Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 8

Demographics

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)

Funny you should mention that. I just got through adding Juan Cole's estimate of the Baha'i population (1.5 to 2 million) to the "demographics" section, as the low end of the range, with appropriate citation. For those who don't know, Prof. Cole is probably the most respected authority on the Baha'i religion today. (As opposed to Babism, which would have several names.) So along comes Jeff 3000, who deletes in on the grounds that "Juan Cole is not a source." (You think?)

We have a problem here. Obviously, Juan Cole IS a source, and a damn good one. So what am I to do? Attempt to reason with Jeff, and convince him to adopt a more liberal form of his religion--one which is open to outside scholarship, and the possibility that the Baha'is are not in fact on their way to conquering the world? Invite everyone to vote, and see whether cultists outnumber infidels, or vice versa? Start a revert war? Complain to somebody?

Well, what's it going to be, Baha'is? Dawud 12:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Dawud,

On 4 July 2005 12:52 (UTC) you wrote:

Basically, nobody knows. It's hard enough to decide in principle what to count, and impossible just now to actually do it. (Minority populations spread out all over the globe don't show up that well on surveys.)

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:

Because of the difficulty of obtaining accurate statistics of a minority population that is spread out all over the globe no such statistics exist, however common estimates place the population at 5-6 million worldwide ([1], [2]), while the range of estimates is from 1-8 million worlwide.

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:

Then he [Peter Khan] talked about the “completion” of the “Mount Carmel projects.” Well, no doubt this was a big accomplishment for a small religious community (there are probably only really about 1.5 or 2 million of us, folks).

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)

Dawud, you and I fought over this already, and you are re-hashing the same arguments. Juan Cole is not an authority on the Baha'i Faith, and he especially has no authority to claim statistical data. He falls into the category of someone hostile to the Faith who is just giving his opinion. That is not scholarship. Cuñado - Talk 18:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

As chance would have it I have talked to Prof Cole before about this subject, although it was back in about 1997 on a newsgroup soc.religion.bahai. I'll try to dig out what he said, although I remember it wasn't very specific and based mainly on knowledge of the US and scepticism about non-western numbers. I have also done some reasearch on this matter which I presented to an "Association of Baha'i Studies" Conference, also in about 1997. In summary, membership figuers can be challenged on a number of grounds:

a) The Baha'i Faith has a high proportion of 1st generation Baha'is - much higher than Islam, Christianity etc. (although comparable to Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and Ahmadis). This makes numbers inherently more difficut to count compared to, say, Judiasm where the change with time is mainly due to births and deaths.

b) There is no requirement for new converts to pass any test of knowledge or commitment when they join - just sign a card. This is a significant contrast to, for example, Judiasm and Catholicism where conversion involves a significant process. Inevitably therefore people are included in numbers where they have only a slight association with BF. As anecdotal evidence I recall a teaching trip to a remote town in Albania which was said to have 250 Baha'is, yet had no LSA and no Baha'i activities. We took the list and went door to door asking people about the Faith. One family said they had signed up when a western visitor came in 1980 - because they thought they might get some money - and never heard another thing. After a week we had found about half a dozen people who were still interested in the Faith.

c) Most ex-Baha'is never leave the Faith (unless they are forced out), they just drift away. Speaking to the UK NSA they say the number of people they get returned mail for far exceeds the number of people who write to the NSA and say I want to leave. This means that lots of people are on the rolls who once joined because they were interested and never bothered to formally leave. They may have gone on to get married, have kids, join a church or anything else but because no-one tells the NSA they stay on the records. Note the membership rolls do not count people participating in activities or members paying a subscription - which is normally how associations count numbers. To put this into context, roughly 50% of UK Baha'is are said to be inactive.

d) Official census results in the UK for 2001 showed that the number of self-certifying Baha'is was about 20% lower that the number reported by the NSA.

e) The largest Baha'i community in the world is in India, where the Baha'is claim membership of between 1-2 million. Many of these people when asked their religion will tell you their pre-Baha'i religion - e.g. Hindu. Much of their belief is sycretised with Hindu belief, even to teh extent of called Baha'u'llah - "Bhagavan Baha". Censuses in India only show a few thousand Baha'is.

f) Much of the other growth has come from countries like Albania in Eastern Europe where mass conversion has occured. The Albanian Baha'i community reports several thousand Baha'is there but when I spoke to some senior Baha'is while I was there they agreed the truer figure was in the hundreds.

Add all this up and you get a very different picture from "5-8 million". As I said before I'll dig out the real evidence and add it to the numbers article, but this is where I'm heading. AndrewRT 19:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Dawud before going and saying that I was the one that removed it, please actually go and look at the history. Second of all, even though I wasn't the one who removed it, it makes sense that Juan Cole is not a good source. He's an individual, he has not gone travelling completeing censuses. Organizations do that, like the "Government of <insert your favourite government here>", or the "United Nations" (not saying they do, but they could), or research organizations like "Galup." This point has been discussed above. Juan Cole is definitely very well-versed in the Baha'i Faith, its writings, its teachings, its administration, and what he believes are its failings. Juan Cole may believe that there are 1.5 million Baha'is and that is definitely a valid belief, but as an individual, he is not a good source for that kind of information, unless he has sources. Also note that discussions on newsgroups are not appropriate sources. Wikipedia policy disallows discussion boards as sources. To wit:

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.

From: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Now the discussion on newsgroups may point to valid sources, and that is fine, but the actual discussion in not a valid source. AndrewRT, all your points are indeed valid, and some of them have been discussed on Baha'i statistics. I just want to point out with regards to inactivity that with the same reasoning a lot of Christians and Muslims should also not be counted in their respective statistics. In my profession, most everybody is considered a Christian, but a large majority of them are inactive (don't even go to Church on Christmas). Then there are my muslim Persian friends (outside of Iran). They would be counted among the Muslim statistics, but none of them (and I mean none of them, I've talked to them many many times about the issue of religion) actually do anything that is related to Islam; they don't fast, they don't pray, they don't go to Mosque.

Now to Dawud's second point, the Covenent of the Faith is clear. `Abdu'l-Bahá has written "The sacred and youthful branch, the guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice, to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abha Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of His Holiness, the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God." So belief in and following the Universal House of Justice, and the Guardian is a central tenant of the Faith. Some people, including Juan Cole, Fredrick Glashayer, and many more academics, and some other people, would like the Baha'i Faith to become more liberal, and don't like some of their practices, but since that is not in accordance with what the Universal House of Justice agrees with, it is not according to the Baha'i Faith. You might think that is unreasonable, and that that is a stupid part of the Baha'i Faith, and it is wrong, and it should not be like this, and that the Universal House of Justice is fundamentalist, cannot be infallible, cannot be of God, and it should change, etc. It is definitely your right (and anyone else's right) to believe all those things, and thus not accepting the Baha'i Faith. But that is the Baha'i Faith. -- Jeff3000 21:00, 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.

actually, the other article already exists: Baha'i statistics -- Jeff3000 21:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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.

actually Juan Cole has resigned from the Baha'i Faith. He was and is highly critical about the administrative order. He has indicated that he believes there are less Baha'is than those indicated in some publications, and he has made some efforts to get those revised. He wrote to Britannica with his reasoning and received this response:

Your comment has been bouncing around our email network, from editors to World Data authorities, and the resolution is that we would like to revise our figures for Baha'i membership worldwide provided we can come across hard statistical data to go by. Given that our current figures are based on the best available statistics currently at our disposal, however, we will not be able to make such a change unless you can point us in the direction of publications that indicate exaggerated membership totals in the areas you mention. Do you know of such a reference source that we could consult?

Sincerely,

Mark Diller, Ph.D.

Online Editor, Religion

Britannica.com, Inc.

Thus, if a world-renowned encyclopedia believes that his statistics are not good enough to be used, why would they be valid here? -- Jeff3000 21:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

It often happens that our desire to learn outstrips our ability to know. On Baha'i demographics, we're all grasping at straws. For all I know there are ten million of them hidden in the kingdom of Prester John. Anyway, yes, by all means, please write up the demographics section along those lines. [Update: I went ahead and changed it.]

On Glaysher, I wasn't thinking of him in the context of Baha'i demographics, but for all the other topics that Baha'is and their critics argue about. He could help us find non-discussion group sources for these things. If Baha'is have determined to be allergic to his presence, well, that's unfortunate but I'm not going to be ruled by their prejudices. (I suppose I could ask him to post under an alias, if he's not doing so already.) By the way, I've also invited some Bayanis, but of course you don't have to talk to them--just edit back and forth, stopping to make glaring expressions at the computer screen as you do so, and if need be you could always address your mutual anathemas to some third party, sotto voce.

Cole is a former Baha'i who resigned, but I understand that he personally still believes in Baha'u'llah. Whether this officially makes him a CB, or just demotes him to "seeker" status again, I couldn't begin to say. Dawud 07:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Cole's not a CB. If he has researched statistics, I can't see any reason why we can't reference them here. The letter from Encyclopedia Brittanica Jeff has quoted above doesn't say that they don't believe Cole's figures, it says that they would need to see them before they would change their article. Clearly, they aren't going change anything without assessing the sources. Taking out reference to lower figures but leaving "non-Baha'i sources estimate 5-8 million" makes it sound like the estimation of the Baha'i population is utterly non-controversial and everyone agrees with the official estimate, which is clearly not the case. There is much anecdotal discussion of names on stale lists being counted that no-one has seen at feast for years, and people being left on two lists when they move. PaulHammond 10:43, 27 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)

And I'm going to change it back. I find Cunando's edits--which he suggests were out of concern for space (yeah, right)--suspiciously convenient to the purpose of protecting the Baha'i public image. The basic question of how many of you there are, should not be hidden on another page. The Baha'i situation is not like that of Christianity or Islam, whose populations show up better on censuses and the like. Furthermore, Cunado's claim that the administration is "not known to inflate numbers (like Scientologists)" is contentious. Many critics claim exactly that. I submit that your enthusiasm for eliminating mention of them, makes you more like the Scientologists than you know. 5 million is not an "at least" number by any objective measure--in fact it may be three times too high.

Incidentally, I notice that other Baha'is have not yet said or done anything about this situation. What am I to conclude here?Dawud 01:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What you should conclude Dawud is that at least for me since you are unwilling to recognize that the 1.5 million number is opinion, even when many valid points are given showing that the 1.5 million number has no verifiable sources other than opinion, then is there any point to keep arguing back and forth? But I'll point out the points that have been previously made, and specifically note that your comment "Christianity or Islam, whose populations show up better on censuses" is actually scientifically false. Due to the small number of Baha'is, census numbers actually underestimate the number of Baha'is (see www.americanresearchgroup.com/)

• The Encyclopedia Brittannica says it does not know of any valid sources to agree to reduce its 5 million number, and Juan Cole has not given any.
• Juan Cole, in his own CV identifies his specialty in Baha'i studies is its literature and history. This does not not a qualify him as demographer or sociologist. Merely citing an opinion does not raise the item to the level of a verifiable fact.
• From adherents.com: Most religious groups include significant numbers of nominal members, or people who no longer actively participate, yet still identify themselves as adherents.
• The link from the adherents.com website which states that in the top 20 countries there is at least 5695690 adherents, comes from David Barrett in the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2000.
• From the religious tolerance website: The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) who performed a telephone survey estimates 84 000 Baha'i adults in the US, much higher than the 26 000 the Juan Cole estimates. The ARIS study is said to be accurate to 0.44% within 19 times out of 20. Statisticians have noted that however, this value is only valid if the percentage of Baha'i members was about 50% of the total adult population (See "The margin of error calculator," American Research Group, Inc., at: http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/). The actual percentage of Baha'i adults is about 0.04%. The margin of error is thus much larger. The religious tolerance website notes that the sources of error would tend to underestimate the total number of Baha'i adult members. 95,000 might be a better estimate for 2001. If we assume a 2% annual growth rate, then 101,000 might be a good estimate for mid-2004.
• From adherents.com: There are no countries in which people are automatically assigned to the Baha'i Faith at birth (as is the case with Islam, Christianity, Shinto, Buddhism, and other faiths), so their numbers aren't inflated with people who have never willingly participated in or been influenced by the religion while adults.

But yes there are valid arguments that some of the "mass conversions" have resulted in adherents with little or no acculturation into the new religious system. Note however, as given the above point, that there is no country which automatically assigns people at birth to the Baha'i Faith there is no inflation there. Thus in every religious statistic there are a number of people who are not really practicing, and are inactive.

The above points would all be scientifically-admissible, but Juan Cole's is not (at least not yet since he has no sources) so I would ask you to consider the above points when stating such things as "5 million is not an at least number by any objective measure--in fact it may be three times too high" -- Jeff3000 02:51, 29 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)

Yes, Cole's estimate is an opinion. Given the basic unreliability of opinion polls for gauging the membership of small groups, all of these encyclopedia estimates are opinion too. The fact that some of them are foolish enough to believe the Baha'is does not make their estimates any more accurate. Given the murkiness of this question, and the inherent plausibility of Cole's estimate, I wonder why you Bahai's are so eager to privilege estimates that make you look bigger? If space is really so much of a premium, then why do we still have all that encyclopedia garbage which break down Baha'i membership according to this, that, and the other thing? But you couldn't spare a line to point out that some people suspect these figures of being way, way off...? Really.

The American religion population is a separate issue from the world population. Yes, 24,000 is way too low. They could be above 100,000 there. But the countries we should really be arguing about are India and Iran, the countries supposedly accounting for the biggest chunk of the Baha'i population. (By the way, I would be very wary of assuming anything about growth, if there is in fact growth going on.)

With religions like Christianity or Islam, we get highish numbers based on surveys and census records (if available), and lower ones based on church / mosque attendance (with holiday attendance in the middle). For instance, the Protestant and Catholic populations in Britain are about even according to surveys, but if you do head-counts in church on an ordinary Sunday, Catholics outnumber Protestants five to one. This kind of split is even more obvious with Judaism. All these numbers are meaningful. The problem with measuring Baha'is is not so much a conceptual one ("Who is a Baha'i?") but the practical one having to do with margins of error. A large enough poll (or census) could solve this problem for a given country.

LambaJan, my opinion about the Baha'is is not based on the number of its adherents, but on observation and experience. I don't say that you're absolutely evil, like the Scientologists. You're sociologicaly closer to the Mormons--basically good people, for the most part, but with a controlling, conservative leadership, and a culture that stresses obedience over independent thought or conscience. I see all this as a step backwards on the scale of cultural evolution, but can appreciate that different people might apply it in their lives in different ways. Dawud 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dawud, you state "Given the basic unreliability of opinion polls for gauging the membership of small groups". Let me point out that opinion polls are quite scientific. There is a large mathematical background for them that is studied by every math student in every math department in universities accross the western world. Secondly, opinion polls are quite accurate for large groups (They regularly get the election results correct within their margin of error) and as I mentioned above due to the small percentage of Baha'is in those surveys, the number of Baha'is would be underestimated not overestimated. This has statistically been proved.

You state of the "inherent plausibility of Cole's estimate" and then say that his estimate of "24,000 is way too low."

You then go on to agree that for all religions the number of adherents is much larger than the number that are active. The Baha'i Faith is no different, and in my reading of your statement I think you are accepting that. If so, thank you for accepting this.

But then you state "practical one having to do with margins of error. A large enough poll (or census) could solve this problem for a given country." Statistically, the smaller the number of people in a group, the propabibility that the number is underestimated is very large. This is once again mathematically proven. So a larger poll would statistically show a larger amount of Baha'is that what is currently shown in polls, not less as you try to argue.

Finally, let me say something about your last statement. The Baha'i Faith is not about continuing the way that things are currently done, it is about a complete different methodology. An analogy that Baha'is use, which I no doubt see you disagreeing with, is that the state of the world is like a house, and it is falling apart due to a bad foundation. Most people/governments/organizations are trying to fix this house by patching it up, which might make it stand up for a longer time, but due to the bad foundation the house will at one point fall down. Another way of fixing the house is to let the house fall down, and in the meantime built a new house that has a good foundation. This new house is being built in a completely new way, and according to Baha'is the process is divinly appointed, so it definitely does not continue the old patterns of construction that have been developed by men, as those patterns have led to the construction of the old house that is falling down. The construction of the old house was performed by tenants that were developed by men, and the construction of the new house is being developed by the tenants and practices of the Baha'i Faith, which part of it is the Covenant and its Administrative Order (and obedience to it). Some people don't like the obedience to the administrative order because (at least in the western world) it has all become about me, me, me, and this has led to much division and bickering in the political landscape. The Baha'i Faith is different and once a decision has been made in a consultative fashion, then you obey it and not fight against it; Professor Todd Lawson in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto has stated "The Baha'i faith posits a non-confrontation version of problem solving. My view is if you opt out of that mode, that's your prerogative. But there are others who take a longer view of things. ... Baha'i ideals are extremely demanding." --Jeff3000 16:48, 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)

Dawud, this is an aside for your interest, if you wish it to be another complete discussion then we should think about moving some of these consultation references to a new heading. You have proven that if one wishes they can ensure that an item doesn't get buried. There is a certain detachment that goes into effective consultation where you present your best argument for the group and then let it go. If they do not accept it then there is almost definately a very good reason for this. In the case that you feel certain the others are wrong, most Bahá'ís are of the viewpoint (I think `Abdul-Bahá actually said something like this) that it is more important to be unified than correct. Obviously it is best to be both unified and correct, but there is a logic to the preference for unity, and it is that if there is a consultation on a topic and there is a dissenter who holds up the group then action is delayed and so is the opportunity to learn from it. Also, it is more likely than not that once all of the arguments are presented and judged for their merit, the majority will pick the most correct one. LambaJan 05:44, 3 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)

I agree with Jeff. Dawud is talking about baseless theories and his personal experience in the face of facts and the research of international organizations. Cuñado - Talk 16:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This has turned into a long discussion. We should think about archiving some of this stuff. Mr. Dawud, I think you're still operating under the notion that the Bahá'ís are trying to hide something, or that there is some hidden agenda that you're exposing. Truly, the only agenda they have brought to this discussion is to use the reason and logic current among the scientific communities to expose the faults of what can best be described as an attack. Your is reason in your argument and logic in your thinking, but there are also faults. These have been described. Do not take this remark as an attack on you as a person or an intellectual. I mean it solely in the context of this discussion. It's like the house mentioned earlier. Beautiful house, but the foundation will crack if you don't build it on solid earth. The presupposition of guilt or hidden agendas is no place for a house of reason. I do respect your mind and your will and I look forward to discussing other edits with you, but I'm tired of this one. If there is ever a vote mine will be placed with Jeff and Cunado. LambaJan 05:44, 3 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)

Oh for crying out loud Dawud. On wikipedia, numbers never win a debate, its the method and validity of the argument that do. If you feel that you have a valid point and cannot be expressed here, bring in some other wikipedians. I suggest admins: Geni has always be very good at being even handed on this page - he's overseen and helped every edit-war over the last year come to a close. Refdoc was rather active on any problems on this page for a while, but hasn't been on Baha'i pages since things calmed down around 5-6 months ago. These two I always personally recommend, but if you feel uncomfortable with that (because I've recommended them), try another admin. Go for Raul654 maybe - I think he was one of those who helped start wikipedia and he was definitely an arbitrator for a while (think of him as a "super admin" kind of. I actually can't think of a single time that we've agreed in a debate :). None of these guys are particularly friendly (or unfriendly) towards Baha'is. Just people you see around here.

Now strictly speaking they'd be here just on an informal basis to help any debate - a personal favour. If you want something on a more official basis here take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Although I wouldn't go as far as their decision being final, I've never seen anyone argue their way through one.

So... in summary, if you feel like things are unfairly biased towards the Baha'i faith and thats stopping a debate being completed, you have a number of ways that you can get help in "winning" it. Don't just whine and say that its pointless because of the bias......... -- Tomhab 12:55, 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)

Trust me, if the Baha'is had their way in everything, this site would be very different (and I mean that in the most sincere way). Take the image of Baha'u'llah. The reason why thats up there is because a concensus decided that it was needed, so Baha'is have no right to remove it. If people lose track of the point bring them back to it and force them to answer the question. If you really feel like you have a point (and can be bothered to follow it up) start by bullet-pointing your main points and any suggested changes, allowing others to comment on it. If you feel things are really becoming unfair (which from time to time happens in every wikipage I've seen), then call in external "neutral" users. I've given you a few to start yourself. Generally, active wikipedian will be very helpful.

90% of all differences are settled by the above. There are more aggressive ways, but take a lot more formal effort. I'll start you off...

---

Whilst most official (and by that I mean Encyclopaedic, official Baha'i, government and formal websites - such as the BBC) quote figures in the range of 5-7 million Baha'is worldwide, unofficial figures such as (Cole !link!)(person2 !link!)(etc) point to significantly less figures of 0.5-2 million. I feel merely quoting the former number is unfair. At present it says:

• • The worldwide Bahá'í population is estimated by official Bahá'í statistics as at least 5 million adherents, while international non-Bahá'í organizations estimate 5-8 million at various dates

I suggest one of the following formats:

• The worldwide Bahá'í population is estimated by official Bahá'í statistics as at least 5 million adherents, while international non-Bahá'í organizations estimate 5-8 million at various dates although some individuals quote notably less (!link!)
• The worldwide Bahá'í population is estimated by official Bahá'í statistics as at least 5 million adherents. Other estimates vary from 1 million, but most give a more generous 5-8 million.

---

As said this solves most of the arguments I see. The reason why people don't do it more is it's so hard to do it whilst keeping your own bias. If you say something thats obviously wrong (such as "all figures estimate Baha'i numbers to be above 5 million" or "Baha'is often lie and estimate 10 times too high") then people ridicule you and you get nowhere with your point. However, if you word it fairly, you manage to get your point across clearly quickly and debates are done and dusted in no time. I have overseen a lot of debates on wikipedia (trust me, Baha'is pages are nothing compared to Jewish/Arab arguments!) and you can't beat straigh honest logic. -- Tomhab 01:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

When we started this whole thread, I got into a "negotiation" with Jeff3000, and we agreed on language. Then some other Baha'i came 'round and eliminated it--and nobody else complained when he did. So you can imagine what I think of the suggestion that I "compromise" with Baha'is. But, (sigh) I'll give it another go.

On your proposed language, not bad. Apparently the Baha'i leadership does not make an official estimate, so we have to be careful how that part's phrased. I would say

Baha'i sources usually estimate the worldwide Baha'i population to be between 5 and 8 million, though its leadership makes no official claim. Encyclopedias and similar sources fall within the same range, perhaps because these tend to rely on information provided by the Baha'is themselves. Some individuals charge that such figures are inflated, and that the "real" number might be as low as 1.5 million. The task of counting such a diffuse population poses inherently difficulties; see Adherents.com for an explanation.

Notice how this avoids judgmentalism regarding the relative accuracy of encyclopedias vs. individuals.

As a factual matter, Baha'is DO "often lie and estimate ten times too high". Or more precisely, the "official" count for a given region is usually between 4 and 20 times higher than the apparent number of Baha'is. Any Baha'i can easily confirm this--and if enough of them cooperate, we could arrive at a more accurate worldwide "discount rate," so to speak.

Perhaps the "missing Baha'is" can be presumed, theologically speaking, to have remained within the faith (much as baptized Catholics are counted even if they have converted to Buddhism). Remember, however, that Scientology uses similar reasoning to give themselves a population of 12 million or whatever it is now. (They also include people who just fill out a card, believe it or not!) Dawud 08:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Giving your opinion doesn't mean that it has to be listened to. All the issues you just brought up have been proven over and over to be unworthy and baseless. Any Baha'i can easily confirm this? You have consistently based your argument on personal experience and assuming that every reporting agency just asks the Baha'is what their population is. Your suggestions amount to not much more than a conspiracy theory against the Baha'is, and I will continue to delete it without significant references. Cuñado - Talk 09:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

As to initial consensus and having someone mess it up... welcome to Wikipedia. That's not a Baha'i Conspiracy - that's normal editorial overhead for having a free and open forum with little heirarchy to arbitrate. As to the specific proposal last given by Dawud, I'd re-write it as follows, considering it an NPOV edit:

Baha'i sources usually estimate the worldwide Baha'i population to be above 5 million [4]. Encyclopedias [5] and similar sources [6] variously claim 5 to 8 million. Some argue that such figures are unrealistic, arguing that the aforementioned sources use self-reporting and/or inflated numbers. They suggest alternative sums as low as 1.5 million globally.[7] Defenders of the earlier estimates point to specific[8] surveys[9] and use extrapolation to back up the larger assessments. The task of counting such a diffuse and (in some cases) hard to define population is inherently difficult, both mathematically and methodologically - see Adherents.com for a more in-depth explanation of this task. A more detailed discussion of this topic can be found at Bahá'í statistics.

This rendering portrays all points, doesn't make anyone look like they're bad people, or conniving, or anti-anything. It's just a simple rendering of who is saying what, and (at a very very high level) why. It has lots of references, and takes no position on the accuracy of the numbers, but refers the reader to sources who can assist in the interpretation of the data, the methodology, and the mathematics of such a survey. Anyway, just a thought -- Christian Edward Gruber 19:38, 12 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:

The worldwide Bahá'í population is estimated by official Bahá'í statistics as at least 5 million adherents, while international non-Bahá'í organizations estimate 5-8 million at various dates [10] [11]. Individuals without empirical evidence have disputed these figures and suggest that the true figure is significantly lower.

Cuñado - Talk 21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Cunado, if we're going to cite Cole's figure (as I think we must), we'd better footnote and give him credit. As for "individuals without empirical evidence," this is half true. Neither Cole, NOR ANY OTHER SOURCE, has produced good evidence in support of their WORLDWIDE Baha'i population estimates. At the same time, we cannot say that their estimates are completely unfounded. It is therefore unfair to apply this language to the minimalists, but not to the "exaggerators" (that's a joke in Arabic). At the end of the day, we're ALL guessing here. I'm going to revert it back to the way it was before you got here.Dawud 11:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually no we're not all guessing here, and Cole does not stand side by side with the other sources. I added a link to his site, but he will not be passed off as anything but an opinion. Cuñado - Talk 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, makes you think the 5 million plus figure is anything other than an opinion? So far all I've seen is tangential discussion of a few national censuses and surveys. Are you asking us to take the Baha'i administration at its word?Dawud 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You can say exactly that about anything you want to. The point is that the Baha'i administration has staked its reputation on this figure being reasonably accurate (as do any official documents/encyclopaedia). If we take your word on it, all we know about you is you have a handle "Dawud" and little else. The same ofcourse goes for "Tomhab" or "Cunado19" - an official body just has more weight in these kinds of things. -- Tomhab 20:10, 15 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))

By the same reasoning, what right do the Baha'i authorities have to make their baseless claims? If I declare myself to be God, and start my own religion, and name a bunch of people as guardians of the world, does that make what they say more authoritative?

And to whoever called Cole "disillusioned", let me point out that at the time he made those remarks, he was still illusioned. And don't Baha'is have some teaching about "backbiting" that they give lip service to occasionally? --Dawud

• Dawud, the reasoning you present is not entirely rational. It is not wise to make a comparison between Juan Cole...an individual person...and an organization who has statistics software, reports from national communities (including good addresses and bad addresses that are returned). This is the kind of data the Baha'i World Center has.

• I am quite surprised at this board. Everyone needs to calm down and not let there own personal opinions get in the way. One Baha'i that lives in a small community says...'oh well, it seems there are only 4 million Baha'is' another that lives in a large community says...'seems more like 8 millon to me'. Juan Cole has his own ideas. But they are truly more baseless than those of the organization himself. He does not have the data nor the software nor the reports that make that number possible.

• Several important points to make here: First, we must make a distinction between how many Baha'is are visible and those who are not; how many are good addresses and how many are not; how many are not registered as Baha'is but think of themselves as Baha'is. For example, in Brasil, the Baha'is had 80,000 people in their list. The government came to the Baha'is with a number 3 or 4 times the amount. When research of this discrepency was complete, it showed that these people identified themselves as Baha'is just from listening to Baha'i radio without even physically coming into contact with Baha'is. In Ethiopia, villages who had heard of what the Baha'is were doing, wanted to do some of the core activities. At the beginning, there were no Baha'is to come help out. Through word of mouth, these Ethiopians learned how to do Devotional Gatherings on their own prior to finding the Baha'is. There are many countries like China that don't have any membership statistics but who already do have significant communities or member population.

• It is true that participation levels average around 30% in western countries, whereas in eastern countries many more participate. Therefore, if we say that there are less than 4 million Baha'is due in part to low participation, but we say that there are many Baha'is who are not in the data due to the nation that they are in or due to lack of declarant files, then it is more than likely that there more are several millon Baha'is than we think. Subtract the non-visible for our purposes, and the number will remain close to 5 million.

• Anyways, the Baha'i World Center says that the Baha'i statistics are the most conservative (lowest estimate) rather than the technology to exaggerate. The current numbers seem coreect and as accurate in light of all the data.

-Nmentha

World Almanac Inaccurate

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)

I still think the article is worded poorly with the phrase: However, some former Bahá'ís have disputed these figures and suggested that the true figure is significantly lower.

It implies that there is some credibility and relevance. We've shown on this talk page that those references to inflated numbers are not supported by any evidence. There needs to be a qualifier here about the people making those accusations, like saying "Sources hostile to the Faith claim..." And avoid using phrases like "some... have disputed." Which are established weasel phrases that Dawud loves to use. If there are people believing this then they should be named. If they are sourced from web blogs then they shouldn't be used. If they have done research on this then it should be linked. I don't know what else to say, and if I continue deleting it then we'll just get more accusations about Baha'is trying to cover up criticism. Cuñado - Talk 22:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

As one weasel to another, let me point out that no one has produced any reason for their assumptions that the other estimates are better than Cole's. The format of its presentation (encyclopedia, website) is beside the point. What I want to know is, who counted? And how? (I mean worldwide figures, not those for individual countries which are occasionally obtainable.) If the number is either a guess, or self-reporting from the Baha'is, then Cole's number is as good as theirs (and more realistic, I suspect). Dawud 13:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Dawud, you're looking at it entirely backwards. Numbers drawn on well-established practices of survey, statistics, and census have some reason to be relied on. But more importantly, nowhere does Juan actually state the underlying data, methodology, sample, or any other aspect of research that would lead to his conclusion. I'm not saying he hasn't the information, just that we don't have it. Therefore, almost any number is as good as Juan's.

Here's one for you. **Note this is humour, not insanity** There are 35 Baha'is, world-wide. You heard it here first. This is taken from my own survey of 35 Baha'is I know, and from this, I can extrapolate that the world population of Baha'is by percentage is 100%, since 100% of my sample set is Baha'i. And since there are only 35 Baha'is, I can calculate the world population to be 35. Any other people I meet are therefore clearly the product of a deranged imagination. (Shout-out to Douglas Adams for my favorite lesson in statistics...) Actually, half of you here therefore don't exist, because you aren't one of the 35. So I'm talking to figments of my imagination... I'd better go talk to my therapist... umm... who doesn't exist. Darn.

At any rate, my point is simply that absent any information, Juan's numbers are neither believable or unbelievable, statistically... they're conjecture. Put another way, they are non-scientific. Now I don't know the basis for the www.bahai.org site's numbers, but ARIS, Canadian census, and various other agencies publish their data, their methodology, and their error rates. Therefore, we can evaluate them. More importantly, they're more falsifiable than Juan's numbers, and are (by definition) more scientifically valid. Again, nothing against Juan here, I'd just appreciate good statistical information here. Unfortunately we have poor data. But what we do have is an answer to your claim that "no one has produced any reason for their assumptions that the other estimates are better than Cole's." -- Christian Edward Gruber 19:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW "Sources hostile to the faith" is inaccurate. At the time he made his estimate, Cole was a member. And I would not describe him as "hostile" today.

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)

New portal on religion

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)

Demographics (part 2)

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)

Actually I don't know the meaning of the word "religion"; I think it's vague. (Elsewhere I got criticized for challenging Subud's claim NOT to be a religion--see Subud and religion)). Oh yeah, Baha'ism comes up in passing!) Anyway, it's a question that ought to be asked, though it mainly concerns other boards. That is, what exactly ought to be protected by "freedom of religon"? The religion that I start tomorrow in order to cheat people?

And Jeff, if I do go and start that new religion, then for the sake of consistency, will you agree that that would make my lies more authoritative?211.72.108.19 10:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where the 5-8 million figure comes from when referring above to Baha'i sources, but www.bahai.org describes the number as "some five million". You can't get more official than that source. As the BWC/BIC is a widely respected body, the discussion of numbers should start with that number and then--if appropriate--discuss/source why the numbers may be distorted. Actually, just whether the number is four, five or six million misses the most interesting demographic point: how is the Baha'i Faith growing? This is a much better indicator of a faith community's vitality. And unfortunately, this is a more difficult number to document. --Occamy 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

BWC is widely respected, and so is Juan Cole. I don't see why either of their claims ought to receive priority over the other. Because one has more people agreeing with it, and found its way between leather covers?

And what makes you think the faith is growing, other than a theological conviction that it must be doing so? 211.72.108.19 10:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe you're even thinking about this! Juan Cole is respected as an accademic, not a statistician let alone someone who's actually been surveying the size of the faith. Most importantly - he's never claimed to be either! It is preposterous that you can even consider them to be comparable. Sure, one might argue that the BWC has reason to inflate its figures, every other authority that I've ever seen cites the Baha'i figures or larger. Have you ever wondered why? -- Tomhab 22:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't like the way it's worded right now after Jeff300's edit. Not just because it runs Cole off as an authority, but it doesn't flow very well. I have been the only one besides Dawud reverting back to a certain version, so I would appreciate some more contributions so I don't feel like I'm being heavy handed. Cuñado - Talk 03:55, 17 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)

I think the number of adherents is a basic fact (even if unknowable) that ought to be discussed on the main page. A paragraph is not too much. If you're really pressed for space, eliminate the b.s. region-by-region breakdown, which makes no sense if the basic numbers could be off by 100 % or more.

Yes, I do suspect that Baha'is are interested in hiding information that makes their religion look less important, or ethically problematic. And yes, I do blame you for that. It's not the worst of all possible sins, but it makes me despair of meaningful cooperation with you.211.72.108.19 10:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Despair is not good. I am sure that many Baha'i contributors are aiming for balanced and interesting NPOV articles. Ironically, the paper [[12]] suggests that there may be a tendency to understate numbers in India, though not for meritorious reasons. Here is the relevant extract: Finally, it struck me, especially after returning to the cities, how much the residue of caste, which is still extremely strong in India, is a challenge for the Bahá'ís in much the same way that race prejudice is in this country. It seems to me that one attitudinal effect of this is that the national leadership, which is prominently urban and high caste, tends not to have too much knowledge or place too much importance on developments in the rural areas. There is little tendency to romanticize about these communities, and perhaps even a tendency to discount their importance. --Occamy 22:54, 21 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)