User talk:W778

If you have some evidence that the picture is copyrighted, then it can be removed from wikipedia, which would be wonderful. See the talk page, because there is a long history about this. Cuñado  -  Talk  07:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of any covenant breakers in China. If you have some kind of documentation of a copyright on the picture, please provide it. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  08:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1833. Photograph of Bahá’u’lláh


 * “There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá’u’lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes.”
 * (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 539)

Unfortunately the photograph is out in the public and on the internet. There is nothing we can do about that. There was a long struggle just to get it at the bottom of the page instead of right at the top. Deleting it without discussion won't help. Wiki follows copyright rules, but the picture is not copyrighted. If you continue to do unscrupulous editing, like deleting entire pages, you will not just be blocked, but will damage the image of the Faith. Cuñado  -  Talk  09:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is becoming quite childish. I have done an unimagineable amount of work to fix up the Baha'i pages. I've tried everything possible to get the picture removed, and I've removed as many references as possible of anti-Baha'i sentiment. I've been called a Baha'i propagandist for all the stuff I've done. You can send whatever you want to Macau. Your edits have been disruptive, and I have a hunch you're not even a Baha'i. Once again, read the mountain of talk pages about the picture. There are several Baha'is editing wiki and they are all in agreement that there is nothing we can do to get the picture removed. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  15:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * PS, just in case I wasn't clear, I'm not a covenant breaker. I follow the guidance of the House of Justice, and have never even met an actual covenant breaker. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk

Many Baha'i contributors will have sympathy for your sentiments about sensitive issues raised in Wikipedia’s Bahá’í-related pages. And many would have started editing in response to a feeling of indignation. If you look through the archives of the main pages such as Bahá’í Faith and Baha’u’llah, you will see that—in addition to many contributions by Bahá’ís—there have been strenuous efforts by editors who are anti-Bahá’í; but there have also been many valuable contributions by knowledgeable non-Bahá’ís who raise legitimate issues that have had to be addressed. A humbling aspect of Wikipedia is that one cannot simply delete the work of others: changes need to be justified from a “neutral point of view” and be supported by references to learned sources. If you still feel uncomfortable about the process with respect to the Bahá’í-related pages, perhaps you should contact User:Rboatright; he has a lot of experience with Wikipedia's Baha'i pages and other internet forums. Occamy 19:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Photos and other content.
For the past three years, dedicated editors on the Wikipedia have worked to turn what was a poor, inadiquate, confusing representation of the Baha'i faith on the Wiki into one of the best sources of factual informaton about the Baha'i Faith. That has been accomplished by both Baha'i and non-Baha'i editors. The Baha'i editors have had to defend the Faith, and their content at every turn. The standard of the Wikipedia, Neutral point of view is one which is important to understand. We can not simply make pages into "Baha'i Propaganda" as we have so-often been accused of. Over and over we have had to do substantial research, develop sources, find documentation, and prove the existance, the meaning and the history of the Baha'i Faith.

This work continues. But your approach (deleting stuff you don't like without discussing it on the talk pages) will seriously detract from the work we have done. The photograph of Baha'u'llah is a good example. We spent the better part of six months, discussing, negotiating, and finally reaching a compromise where the photo was ONLY on Baha'u'llah's page, not on the main Baha'i page, and at the bottom, rather than at the top. THIS WAS NOT EASY. Deleting the photo will trigger a new controversy which we might well LOSE and end up with the darn thing at the TOP of the article where many editors want it.

Additionally, recognize that the photo in question is from a scan from a copy at Princeton University taken from William Miller's anti-Baha'i book. We spent rather a lot of time getting people to at least post a GOOD scan of the photo rather than the badly edited and cropped ones that float around the internet.

Similarly, we have managed to confine mention of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith to a handful of minor pages, but to singlehandedly disrupt that balance by DELETING them is a very bad idea. They exist. We must admit that they exist. They belive (in their own weird mis-guided way) that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for our age. Why would you NOT have a link to them off the Baha'i page and the Baha'u'llah page. Similarly, there are links to the remaining Babi' groups off the page for the Bab. Entirely appropriate. We _do_ participate in keeping THOSE pages accurate and in making sure it is clear that there are millions of Baha'is, and a small handful of CB's.  Please, join us. Participate, help us turn the Baha'i pages into the sheaf of pages that it needs to be. But don't disrupt the fragile balance we have found. Please. Rick Boatright 03:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Juan Cole
Juan Cole is not a covenant breaker. If you are uncertain, feel free to email Counciler Stephan Birkland. When asked to meet with Dr. Birkland regarding a series of posts on the Talisman email list regarding "possible convenental issues" Dr Cole refused the meeting and withdrew his membership from the Baha'i Faith.

Dr Cole certainly has beliefs that are at variance with some understandings of mine, and some other Baha'is, noteably in regard to prior approval of scholarship, service of women on the House and the process of nomination in Baha'i elections, however, NO ONE in authority, no member of the protection boards, and the House has never _ever_ listed him as a CB. Nor is he particluarly regarded as an enemy of the Faith. Certainly, his translations of early Baha'i material and his archive of scholarly texts on the subject are critical to the scholarly understanding of the Faith.

That Dr. Cole has ISSUES with the Baha'i administation on a variety of subjects is no reason to regard him as an enemy of the Faith. Heck, _I_ have issues with the administration, have for years. Hasn't prevented _me_ from serving in important ways either. Deal with it. Not all bad things are from CB's. Don't spend your time looking under rocks. Work on IMPROVING things. Rick Boatright 16:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)