![]() | This page 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. |
Non-bahai sources estimate 5-8million? I don't think so!
I have some evidence that Baha'is consistently overcount their numbers and will collate it and publish it here on the discussion here. It is based on comparing reported census returns to the actual adherants claimed by NSAs.
The problem with using www.adherents.com and Britannia is that they mostly rely on self-reporting - very little original data is collated.
More to follow AndrewRT 18:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Dawud,
On 4 July 2005 12:52 (UTC) you wrote:
This is a fair statement that should probably be considered as being added to the article in one form or another. If there is a lack of an accurate source of information that is commonly presented in such articles, then it would follow logically that the most honest thing to do is tell the readers that this statistic does not actually exist in any reputable format, then possibly give the generally agreed upon estimate as a sort of consolation prize, but presented as an estimate and not an actual statistic. I think we're most likely in agreement on this, and if there is a disagreement it would most likely be that I'm of the opinion that the generally agreed upon estimate, that is the mode of presented estimates, should be selected, while you seem to be of the opinion that the whole range of estimates should be presented. These are not mutually exclusive approaches and a possible entry could read:
You also spoke on th 4th of July of the illegitimacy of such sources as the Brittanica based on the fact that they have not actually conducted documented studies, but rather published the estimates of Bahá'ís.
This is also a fair assesment. It is perfectly logical to state that a respected publication such as the Brittanica is not the same thing as a thoroughly documented study of the demographics of the Bahá'í population. One is a source and the other is a publication. In this case the mentioned source doesn't exist and the mentioned publication published an estimate in its stead. It would follow logically that Juan Cole is a respected scholar, not a source. If he carried out such a study then it would be a source. Since no source exists then his estimate is most likely no more educated than that of the publication, and certainly no more deserving of any air of authority.
The link you provided does not lead to a thoughtful discourse of trends of Bahá'í demographics based on the current available information, or even a scholarly critique of the manner of collecting or presenting such information. Rather the link leads to a letter the Juan Cole made that discusses his opinions of Peter Khan (background, speeches, etc.). This was not intended to be a scholarly report of any sort, but rather an unabashedly biased critique of the conclusions and decisions of Peter Khan that makes use of such labels as 'fundamentalist,' 'liberal,' 'communist,' 'fascist' and others, while making several statements that are designed to polarize the reader into siding with one personality or the other.
This is hardly related to demographics, or scholarship, and it isn't until half way through the letter that the reader finds the estimate:
This statement uses the words 'probably' and 'us.' One implies the lack, at least at hand, of any reliable imperical data. The other implies the authors inclusion in such an estimated statistic, thereby excluding him from being considered, in this case, one capable of performing 'outside scholarship.' I'm certain that a scholarly minded and fair thinker such as yourself will readily agree with the validity of this argument. LambaJan 18:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Where to begin...? Okay, I agree that we should begin the "demographics" section by saying that nobody really knows (and give all the reasons why), but that the answer is going to be a 7-digit number. Adding that outside estimates range between 1.5 and 8 million (footnoting each), and that Baha'i sources give 5 or 6 or whatever they're saying these days.
Do you suppose we need a separate article on this issue? (And every other issue where Baha'is and outsiders disagree?)
Yes, this is rehashing of an earlier discussion. So? We have an obvious error--that the range of Baha'i population estimates given in the text fails to incoporate the true range of estimates found in the world. I documented this, and corrected the figures. If you insist that the figures be true, or made in the right way, then we should apply the same standards to figures given by the Baha'i sources.
Yes, Juan Cole made that comment off-the-cuff. However, as the foremost scholar of Baha'i studies working today, his educated guess is surely as worth mentioning as the similarly undocumented official Baha'i estimates. Which of the two is closer, we should leave it to readers to determine.
I don't see what Cole's personal religious beliefs have to do with Baha'i demographics. As for Glaysher, I think I should e-mail him and invite him to help edit here. I hope Baha'is won't feel obligated to cut and run because of your religious differences--as I recall, there's even a ruling from Shoghi Effendi (?) to that effect (i.e. that if a CB comes to a public meeting, the Baha'is don't have to leave). Cole's busy these days with his Middle Eastern blog--which I highly recommend to anyone who cares about Iraq news (juancole.com)--so I would prefer to leave him to these far more important matters.
Unfortunately, much of the best discussion of Baha'i dissent is going to be documented on discussion group records. If Wikipedia automatically rules these off-limits, this is a serious drawback--a bias, really, which is based on medium rather than content. Point of order--is this rule itself edit-able? Dawud 03:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Dawud,
I'm glad we're in agreement about the language of the article. About writing a second article for this and/or other topics that are the cause of disputation, I'm of the opinion that this is probably unnecessary and that the deciding of whether a topic needs its own article is not based on hard and fast rules but is generally decided based on whether or not there is enough information for it or if there is a matter of clarification that a new article would bring. But I don't think disagreement alone is a sufficient reason for a new article. This is just my opinion.
I'm also glad that you stuck to your guns and rehashed this matter that you felt was still being handled incorrectly. You have indeed documented that the range of estimates is larger than this page previously mentioned. When I'm done writing this I will update the article with the language we seem to be agreeing on.
As for the matter of Juan Cole's religious beliefs, the importance of bringing them up is to clarify that if distinctions are to be made between inside and outside sources, in this case Bahá'í and non-Bahá'í sources, Juan Cole's estimate would necessarily need to be counted among the inside, because unless something has changed recently, or unless I misread his posted letters, he is a Bahá'í. He should also be invited to the discussion simply because his name and ideas are making up a big part of it now and it could be rude not to.
As for the guidance from a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi about leaving if a Covenant breaker joins a discussion[ [3]], I encourage everyone to read the compilation I just linked to if they haven't already. My understanding is that efforts should be taken to limit interactions to being of a non-Bahá'í nature. Although this is not a Bahá'í website, it is expressedly a discussion on Bahá'í topics among mostly Bahá'ís. Were I to encounter a Covenant breaker on a Wiki about linguistics or oceanography or something, I probably wouldn't even realize it, much less be bothered. However here I would become uncomfortable, as they, following the same guidance, would probably be uncomfortable with my presence. I have never seen a list of who is or isn't a Covenant breaker, but as this particular matter seems to be resolving, it seems unnecessary to invite a potentially unrestful situation. I think it would be sort of like inviting a Scientologist to a group of Amish people to help them resolve an already nearly resolved disagreement about some land boundry between a couple Amish.
As for Bahá'í dissent. This is a discussion of demographics. A source needs to be a study or a census, given the lack of which we decided to mention that one doesn't exist, and why, and then give the current estimates, as well as the range of estimates. Now if there is a topic of genuine Bahá'í dissent of which you would like to write or edit an article, your article would be much more professional and authoritative if it included primary source material. A discussion group is necessarily just that. If a Bahá'í dissenter has written a paper, given a lecture, or shared documented discussion with someone then these would be perfect primary source materials for an article on this dissenter, but depending on the nature of these, they may not meet the criteria for being appropriate source materials for a discussion that requires imperical data. A discussion group is a discussion among people who may or may not be qualified in the area of their discussion sharing opinions that may or may not be sufficiently formulated enough for them to be presented in a formal and professional setting. That is why they're discussing their ideas. I'm sure there are outlets where dissenters have presented fully formulated arguments in proffessional settings, such as when one gives a speech at a conference, and these are most likely considered appropriate primary source materials for articles on topics of Bahá'í dissent.
I hope this cleared some things up. LambaJan 20:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I think all this discussion can be thrown under Baha'i statistics. The in-text link is a great part of wikipedia for those people wanting to go into more detail. Most people will not care, and will realize that any religious population statistic is hard to fix. There is an incredibly long discussion of this on adherents.com that is relevant to any religion. Considering that Baha'is are not known to inflate numbers (like Scientologists), and that every attempt is made to remove people that shouldn't be on roll sheets, these criticisms are not unique to the Baha'i Faith, and represent a problem with keeping statistics. The 5 million estimate is supposed to be an at least number, and was published in 1985. Now the at-least number is 6 million, but I couldn't find a source (anybody else?).
I'm going to change the page again, I would encourage anyone to update
Baha'i statistics to add in the accusations of inflated numbers.
Cuñado
-
Talk
04:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Dawud,
Any insightful individual will not base their opinion about a religion or any other population on the size of its membership. This discussion has garnered more of any of our attention than its importance can pay for. I agree with Cunado on the point that if there is another page for Bahá'í statistics, then all of this belongs there.
The Bahá'ís are far from perfect and far from being accurate all of the time, but on this issue the points made by them are undeniably solid. I'm hurt that you haven't recognized the contributions several of us have made on this issue. LambaJan 05:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
(1) These estimates of the Baha'i population are not based on opinion polls, but on Baha'i sources. Therefore they are likely to overstate rather than understate the Baha'i population.
(2)I mean that Cole's estimate of the world population is inherently plausible. (Surely a Baha'i would appreciate that America is not the world.) One way of determining this would be to compare the visible activity of Baha'is vs. that of religions whose size we can measure more easily (e.g., size of meetings, number of worship centers).
(3) I don't know what Cole meant by 1.5 or 2 million (active or merely Baha'i identified). How much higher do you suppose the more expansive interpretation would push you? This would include (a) Baha'is in good standing who don't go to feasts, (b) Baha'is not in good standing, (c) hangers-on ("seekers") who have not yet joined...I think you do count under-15's now, so they go in the smaller group.
(4) Obviously I don't buy into your metaphor. About "consultation" and "non-confrontation", I'm in favor of them if they mean "listening fairly and carefully to those with whom one disagrees," but against them if the point is to bury legitimate disagreements. I fear that the Baha'is as a group practice the latter, not the former. Dawud 13:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I won't go into this much further because you're not listening to my arguments, but the ARIS was indeed a survey, and the adherents.com was not from Baha'i sources. -- Jeff3000 13:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Jeff, ARIS is an AMERICAN survey. We're talking about WORLDWIDE statistics. Once more, America is not the world. The low estimates are no more baseless than your high ones. So much for your "reason" and "logic."
You're right--this discussion is pointless, because no venue which is dominated by Baha'is (as this page currently is) can be expected to present their religion realistically. Therefore, the only way this entry can be fixed, is by changing the demographics of its editorial pool. I shall do what I can. Dawud 10:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Tomhab, forgive the whining, but this site is indeed biased, and arguing with Baha'is is indeed pointless. Even if I can reason with some of them (for instance, by appealing to a moderator), the others pull them back down to the lowest common denominator, and all my compromises will have been for nothing.
I have taken the liberty of posting requests for editorial assistance on several related sites: Islam, the Muslim guild, Shi'a, Iran, and Sects. I have also sent e-mails to Glaysher and the Bayan 19 board, who can be expected to take issue with many Baha'i sacred cows. Dawud 13:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there any reason that we are obliged to mention Cole's estimate in the article? He is mentioned on the sub-page, which is a more appropriate place to put conjecture and speculation. I could make a webpage that estimates the population at 25 million, and it would have just as much legitimacy as Cole. I could even back it up with my personal experience just like he does.
I still think the current version is accurate, concise, and to the point. I support this version:
Cuñado
-
Talk
21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
After all this discussion, why is it that Juan Cole's 1.5 million reference is still in here. It would be as if I wrote a letter as a University Professor stating that there are 9 million Baha'is in the world. What right would I have to make such a baseless claim? ( Nmentha 07:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC))
-Nmentha
Firstly, I've published my evidence for overstated Baha'i figures in the sub article Bahá'í statistics- please let me know what you think.
Second I've referred this article to the sub article and added a reference to the dispute. Please consider the wikipedia guidance before reverting my edit. Particularly useful is the guidance on controversies - the role of wikipedia is to present both sides of an argument, not to take sides! That may at times involve "writing for the enemy"
Third the World Almanac figures are rubbish. No way is the US the third largest Baha'i community. I will publish the detailed figures I have disproving this on the sub article. AndrewRT 19:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the various studies you mention are more valid. But, they're not measuring the worldwide Baha'i population. So my original statement stands. Dawud 11:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. -- JuanMuslim 1m 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm starting this new section because it's hard to edit the old one now that it's so big.
Dawud, you are rehashing old arguments. The point is that some of those references are citable, and others not by Wikipedia policy. And your statements that the Baha'i Faith is not a religion is your personable opionion, and that's fine, but based on the general concensus in the world it is a religion, maybe one that some don't like, but still a religion. And I welcome your enthusiasm to start a new religion, go ahead and start it. -- Jeff3000 16:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I like it right now. I agree with you on the flow, and for that matter on the usage of an unresearched opinion of an intellectual of a different (albiet somewhat related) field that is couched in a completely unrelated and unacedemic article. However, this version includes all of the major points that people have been making and seems like it could possibly be stable, in which case the flow could be improved over time.
My only thought, having taken a long breather from this, looking back I'm wondering whatever happened to the idea of putting less of this on the mainpage and more on the statistics page. I know Dawud will read this and accuse me of trying to hide something that he regards as controversy, but this really isn't the case. The main Bahá'ì article is very large and giving so much space to demographics could give the reader the impression that Bahá'ìs think they're (demographics) more important than they are. Compare this article to the other religion main articles. LambaJan 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
That is a good relevant idea about the region by region breakdown. That should probably be moved to the Bahá'í Demographics article. LambaJan 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Non-bahai sources estimate 5-8million? I don't think so!
I have some evidence that Baha'is consistently overcount their numbers and will collate it and publish it here on the discussion here. It is based on comparing reported census returns to the actual adherants claimed by NSAs.
The problem with using www.adherents.com and Britannia is that they mostly rely on self-reporting - very little original data is collated.
More to follow AndrewRT 18:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Dawud,
On 4 July 2005 12:52 (UTC) you wrote:
This is a fair statement that should probably be considered as being added to the article in one form or another. If there is a lack of an accurate source of information that is commonly presented in such articles, then it would follow logically that the most honest thing to do is tell the readers that this statistic does not actually exist in any reputable format, then possibly give the generally agreed upon estimate as a sort of consolation prize, but presented as an estimate and not an actual statistic. I think we're most likely in agreement on this, and if there is a disagreement it would most likely be that I'm of the opinion that the generally agreed upon estimate, that is the mode of presented estimates, should be selected, while you seem to be of the opinion that the whole range of estimates should be presented. These are not mutually exclusive approaches and a possible entry could read:
You also spoke on th 4th of July of the illegitimacy of such sources as the Brittanica based on the fact that they have not actually conducted documented studies, but rather published the estimates of Bahá'ís.
This is also a fair assesment. It is perfectly logical to state that a respected publication such as the Brittanica is not the same thing as a thoroughly documented study of the demographics of the Bahá'í population. One is a source and the other is a publication. In this case the mentioned source doesn't exist and the mentioned publication published an estimate in its stead. It would follow logically that Juan Cole is a respected scholar, not a source. If he carried out such a study then it would be a source. Since no source exists then his estimate is most likely no more educated than that of the publication, and certainly no more deserving of any air of authority.
The link you provided does not lead to a thoughtful discourse of trends of Bahá'í demographics based on the current available information, or even a scholarly critique of the manner of collecting or presenting such information. Rather the link leads to a letter the Juan Cole made that discusses his opinions of Peter Khan (background, speeches, etc.). This was not intended to be a scholarly report of any sort, but rather an unabashedly biased critique of the conclusions and decisions of Peter Khan that makes use of such labels as 'fundamentalist,' 'liberal,' 'communist,' 'fascist' and others, while making several statements that are designed to polarize the reader into siding with one personality or the other.
This is hardly related to demographics, or scholarship, and it isn't until half way through the letter that the reader finds the estimate:
This statement uses the words 'probably' and 'us.' One implies the lack, at least at hand, of any reliable imperical data. The other implies the authors inclusion in such an estimated statistic, thereby excluding him from being considered, in this case, one capable of performing 'outside scholarship.' I'm certain that a scholarly minded and fair thinker such as yourself will readily agree with the validity of this argument. LambaJan 18:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Where to begin...? Okay, I agree that we should begin the "demographics" section by saying that nobody really knows (and give all the reasons why), but that the answer is going to be a 7-digit number. Adding that outside estimates range between 1.5 and 8 million (footnoting each), and that Baha'i sources give 5 or 6 or whatever they're saying these days.
Do you suppose we need a separate article on this issue? (And every other issue where Baha'is and outsiders disagree?)
Yes, this is rehashing of an earlier discussion. So? We have an obvious error--that the range of Baha'i population estimates given in the text fails to incoporate the true range of estimates found in the world. I documented this, and corrected the figures. If you insist that the figures be true, or made in the right way, then we should apply the same standards to figures given by the Baha'i sources.
Yes, Juan Cole made that comment off-the-cuff. However, as the foremost scholar of Baha'i studies working today, his educated guess is surely as worth mentioning as the similarly undocumented official Baha'i estimates. Which of the two is closer, we should leave it to readers to determine.
I don't see what Cole's personal religious beliefs have to do with Baha'i demographics. As for Glaysher, I think I should e-mail him and invite him to help edit here. I hope Baha'is won't feel obligated to cut and run because of your religious differences--as I recall, there's even a ruling from Shoghi Effendi (?) to that effect (i.e. that if a CB comes to a public meeting, the Baha'is don't have to leave). Cole's busy these days with his Middle Eastern blog--which I highly recommend to anyone who cares about Iraq news (juancole.com)--so I would prefer to leave him to these far more important matters.
Unfortunately, much of the best discussion of Baha'i dissent is going to be documented on discussion group records. If Wikipedia automatically rules these off-limits, this is a serious drawback--a bias, really, which is based on medium rather than content. Point of order--is this rule itself edit-able? Dawud 03:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Dawud,
I'm glad we're in agreement about the language of the article. About writing a second article for this and/or other topics that are the cause of disputation, I'm of the opinion that this is probably unnecessary and that the deciding of whether a topic needs its own article is not based on hard and fast rules but is generally decided based on whether or not there is enough information for it or if there is a matter of clarification that a new article would bring. But I don't think disagreement alone is a sufficient reason for a new article. This is just my opinion.
I'm also glad that you stuck to your guns and rehashed this matter that you felt was still being handled incorrectly. You have indeed documented that the range of estimates is larger than this page previously mentioned. When I'm done writing this I will update the article with the language we seem to be agreeing on.
As for the matter of Juan Cole's religious beliefs, the importance of bringing them up is to clarify that if distinctions are to be made between inside and outside sources, in this case Bahá'í and non-Bahá'í sources, Juan Cole's estimate would necessarily need to be counted among the inside, because unless something has changed recently, or unless I misread his posted letters, he is a Bahá'í. He should also be invited to the discussion simply because his name and ideas are making up a big part of it now and it could be rude not to.
As for the guidance from a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi about leaving if a Covenant breaker joins a discussion[ [3]], I encourage everyone to read the compilation I just linked to if they haven't already. My understanding is that efforts should be taken to limit interactions to being of a non-Bahá'í nature. Although this is not a Bahá'í website, it is expressedly a discussion on Bahá'í topics among mostly Bahá'ís. Were I to encounter a Covenant breaker on a Wiki about linguistics or oceanography or something, I probably wouldn't even realize it, much less be bothered. However here I would become uncomfortable, as they, following the same guidance, would probably be uncomfortable with my presence. I have never seen a list of who is or isn't a Covenant breaker, but as this particular matter seems to be resolving, it seems unnecessary to invite a potentially unrestful situation. I think it would be sort of like inviting a Scientologist to a group of Amish people to help them resolve an already nearly resolved disagreement about some land boundry between a couple Amish.
As for Bahá'í dissent. This is a discussion of demographics. A source needs to be a study or a census, given the lack of which we decided to mention that one doesn't exist, and why, and then give the current estimates, as well as the range of estimates. Now if there is a topic of genuine Bahá'í dissent of which you would like to write or edit an article, your article would be much more professional and authoritative if it included primary source material. A discussion group is necessarily just that. If a Bahá'í dissenter has written a paper, given a lecture, or shared documented discussion with someone then these would be perfect primary source materials for an article on this dissenter, but depending on the nature of these, they may not meet the criteria for being appropriate source materials for a discussion that requires imperical data. A discussion group is a discussion among people who may or may not be qualified in the area of their discussion sharing opinions that may or may not be sufficiently formulated enough for them to be presented in a formal and professional setting. That is why they're discussing their ideas. I'm sure there are outlets where dissenters have presented fully formulated arguments in proffessional settings, such as when one gives a speech at a conference, and these are most likely considered appropriate primary source materials for articles on topics of Bahá'í dissent.
I hope this cleared some things up. LambaJan 20:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I think all this discussion can be thrown under Baha'i statistics. The in-text link is a great part of wikipedia for those people wanting to go into more detail. Most people will not care, and will realize that any religious population statistic is hard to fix. There is an incredibly long discussion of this on adherents.com that is relevant to any religion. Considering that Baha'is are not known to inflate numbers (like Scientologists), and that every attempt is made to remove people that shouldn't be on roll sheets, these criticisms are not unique to the Baha'i Faith, and represent a problem with keeping statistics. The 5 million estimate is supposed to be an at least number, and was published in 1985. Now the at-least number is 6 million, but I couldn't find a source (anybody else?).
I'm going to change the page again, I would encourage anyone to update
Baha'i statistics to add in the accusations of inflated numbers.
Cuñado
-
Talk
04:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Dawud,
Any insightful individual will not base their opinion about a religion or any other population on the size of its membership. This discussion has garnered more of any of our attention than its importance can pay for. I agree with Cunado on the point that if there is another page for Bahá'í statistics, then all of this belongs there.
The Bahá'ís are far from perfect and far from being accurate all of the time, but on this issue the points made by them are undeniably solid. I'm hurt that you haven't recognized the contributions several of us have made on this issue. LambaJan 05:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
(1) These estimates of the Baha'i population are not based on opinion polls, but on Baha'i sources. Therefore they are likely to overstate rather than understate the Baha'i population.
(2)I mean that Cole's estimate of the world population is inherently plausible. (Surely a Baha'i would appreciate that America is not the world.) One way of determining this would be to compare the visible activity of Baha'is vs. that of religions whose size we can measure more easily (e.g., size of meetings, number of worship centers).
(3) I don't know what Cole meant by 1.5 or 2 million (active or merely Baha'i identified). How much higher do you suppose the more expansive interpretation would push you? This would include (a) Baha'is in good standing who don't go to feasts, (b) Baha'is not in good standing, (c) hangers-on ("seekers") who have not yet joined...I think you do count under-15's now, so they go in the smaller group.
(4) Obviously I don't buy into your metaphor. About "consultation" and "non-confrontation", I'm in favor of them if they mean "listening fairly and carefully to those with whom one disagrees," but against them if the point is to bury legitimate disagreements. I fear that the Baha'is as a group practice the latter, not the former. Dawud 13:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I won't go into this much further because you're not listening to my arguments, but the ARIS was indeed a survey, and the adherents.com was not from Baha'i sources. -- Jeff3000 13:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Jeff, ARIS is an AMERICAN survey. We're talking about WORLDWIDE statistics. Once more, America is not the world. The low estimates are no more baseless than your high ones. So much for your "reason" and "logic."
You're right--this discussion is pointless, because no venue which is dominated by Baha'is (as this page currently is) can be expected to present their religion realistically. Therefore, the only way this entry can be fixed, is by changing the demographics of its editorial pool. I shall do what I can. Dawud 10:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Tomhab, forgive the whining, but this site is indeed biased, and arguing with Baha'is is indeed pointless. Even if I can reason with some of them (for instance, by appealing to a moderator), the others pull them back down to the lowest common denominator, and all my compromises will have been for nothing.
I have taken the liberty of posting requests for editorial assistance on several related sites: Islam, the Muslim guild, Shi'a, Iran, and Sects. I have also sent e-mails to Glaysher and the Bayan 19 board, who can be expected to take issue with many Baha'i sacred cows. Dawud 13:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there any reason that we are obliged to mention Cole's estimate in the article? He is mentioned on the sub-page, which is a more appropriate place to put conjecture and speculation. I could make a webpage that estimates the population at 25 million, and it would have just as much legitimacy as Cole. I could even back it up with my personal experience just like he does.
I still think the current version is accurate, concise, and to the point. I support this version:
Cuñado
-
Talk
21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
After all this discussion, why is it that Juan Cole's 1.5 million reference is still in here. It would be as if I wrote a letter as a University Professor stating that there are 9 million Baha'is in the world. What right would I have to make such a baseless claim? ( Nmentha 07:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC))
-Nmentha
Firstly, I've published my evidence for overstated Baha'i figures in the sub article Bahá'í statistics- please let me know what you think.
Second I've referred this article to the sub article and added a reference to the dispute. Please consider the wikipedia guidance before reverting my edit. Particularly useful is the guidance on controversies - the role of wikipedia is to present both sides of an argument, not to take sides! That may at times involve "writing for the enemy"
Third the World Almanac figures are rubbish. No way is the US the third largest Baha'i community. I will publish the detailed figures I have disproving this on the sub article. AndrewRT 19:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the various studies you mention are more valid. But, they're not measuring the worldwide Baha'i population. So my original statement stands. Dawud 11:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. -- JuanMuslim 1m 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm starting this new section because it's hard to edit the old one now that it's so big.
Dawud, you are rehashing old arguments. The point is that some of those references are citable, and others not by Wikipedia policy. And your statements that the Baha'i Faith is not a religion is your personable opionion, and that's fine, but based on the general concensus in the world it is a religion, maybe one that some don't like, but still a religion. And I welcome your enthusiasm to start a new religion, go ahead and start it. -- Jeff3000 16:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I like it right now. I agree with you on the flow, and for that matter on the usage of an unresearched opinion of an intellectual of a different (albiet somewhat related) field that is couched in a completely unrelated and unacedemic article. However, this version includes all of the major points that people have been making and seems like it could possibly be stable, in which case the flow could be improved over time.
My only thought, having taken a long breather from this, looking back I'm wondering whatever happened to the idea of putting less of this on the mainpage and more on the statistics page. I know Dawud will read this and accuse me of trying to hide something that he regards as controversy, but this really isn't the case. The main Bahá'ì article is very large and giving so much space to demographics could give the reader the impression that Bahá'ìs think they're (demographics) more important than they are. Compare this article to the other religion main articles. LambaJan 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
That is a good relevant idea about the region by region breakdown. That should probably be moved to the Bahá'í Demographics article. LambaJan 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)