Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive NPOV

Factual accuracy
This article looks like most of the claims were taken directly from Bahai myths/scripture. Wikipedia cannot contain information, which can't be independently verified. I think that without references to some independent history books/studies (i.e. not Bahai texts) some of the information may need to be removed or at least rephrased to indicate ambiguity and uncertainty. Paranoid 19:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The references have been stated in the article. E.G. Browne was an English Historian who met with Baha'u'llah while he was imprisoned in Akka.  He was not a Baha'i and he wrote a book called A Travellor's Narrative where he wrote about both the Babi and Baha'i histories.  You can find the book in some libraries.  I urge you to go out and find info which is not in accordance with the article.  The things that could be taken out of the article are what people felt and how they reacted to Baha'u'llah and I am willing to remove them if necessary.  I am going to remove the disputed tag, until you can find sources that say that the information in the article is wrong. --  NavidAzizi 20:15, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that A Traveller's Narrative was written by the son of Bahaullah (and translated by Browne?). The first line in the introduction says "This book is the history of a proscribed and persecuted sect written by one of themselves." . Clearly this is not an objective source. Ditto for the second reference. Please do not remove the disputed tag. It is not intended to imply that the current version is blatantly wrong (or even wrong at all). The only thing it implies is that there is an unresolved dispute, which there is (we are disputing whether there are sufficient references). It should attract the attention and stimulate other users to contribute to resolving the dispute. Paranoid 22:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No that is another book called "New History" which is a translation by E.G. Browne of a Babi before Baha'u'llah even declared; it has none of the history of Baha'u'llah's exiles and his declaration. A Travellor's Narative is is E.G. Browne's own accounts when he went to the middle east.  Again, please point out what is disputed, and only then place the disputed tag.  Other than the picture, I can't see why the disputed tag is there.  -- NavidAzizi 04:52, Jan 15, 2005.


 * I've left the disputed tag there, but I'd like a list of disputed items, or I will remove it in a couple of days. -- NavidAzizi 05:01, Jan 15, 2005.


 * You removed most of my contributions to the article, which were objective and historical facts. Why?  Which of my contributions were wrong?  Also, you removed the part where I said Bahaullah escaped from Persia and went to Baghdad (just like many other Babis had done), you changed that to "he was exiled from Persia", yet, a look at the history of the page Subh-i Azal shows that you (NavidAzizi) wrote explicitly that he "escaped" to Baghdad.  What evidence do you have that Bahaullah (who at the time of his escape wasn't even the leader of the Babis) was exiled to Baghdad?  So this clearly shows that you are dishonest and you are promoting Bahaullah while at the same time demoting Subh-i Azal, consistent with your other "contributions" on this subject.  I will give you a chance to correct all these misdeeds and give the article an honest contribution, or else, be prepared that someone who knows the history of the Babis/Azalis/Bahais very well, will rewrite the whole chain of articles.  Martin2000 05:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which of your contributions were wrong? Here's a list of your contributions and my comment to them:

1. "Although it seems highly strange that a distinguished nobleman in the court of a Persian King, not provide any formal schooling for his son. Even more strange is that after his father's passing, they would offer a high-ranking position to a person with no formal schooling."

So that addition is a POV, and I accept what was there originally could be seen as POV, and is thus removed.

2. "leadership was with Mirza Yahya ."

It is true that the Bab said that Mirza Yahya was the leader, but he did not guide anyone and that is why people looked to Baha'u'llah. But you are right, and even though it the original article did write Mirza Yahya was the leader lower down, I have moved it up.

3. he escaped from Persia to Baghdad, then a city in the Ottoman Empire and joined many other Bábís in Baghdad. At that time, the official leader of the Bábís was Bahá'u'lláh younger half-brother Mirza Yahya Nuri, known az "Subh-i Azal" who was appointed as the leader of the movement by the Báb himself, when the Báb was in prison.

Baha'u'llah did not escape. The authorities who had imprisoned him, let him go after they had ordered his exile. He was never really free, since they only let him go AFTER the exile order. If he had escaped, why would he go to Baghdad. Mirza Yahya was in a different prison in the north of Iran. Baha'u'llah's travel to Baghdad had nothing to do with Mirza Yahya's travel to Baghdad. The particlular reason that Baha'u'llah was exiled was the Baha'u'llah was the one whom the Persian prime-minister believed had instructed the assassination attempt on the Shah of Iran, and thus they wanted to get rid of him. Mirza Yahya was already in prison during the time of the assassination attempt.

4. "success among Bábís started a split in the Bábís community, and the followers of Subh-i-Azal became known az "Azali Bábís" and the followers of Bahá'u'lláh became known az "Bahái Bábís" -- later, they became simply known az "Azalis" and "Baháis""

You are right, except that the split happened after Baha'u'llah claimed he was the one whom the Bab has prophesized. I moved it to that part of the document.

5. "According to non-Bahá'í historians, the reason for the Ottoman government sending both the Bahá'ís and Azalis out of Baghdad, was the constant violence and brutality between the two sects. Eventually Bahá'u'lláh was exilted to Akka (now in Israel) and Subh-i Azal was sent to Cyprus."

This is not true at all, the violence if you call it was purely in words, except for Baha'u'llah's poisoning.

6. "According to the Bahá'is during"

I kept this there. You're right.

So in general, a lot of your changes were correct, there were POV in the article, and the article is updated to reflect a better version. Thank you for pointing them out. But the espace from the Siyah-Chal is plainly false. So please tell me what else is wrong with this article or any of the other articles I have edited. I will change the Mirza Yahya page to make less POV but that article is generally does not have a POV. NavidAzizi 06:20, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

One other thing I wanted to add is that you say I wrote the Mirza Yahya page. Actually that is not true, I just added stuff from Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. You can find the encyclopedia article here as linked to by the the Wikipedia article 1911_Encyclop%E6dia_Britannica.

Particularly in the Brittanica article you can see the following text (even with OCR errors). Note that britannica says Mirza Yahya escaped, and note that it says he lived in great seclusion. I did not say these things. Most wikipedians accept the 1911 Britannica as neutral and true.


 * The Bflb was succeeded on his death by MIrth Yahy of Nflr (at that time only about twenty years of age), who escaped to Bagdad, and, under the title of Subh-i-Ezel ( the Morning of Eternity ~),became the pontiff of the sect. He lived, however, in great seclusion, leaving the direction of affairs almost entirely in the hands of his elder halfbrother (born 12th November 1817), MIrth Husayn All, entitled Ba/ui ulld/i ( the Splendour of God ), who thus gradually became the most conspicuous and most influential member of the sect, though in the Iqdn, one of the most important polemical works of the Babis, composed in 1858-1859, he still implicitly recognized the supremacy of Subh-i-Ezel NavidAzizi 06:54, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't mean that he escaped form the Siyah-chal, what I mean is that after he was released from the Siyah-chal, he escaped out of Persia as many other Babis did at the time, because after the failed assassination attempt, it was extremely unsafe for the Babis in Persia. Bahaullah made a conscious decision to take his family to Baghdad where there already existed a sizable Babi community.  To my knowledge, there is no authentic evidence to support the claim that he was sent to exile by the authorities.  In fact, I can't even remember having read or seen any historical evidence (other than the Bahai literature) that he was even imprisoned in Persia.  This, I have only read in Bahai literature, but not elsewhere.


 * On another note, I have no problem with a link to his photo, but honestly, for the life of me I can't understand why it is "offensive" to have his photo in the article. In all honesty, to me it seems that the Bahais are actually insulting the guy by indirectly rejecting his appearance.  Wouldn't every Christian or Muslim have loved to know exactly what Jesus or Muhammed looked like?!!  The claim that "out of respect we don't want his photo here" is indeed strange and even lame -- but I will not insist, because in my heart I feel that the real reason for this objection is because the Bahais consider his photo to be ... hmmm ... "unmarketable".  That is like saying "we love the guy, we just wish he looked a little better so we could comfortably include his photo in the article"!! Martin2000 07:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have gone through the article and made sure it is in accordance with the BBC article noted above (and in the references). This is a non-Baha'i source.  I will wait a couple days, and if there is no objection to the changes, I will remove the disputed tag -- NavidAzizi 02:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

martin,  Tomhab based on the talk page putted a link to the photo AND asked "If you have problem with this please use discussion page first" which you havent and thats the reason i reverted again. if you really are interested in improving wikipedia please see Talk:Bah%E1%27%ED_Faith, and please do NOT flame others. - --Cyprus2k1 09:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your history speaks for itself. Wikipedia is not a platform for religious promotionalism (any religion). Don't like it? Tough. Thank you.  --Martin2000 09:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * dear martin, Wikipedia is not a platform for religious promotionalism of any religion, i agree with you, everybody here agrees with you on that. no need to keep saying the same thing over and over, instead, give CONSTRUCTIVE arguments, in order to improve wikipedia, keep in mind however that your personal opinion on a topic may not the best or the correct one. be reasonable. (and no personal attacks please) - --Cyprus2k1 10:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Moved this section up here as its relevant. Sorry guys - thought the idea might suit everyone. Didn't mean for it just to bring up another argument. -- Tomhab 12:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)