analogous.

You dismiss this analogy too quickly. The key point is not whether images of Muhammad exist in articles—it’s that none appear in the infobox, despite the existence of historical depictions and no clear prohibition in policy. That consistent editorial decision reflects a long-standing, consensus-based accommodation of religious sensibilities. Bahá’u’lláh’s situation is similar in nature, if not in degree: the image exists, but the faith’s stance on its public use is just as clear. The comparison doesn’t need to be perfect to be precedent-setting—it only needs to reflect an established editorial caution in highly sensitive religious contexts.

3. Provenance, while ethically interesting, is editorially irrelevant.

Provenance matters not because Wikipedia seeks to undo historical wrongs, but because it informs how the image is perceived today. This photograph was taken and circulated under highly restricted circumstances and later published against the known wishes of the subject’s religious community. Wikipedia is not obligated to amplify ethically fraught material just because it is public domain. The fact that we can use the image doesn’t mean we must, especially in the most prominent place on the page. Editorial discretion is not censorship—it is what allows Wikipedia to adapt to nuanced ethical and cultural contexts.

4. The image is encyclopedic, not ideological.

But it is ideological to insist that visual identification must override all other concerns. That reflects a secular, visual-centric epistemology—one not shared by many global readers, and certainly not by Bahá’ís. Wikipedia’s role is not to impose that model of knowledge. Rather, it is to mediate among many, treating no one perspective as inherently superior. Providing the image further down the page with context fully preserves access to information while respecting community standards. That’s not a suppression of knowledge—it’s a prioritization of equitable representation in how that knowledge is presented.

5. Spiritual harm is subjective and unbounded.

Subjectivity does not make harm irrelevant. All editorial decisions ultimately involve subjective considerations—what’s undue weight, what’s offensive, what’s fair? Wikipedia already makes accommodations for other deeply held beliefs and cultural norms (e.g., refraining from depicting certain forms of nudity or violence in infoboxes even when legally permissible). The key is not to set no boundaries, but to set thoughtful ones. In this case, the global Bahá’í community has clearly and respectfully expressed that public display of this image—particularly in a prominent way—is spiritually distressing. That kind of consistent, community-wide sentiment deserves meaningful weight, not dismissal.

6. Integrity is not silence—it’s evenhandedness.

But removing the image from the infobox is not silence. The image remains in the article, alongside detailed explanation of its history, the ethical concerns it raises, and the Bahá’í perspective. That is editorial evenhandedness: the image is presented, contextualized, and made available, but not elevated in a way that contradicts the deeply held beliefs of the religious group most directly concerned. This isn’t privileging one worldview—it’s respecting a global, well-defined consensus of adherents. And it demonstrates that Wikipedia can be inclusive without capitulating to every demand, provided the concerns are rooted in broad and sincere belief.

Conclusion:

The question isn’t whether the image has encyclopedic value. It clearly does. The question is how and where that value is best represented. The image belongs in the article—with proper explanation, provenance, and scholarly framing—not in the infobox, where it becomes a default representation. That’s not neutrality—it’s a privileging of one way of knowing over another, one that Wikipedia should avoid.

Editorial clarity also means recognizing that there are limits to inclusion when it risks alienating or spiritually harming an entire religious community. That’s not censorship. It’s principled, pluralistic, and entirely consistent with Wikipedia’s role as a global, collaborative knowledge project. 2601:2C0:8E00:1750:F909:873F:4992:8550 (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate and agree with GeorgeMarg's comments here, a few points in a different direction. Having the image outside the infobox will not make one bit of difference to its use by any web search tool that scans the page. Having it outside the infobox and later in the article is no guarantee that the user's window won't be large enough to see it, and any effort to deliberately force it farther down represents people with a definite COI determine the structure of the article. Technical means exist for those who are registered users of wikipedia to have this photograph not displayed when they view the article.Naraht (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@2601:2C0:8E00:1750:F909:873F:4992:8550

Thank you again for your thoughtful and articulate reply. You raise important considerations—but they ultimately do not justify removing a verified, encyclopedically relevant image from the infobox. Let's take each point in turn, with clarity and respect.

---

1. NPOV includes, it does not exclude.

You argue that showing the image is not neutral because it may offend. But neutrality is not measured by how few people are upset—it’s measured by whether editorial decisions are made without favoring a particular ideology. Removing an image because it offends the religious majority associated with the subject is, in fact, non-neutral. It elevates one worldview—religious sensitivity—over others, including historical scholarship, visual documentation, and secular knowledge access.

Wikipedia’s job is not to protect beliefs from exposure to the public domain. It's to present all relevant and verifiable information, especially when it's respectful, accurate, and informative—which this image is.

2. The Muhammad precedent isn’t precedent—it’s outcome by circumstance.

The absence of Muhammad's image in infoboxes is not due to policy or a binding editorial principle. It’s the result of consensus in specific contexts—and crucially, often due to the availability and appropriateness of existing depictions. The key difference? The image of Bahá’u’lláh is the only authenticated photographic representation of the founder of a world religion.

That’s encyclopedically unique. If Wikipedia starts treating all religious sensitivities the same regardless of historical or evidentiary context, it risks replacing judgment with appeasement.

3. Provenance does not dictate prominence.

Yes, the image was published in tension with Bahá’í norms—but it is now public domain and verifiably authentic. Wikipedia routinely includes material with complicated historical trajectories. If we start deferring to disputed provenance to justify editorial omission, we undermine the integrity of historical representation. Provenance belongs in context sections—not as a trump card over inclusion in the infobox.

4. Avoiding “visual primacy” is epistemological bias.

You say using the image enforces a “visual-centric epistemology.” But let’s be honest: that’s not a radical Western construct—it’s basic 21st-century literacy. The infobox is a tool for summarization and identification. Refusing to include the only photograph of a historical figure in that space not only misleads readers—it also implicitly endorses the belief that visual representation is illegitimate in this case.

That is privileging a worldview: specifically, a religious doctrine about the impermissibility of seeing the founder’s face. That’s not respectful pluralism. That’s theological accommodation.

5. Spiritual harm is real—but so is editorial overreach.

Of course spiritual harm is real to those who feel it. But if that alone were sufficient to limit Wikipedia content, then yes—slippery slope arguments become valid. The editorial bar must be higher than “a community doesn’t want this shown.” Wikipedia already warns readers when images may be sensitive. That’s the right compromise. Visibility does not equal endorsement, and editorial restraint cannot mean deference to every group’s conception of harm.

6. Evenhandedness requires consistency.

You say inclusion in the body but not the infobox is “evenhanded.” I respectfully disagree. What you’re advocating is a hierarchy of visibility based on religiosity. We don’t remove infobox images of Karl Marx because he offends capitalists, or of Muhammad Ali because he angers white supremacists, or of Darwin because creationists object. We don’t tailor visibility based on worldview-specific taboos.

Final thought:

This is not about asserting “secular dominance.” It’s about ensuring that Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, not a reflection of every faith tradition’s internal boundaries. The image’s inclusion in the infobox is not about provocation or disrespect—it’s about knowledge integrity.

Wikipedia doesn’t suppress factual, respectful content to avoid offense. That is not principled pluralism. That is theological deference masquerading as editorial caution.

Let us honor Bahá’u’lláh not by hiding his face, but by presenting the full, complex truth—including his image, its story, and the beliefs that surround it—with clarity, context, and courage. GeorgeMarg (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Can this be put to a poll to get a broad consensus? Some kind of warning before viewing the page or moving the image would be very much appreciated. It is shocking for any Baha'i believer to open this page and be confronted with the image so prominently. 147.161.213.20 (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm in favor of putting it in the first section instead of infobox. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The broad consensus at the most recent comprehensive discussion was that the image should be placed at the top of the article, per MOS:LEADIMAGE. This is a biographical article in an encyclopedia, so readers should expect to see a photo of the subject. If you'd rather not see the image, there are instructions on the Talk page to hide it. Woodroar (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• I just wanted to chip in the alternative we had arrived at some years ago - that the picture be plainly visible but far down the page and in a discussion of the reality and uses of the picture, which has not been well represented in the discussion so far. I just thought it was worth a mention of another alternative to present centrally at the top and hiding it.Smkolins (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

for example, see [1] for one earlier version.Smkolins (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Someone please change it back to Kurdistan?

Kurdistan was removed and replaced with Iraq. However Kurdistan was not occupied by Iraq yet in this time period. The user who edited the post, also removed the cited resources clearly stating he was in Kurdistan.

https://www.bahai.org/bahaullah/life-bahaullah

“To remove Himself from being the cause of tension, Bahá'u'lláh retired to the mountains of Kurdistan, where He remained for two years, reflecting on His divine ...”

https://bahai-library.com/masumian_bahaullah_kurdistan

“His stay in Kurdistan took exactly two lunar years.40. Following His return, Bahá'u'lláh maintained correspondence with some Sufis in Kurdistan. Two of His ..

https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/

“Two works written in Baghdad after Bahá'u'lláh returned from Kurdistan in 1856. The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys were addressed to Sufi mystics with ...”

https://johnshatcher.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Works-of-Bahaullah.pdf

”after Baháʼu'lláh had returned from the Sulaymaniyah region in Kurdistan. The work was written in response to questions posed..”

https://www.bahaullah.org/baghdad/solitude-in-mountains

“Just over a year after arriving in Baghdad, Bahá'u'lláh withdrew to the mountainous wilderness of Kurdistan, where He lived alone for two years” 69.158.32.126 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2025

Remove picture of Bahá'u'llah. Bahá'i law forbids the display of His image, it is disrespectful. 24.202.103.201 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@24.202.103.201

While I understand and respect the beliefs of Bahá'ís regarding the display of Bahá'u'lláh’s image, Wikipedia is a secular and encyclopedic project that operates under its own editorial guidelines. According to Wikipedia’s policies, content decisions are based on reliable sources and encyclopedic relevance, not religious doctrine.

The image of Bahá'u'lláh is historically significant and widely available in reputable academic and historical contexts. It's not being shown here with the intent to offend, but to inform. GeorgeMarg (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Muhammad

Muhammad is not, as described, a representation of God but of a prophet. This “ Baháʼís regard Baháʼu'lláh as a Manifestation of God in succession to others like Buddha, Jesus, or Muhammad.” Is wrong by putting Muhammad as a manifestation of God. 67.21.186.41 (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Muḥammad is consistently described as a Manifestation of God in both Bahá’í scripture (cf. Kitáb-i-Íqán 161) and in secondary sources about the Bahá’í Faith (such as Encyclopedia Iranica's entry on "Maẓhar-e Elāhi": In addition to those mentioned in the Bible and Qorʾān, such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Moḥammad, the authoritative Bahai texts also recognize Zoroaster, Krishna, and the Buddha as Manifestations of God…). Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bahá'u'lláh (Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí) in 1868.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: Change "Iraq" back to "Kurdistan" in Baháʼu'lláh article

Hello, I’d like to request a change in the Baháʼu'lláh article regarding the location of His withdrawal in the 1850s.

Current text: Edit request: Change "Iraq" back to "Kurdistan" in Baháʼu'lláh article”

Proposed change: Replace “Iraq” with “Kurdistan” (or “Kurdistan region”), as Baháʼu'lláh withdrew to the mountainous region of Kurdistan, not to what was then known as Iraq. Historical and religious sources consistently describe the location as Kurdistan.

Supporting sources:

1. [Bahai.org - Official Baháʼí site](https://www.bahai.org/bahaullah/life-bahaullah):

  _"Baháʼu'lláh retired to the mountains of Kurdistan, where He remained for two years..."_

2. [Masumian, Bahaullah in Kurdistan (Bahai Library)](https://bahai-library.com/masumian_bahaullah_kurdistan):

  _"His stay in Kurdistan took exactly two lunar years..."_

3. [Bahai.org - Authoritative Texts](https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/):

  _"Two works written in Baghdad after Baháʼu'lláh returned from Kurdistan..."_

4. [Hatcher, Works of Baháʼu'lláh (PDF)](https://johnshatcher.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Works-of-Bahaullah.pdf):

  _"...after Baháʼu'lláh had returned from the Sulaymaniyah region in Kurdistan."_

5. [Bahaullah.org - Solitude in the Mountains](https://www.bahaullah.org/baghdad/solitude-in-mountains):

  _"Baháʼu'lláh withdrew to the mountainous wilderness of Kurdistan..."_

Rationale: At the time of his withdrawal (circa 1854–1856), the modern country of Iraq did not exist. Referring to the region as “Kurdistan” is historically and geographically more accurate, especially since multiple academic and religious sources use that term.

Thank you for considering this correction.

70.24.84.164 (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Day Creature (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)