Talk:Baháʼí Faith by country

minimum count, not an estimated total
"official Bahá'í counts claim to be only a minimum count, not an estimated total"

I don't understand this point. My understanding was that Baha'i institutions always enrol anyone who comes to them saying they are a Baha'i, and this is needed for elections.

Please can you clarify what you mean? AndrewRT 14:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The statement compares the counts that the Baha'i sources claim (5 million), and those found in other encyclopedic sources: Brittanica (> 6 million), World Christian Encyclopedia (>7.4 million). -- Jeff3000 14:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you see statistics for a group like the Jehovah's Witnesses, they publish the number of "witnesses" down to single digits. The most recent publications on Baha'i population have only said something like "There are at least 5 million" in 1985, then sometime around 2000 they published another one with the value of 6 million (I can't find source material for that). Anyway, there is no in between, and it means exactly what it says: at least. Meaning that they can be totally sure of the 5 million in 1985, insinuating that there are more out there, but it's better to undershoot and avoid people like Dawud making accusations about inflating numbers. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  16:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * When I was doing research a few years ago I surveyed Baha'i NSAs. Never once did anyone say "at least..." they always gave me an estimated total. I would like to change the wording to something that makes the point you are trying to make more precise.


 * In the meantime, please find a link below to UK Census data on the Baha'i population in the UK. This reveals that 4,645 people in Britain entered "Baha'i" when asked the question "what is your religion". By contrast the UK Baha'i community claims to have a membership of "around 6,000" - see http://www.bahai.org.uk/gi/intro.htm. This is an overstatement of 30%. I suggest that Baha'i communities throughout the west are similarly overstated. Perhaps I can have your comments. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BahaiMonitor/message/4
 * AndrewRT 19:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew, as I posted on the talk page on the Baha'i Faith wikipedia page, because of the small percentage of Baha'is in regards to the total number of people in a country, surveys and census data tend to underestimate the total number of Baha'is. What I mean by the word tend is that through the field of statistics it has been proven that the probability that the number is underestimated for small groups is quite large. -- Jeff3000 19:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeff3000, Thanks for your comment. There's clearly a significant discrepancy here between the number of people recorded as Baha'i on the census and the number of members claimed by the Baha'i NSA. I'm quite keen to understand the cause of this discrepancy, and I won't run to any conclusion about which figure is necessarily the "true one". Having said that, I'm not sure I understand your point about small communities. I had a look at the discussion page on Baha'i Faith - demographics - and the closest I could come up with was:


 * Statistically, the smaller the number of people in a group, the probability 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


 * Is this the bit you were referring to? If so, I'm not sure it would apply here. I agree with what you say when you have an opinion poll that is questioning 2,000 people out of a population of 50,000,000 and then extrapolating the results over the entire population; however in this case the data was a strict census where something like 90% of the population returned the form and no extrapolation was done. I can't understand why a small community would statistically be understated in such a census, any more than a large community would be. Could you clarify this point for me? AndrewRT 20:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right AndrewRT that such a large census removes the underestimation. I didn't click that you wrote census (and what it is) and instead thought of a survey.  As to the causes of this discrepancy, I am unsure just as you state, but possible reasons are those which Cuanado mentions below. People might have signed a card, and were not consolidated, and thus either fail to indentify themselves as a Baha'i or may not be confortable indentifing themselves as Baha'i on a survey. -- Jeff3000 22:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Its one of those odd things though, you can never be sure how accurate statistics are. I think the official UK figure is around 6000 Baha'is, but according to the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001) there are 36000, and last I heard the national census of 2001 made us out to be 22000. As a British Baha'i, I'd say 6000 is a much more realistic figure, but its hard to say as I'm only considering active Baha'is there..... -- Tomhab 21:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The at least reference is in regards to the worldwide Baha'i community. Few countries are organized enough to operate a census or count the number of Baha'is when the definition of membership changes in different cultures. No doubt that countries like the UK with a well structured administration can make better estimate.


 * In regards to the census in the UK. Are you insinuating that Baha'is are purposefully inflating numbers? Keeping accurate running statistics is nearly impossible, especially for a religion. The article mentions that many people declare themselves as Baha'is and then drift away for whatever reason. But nobody knows whether those people have renounced the religion or just are too busy. Without spending an enormous amount of energy in bookkeeping, of course there's going to be an overshoot, but that is not a problem with Baha'is, it's a problem with keeping statistics, and is shared by other religions. Trying to estimate what that margin of error is by personal experience or isolated countries is very unscientific and would be considered original research (something Wikipedia is clearly against). Unless you can provide some hefty references then I wouldn't suggest it.


 * Hi Cunado. I've provided the references - 2001 UK government census - and I suggest it is valid evidence. I am not suggesting bad faith on the part of the UK Baha'i NSA, just bias and inaccuracy. They do have an incentive to overstate figures but more importantly there is a structural bias because people becoming Baha'i get added to the data whereas most people leaving the Faith (most people drift away rather than disenroll) do not. I suggest that people who are on the list because they signed a card twenty years ago, haven't been active for ages and decline to answer "Baha'i" when asked in a census should NOT be included in the figures. Do you disagree? AndrewRT 13:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the worldwide population is "at least" 6 million considering the overshoot, and is a lower estimate (I have no reference). This is also because the total number of Baha'is is not really that important to anybody. Simply converting the masses is not as important as consolidation and creating well deepened believers. A simple declaration of faith is only considered a milestone along a journey, unlike some Christian denominations which consider it the goal. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  21:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that's the reason. Baha'is have detailed membership lists for most countries in the world. Many figures are based on extrapolation (we grew by 10% last year, it was 5m a year ago so I guess its about 5.5m now. My guess is that the "at least" answer is an attempt at conservative extrapolation (so they would say "at least 5.3m to give themselves a margin of error) rather than anything else. AndrewRT 13:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. There is obviously an overshoot because of that reason, that people disenrolling never tell anyone. But like I said, it's a problem with bookkeeping, and not a fault of the Baha'is. What I was objecting to was using the UK model and applying that percentage of error to the entire Baha'i world, especially when I think the total is an undershoot. I would need to do more research into what the estimated total from the Baha'i world center represents to continue debating what it actually represents. Cuñado  -  Talk  17:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just added considerable new material to the article, especially reference to several published academic works that include detailed American Baha'i membership data. I have also edited the article overall to clean it up, have made some language a bit more neutral, and corrected a few errors of fact. I have been able to utilize a bit of personal information; i know the editors of the World Christian Encyclopedia, for example.RHStockman 12:27 CDT, April 25, 2007.

Structure
I suggest this article needs significant work done to improve it's content and structure.

I would like to suggest the following structure:


 * introduction - as is, with an additional point that the figures are disputed by some former Baha'is
 * section on growth
 * section on definition of membership
 * section on distribution around world
 * section on Iran including bit on persecution from intro
 * section on rest of Asia including current bit on Indian census
 * section on Europe & NA including current bit on US and my bit on UK
 * section on rest of world

disputes should be mentioned under the relevant section What do you think? AndrewRT 19:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great idea!!! Go for it -- Jeff3000 20:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Juan Cole (being the former Baha'i) is already mentioned, and his relevance is already disputed, so I don't think it should be in the intro.


 * I think expanding to more countries is a great idea. I added most of the US statistics because that is one of the only countries with a lot of information. I doubt that other areas have very much details available. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  21:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and started to flesh out more countries, particularly in North America, where I'm more familiar, but added African countries and divided the countries into continental regions. It's a work in progress, so help would be greatly appreciated, as I am very short on time and it's piddly work.  Especially if you can add a paragraph or two on the origins of the Faith in a given country and any recent census data if such exists.


 * I did this without reading the discussion (my bad), and I like the above mentioned structure, but I still think chunking up regions makes sense, separating Europe and NA, and not lumping Africa in with "Rest of the world". I do think that mentioning Iran in a seperate category might be useful, though perhaps it should be mentioned once earlier for origins of the faith and its growth patterns, then once again in the regional list, with its current state mentioned.  this way the current conditions can be kept isolated (in the article) from historical conditions and origins.


 * I have to admit I made a bit of a mess that needs to be cleaned up, but it'll take some time to get it right. --Christian Edward Gruber 23:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have an expanding series per country I'm wondering if the articles country listing could be simplified - perhaps the continental/regional lists like as in Bahá'í Faith in Panama at the bottom. Admittedly there are a lot of countries not covered by their own articles yet. Perhaps trim out the ones that are mentioned and leave the ones that aren't. Is there a way of having the continental/regional "in" series not all pile up at the bottom? Or perhaps a different structure??--Smkolins (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Distribution
As promised here is an extract from the (now dated) research I did back in NOvember 1996 on distribution of Baha'is around the world:


 * 1. India 2,262,126 (1996, private correspondance with NSA)
 * 2. Philippines 350,785 (1995, private correspondence with NSA)
 * 3. Iran 300,000 (1988, World Christian Encyclopedia based on projection from historic figures; these projections are not accruate for other countries)
 * 4. Malaysia 200,000 (1995, private correspondence with NSA)
 * 5. United States 130,000 (1988, Europa Year Book based on projections)
 * 6. Bolivia 85,000 (1988, Europa Year Book based on projections)
 * 7. Guyana 50,000 (private correspondence with Baha'i)
 * 8. Brazil 45,211 (1996, private correspondence with NSA)
 * 9. Zimbabwe 17,270 (1988, World Christian Encyclopedia projection)
 * 10. Zambia 14,560 (1988, World Christian Encyclopedia projection)
 * 11. Australia 12,224 (1996, NSA quoted in "Baha'i Weekly Planner")
 * 12. Albania 12,000 (1996, private correspondence with NSA)

I would treat the projected figures with significant scepticism.

AndrewRT 20:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That's great. Do you have copies of the letters from the NSA's? Cuñado   -  Talk  21:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Possibly - I'll have a look to see if I kept them. AndrewRT 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As an interesting connection to this, check out this link. It claims India has 1.7 million, and the US has 753 thousand. Other estimates appear to be wrong also. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  19:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Does size matter?
A few people have said in comments on this topic that size is not that important. Why does it matter how many Baha'is there are anyway?

From a theological point of view, of course size is irrelevant. Truth is independent of the number of people who believe it to be true, and God does not depends on our approval.

However, from a sociological point of view size is definitely important. In Britain, the Baha'i Faith claims to be "one of the nine major world religions in Britain". The fact that in numerical terms the Baha'i Faith comes about number 25 means that this claim is questionable.

Credibility is very important for the Baha'i Faith, as it gets them recognised, and increases their impact when dealing with secular authorities. From their point of view, why woudl they bother listening to the Baha'is if there are only a handful of them anyway? Many Baha'is rely on the claimed global size of their religion to give them credibility as a "global religion". If this was shown to be exaggerated it would have a definite impact on how the religion is treated. AndrewRT 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed on everything. When I introduce the Faith to people who have never heard of it before, I admit that I often mention that there are 6 million Baha'is in the world in almost every country. It gives credibility and makes people realize that it's not some whacko nutjob cult. I also reference the fact that truth is independent of that. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  17:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Difficulties in Enumeration
Does anyone remember where this paragraph came from or what it was meant to say?


 * The large growth of the religion in the 20th century means that most Bahá'í's were not born into the religion of their grandparents, or of the society around them, combined with the Bahá'í principle of independent investigation, makes it difficult to compare Bahá'í statistics with religions in which people are automatically assigned to statistics at birth. Some would say that this results in an overcount for major religions; others point out that as a sociological reality, Baha'i membership is often more transient than say, Catholic identity.

First of all, Baha'i children are now "automatically assigned" a Baha'i membership at birth if their parents register them. Second you can't assign someone "to statistics"; the English is awkward. Third, I think what this is trying to say is that it hard to compare a religion with lots of converts who might then leave the Faith (but who, let's face it, are often more zealous than those born into a Faith) to a religion with an "inherited" membership. But the paragraph doesn't use terms like convert, inherited, and such, so it is confusing.

How can we edit it for clarity?

RHStockman 13:45 CDT April 25, 2007.


 * I agree with your understanding of the paragraph; I believe this paragraph has existed from way back, near the creation of the article.  I don't have access to much internet access at this moment, so I can't help clean it up, but regardless it isn't really sourced, so I don't know if it deserves to be in the article. -- Jeff3000 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

restructure
I propose the following - instead of providing little summary paragraphs for each country and linking back to them when they exist, make a summary paragraph per continent, possibly based on the Tablets of the Divine Plan or similar info for that region and list the regional list which will detail the articles detailing the Bahá'í Faith in these countries. I know there aren't that terribly many countries yet but it could still work I think. --Smkolins (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the current formatting is more in the spirit of summary style. Adding a summary paragraph per continent should be added in addition to the current summary paragraphs per country. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that lead to a very long article? Aren't we over the suggest 32KB already? Or are we talking evolve this article as the individual articles proliferate?--Smkolins (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The 32K limit is not really a limit for new browsers, and most pages are much longer. But when this page does get longer we could seperate it into different articles such as Baha'i Faith in Europe and so forth.  I don't think we reached that stage yet.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the last comment. Although I think we could go back a step and make this page more about statistics rather than how the community developed. Then the development part can go into "Baha'i Faith in Europe", etc.
 * By the way, the Baha'i Faith by country articles are very nice. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  16:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know WP:NOTPAPER, but this is a fairly unreadable article. The level of detail is down to minutiae. And, I don't think that that really fits summary style. Do we really need to log here the first assembly of Moldova, or first believer in Cameroon? I like the summary by continent or region, but in that case we'd be looking at first assembly in Sub-Saharan Africa, or first assembly behind the fallen Iron Curtain.


 * Is this a heavily-linked article? Is this a priority? MARussellPESE (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a mechanism to decide what is a priority as the one Baha'i project has been not widely supported. Other than that it seems to me I've been widely supported doiing the country articles and some of them ha direct relationship with this article (india existed for a time and was collapsed back into this article which is something I had to untangle when the article was reborn.) Since then I've felt that this article needs updating as I get to the countries. Thus my comments and questions. If you've got some views on priorities, I'd entertain them though I've got a few hundred more countries to do if no one else is going to help. I know there is much going on elsewhere and lots of vandals to keep after but I've been occupied mostly doing these country articles.--Smkolins (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is fine as is, and shouldn't be culled. It contains the lead of all the other articles, and so in no way does it contain any level of detail. It fits the summary style quiet well. I believe it should stay the way it is. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith by country
I suggest creating a new page, Bahá'í Faith by country, to replace Category:Bahá'í Faith by country, and also merge Statistics on National Spiritual Assemblies into the new page. The category is not supposed to be used as an informational page like that, and there is more than enough material to put on a page. I suggest moving all the country info from Baha'i statistics to the new page. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  17:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me be more specific; if there is anything relating to demographics in the current blurbs for each country, they should stay here. I think a better title for this page, after the general country stuff is moved to a new page is Baha'i demographics. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm generally for the idea, kind of. I presume you mean take the article-like qualities of the category page and make an article of it as well as some content from the statistics page, but to leave the category itself. I've been wrestling between doing the work of each country and when to break out to summary pages by quasi-continent as well these world-wide summary articles. The reason I added the regional templates all here is because it allows for regional snapshots as well as simply alphabetical listing. A little detail I observed was that the templates for the quasi-continental regions sometimes lend themselves to those summary pages (literally click on the title and it's an article waiting to go) and sometimes it doesn't (it's not a link going anywhere.) Cuñado - want to throw together a sandbox draft so I can see what you are shooting at or do you prefer a solo effort? There is also a nagging prospect of improving the articles as none of them reaches even a B grade I think. And yet I've done barely over 10% of the countries. Another thought I had was a sub-cat for countries where the Baha'i Faith is illegal or seriously oppressed (just a pure cat, there are at least three articles about them.)Smkolins (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also integration with other pages like List of religious populations....Smkolins (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll have to be careful: WP:NOT. It seems hard that such an article could be a stand-alone article. Perhaps a clear list in this article. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No discussion of Israeli community?
Come on, Israel boasts a huge number of Baha'i followers. 99.160.9.30 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, there is no large number of Baha'is in Israel. In fact, apart from maintenance staff who are volunteering at the Baha'i World Centere, there is no Bahá'í community in Israel, although it is a destination for pilgrimages . Furthermore Bahá'í staff in Israel do not teach their faith to Israelis following strict policy which has been in place since the time of Baha'u'llah.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we not start an article Bahá'í Faith in Israel to make this clear? Wiki-uk (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already in the Israel and Religion in Israel articles. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was not aware of that! I have made a redirect for "Bahá'í Faith in Israel" now... Wiki-uk (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

new ref available online

 * World Christian Trends, Ad 30-Ad 2200 By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher Guidry, Peter Crossing. Just in case anyone wants to cite it. I've not dug into the details but it seems to suggest there have been 1-1.5 million Baha'i martyrs?! Hm! Smkolins (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

re-catting some pages
please see Talk:Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith_by_country Smkolins (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

5 million figure
Actually Dennis I disagree the 5 million comes from the Christian Encyclopedia. In 1987 there was a census of sorts and it was published in the Baha'i News and I don't remember them citing the Christian Encyclopedia. It's quoted down below the intro section - "A 1987 report, Achievements of the Seven Year Plan published in Bahá'í News (July, 1987,) pages 2–7, reports 4.74 million Bahá'ís in 1986 growing at a rate of 31% over 1979, or 4.4% per year on average." That seems a far more responsible source for where the 5 million comes from. Smkolins (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the newly added comment as per original research. Wikipedia policies allow for content published in reliable sources, and there are many sources that note the 5-7 million, and that's what is important.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What a journalist reported ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as saying in 1912 not (in isolation) a good source
A report that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá claimed a world Baha'i population of ten million in 1912 would require a pretty unassailable source - or at least a modicum of support - otherwise it looks like a casual journalistic misstatement (or misunderstanding) - if the remark had really been made it would surely have caused quite a sensation, and have been recorded somewhere else during the last century or so. IF it is considered to be worth including here at all it needs at least to be in the form "a Journalist who reported the visit of of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to Salt Lake City in 1912 claimed that...". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That the statistic is reported is noted in various sources. But it is the words of the reporter, - as noted in 239 Days by Allan Ward - "On Monday morning, September 30, 1912, the Salt Lake City Tribune printed an article headed, 'COMES TO LECTURE ON BAHAI RELIGION: Leader of Movement Will Explain Tenets to People of Salt Lake': Abdul Baha Abbas, leader of the Bahai movement, which he says has 10,000,000 followers in the world, is in Salt Lake City. He is making a tour of the United States and plans to lecture on his religion here." There is no note of translation so at best it is a pilgrim note kind of mention. It is not attributable specifically to `Abdu'l-Baha and many of the newspaper articles have gross exaggerations or outright fictions. Smkolins (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bahá'í statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326175049/http://www.princeton.edu/~bhsu/Hsu2008.pdf to http://www.princeton.edu/~bhsu/Hsu2008.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141115131624/http://www.bahaibookstore.com/productdetails.cfm?sku=SBPO to http://www.bahaibookstore.com/productdetails.cfm?sku=SBPO

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

table on Baha'i vs third party sources on counts
Is manifestly a non-Baha'i source. I've yet to see a Baha'i website use it. It is deeply disappointing to see it claimed to be a Baha'i source. Let's not be silly. Smkolins (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I refer to "Most Baha'i Nations (2005)" as a Bahá'í-cited source, because it is extensively cited by official Bahá'í publications.
 * Regards, A35821361 (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A35821361 didn't sign the post but the history clearly shows his addition:

Figures quoted in Bahá'í-cited sources often differ markedly from those tabulated from official government census data.

The table above accurately and in a visually-simple manner depicts the difference in data one encounters when looking at Bahá'í Faith membership numbers in national census data versus data that is frequently cited by Bahá'í sources. Specifically, Bahá'í publications, whether in print literature, official web pages, or (dare I say) Wikipedia article edits, often cite data obtained from the Association of Religion Data Archives. In fact, it is rare to encounter Bahá'í data that does not explicitly refer to data citing numbers from the Association of Religion Data Archives. Therefore, including data from the Association of Religion Data Archives as separate from "Bahá'í-cited" is rather mendacious, particularly when it is subsequently inserted into a column labeled "Other" which includes national census data, which are more accurate than third-party surveys or those that use self-reported data, as does the Association of Religion Data Archives and World Christian Encyclopedia. The national census data should have its own, separate column, distinct from any other sources. (not signed but by A35821361)
 * Citing wikipedia edits is not notable, dare I say. Please show me where a Baha'i authority cites ARDA. Smkolins (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While we're at it since you tried to add this to List of religious populations I'll note other countries use Association of Religion Data Archives as their source which makes it pretty strange if it is a Baha'i source. See what I mean? Doesn't make any sense. Smkolins (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean by "other countries use Association of Religion Data Archives as their source" but as per your request that I "Please show [you] where a Baha'i authority cites ARDA," I went to books.google.com and searched "Bahá'í" and "Association of Religion Data Archives."  The result is pages of books published by the official press agencies of the Bahá'í Administrative Order referencing Association of Religion Data Archives data.  I only bring up Wikipedia edits, because you may note that there are individuals affiliated with the Bahá'í Administrative Order who give presentations at conferences and interviews on podcasts about Wikipedia editing.  When providing citations regarding Bahá'í demographics,these same individuals almost exclusively cite Association of Religion Data Archives data.
 * Regards, A35821361 (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are very few publicly available statistics on populations of Baha'is - and ARDA did publish them. Individuals have done so. What's the problem in doing that? As for institutions of the religion I didn't find any "universal house of justice" and "Association of Religion Data Archives" at books.google.com. I also noticed you've now changed your approach of Baha'i vs census to Baha'is, Census, and ARDA. That's fine. Smkolins (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Bahá'í demographics?
Hey all. This page has always struck me as having an odd title. The title carries (to me) an implication that there is a Baha'i statistical method or a Baha'i approach to statistics, when it's really talking about how many Baha'is are there, where are they, what organizational units exist, where, and in what number. - Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good call, although "demographics" also connotes more than just population numbers, including stuff like breakdown by ethnicity, gender, etc. Should we aim to develop this article to include that kind of information as well? dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 23:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like the big religions are just using pages like Christianity by country and Islam by country. There is a Baháʼí Faith by continent and currently no Baháʼí Faith by country. I don't see an equivalent page compiling various sources like this page. I agree with the need for a name change, and it looks like Baháʼí Faith by country would be the best target to match similar pages, and ...by continent should merge into that page. Any agreement there? Cuñado ☼ - Talk  00:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably support – It seems like a good idea as long as the combined page won't exceed length guidelines. No opinion on "by country" vs "by continent." Someone needs to put the templates up on the main pages to show a merger is under discussion. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Another point: I would note that this page includes worldwide data and country-level data, while the other page is at the intermediate level of continent. Surely this is not a good way to organize an encyclopedia. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about how to handle that. Other examples use "... by country" and don't distinguish continents, but they have all the worldwide data on that page. I think that is actually the best way to go. Data on continents is hard to come by, and not all that interesting. I'm leaning towards making Baháʼí Faith by country the main page, then have a separate page for each country, eliminating the "... by continent" pages. Sounds like about 10 hours of work. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  04:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't support - The article has detailed info on Baha'i statistics. This article is much needed due to all the discrepancies found in quoting the Baha'i population statistics. This topic is widely discussed on different internet forums and many people are interested in knowing this. This article should remain as a stand-alone article. I would, however, support renaming it to "Bahá'í Faith by Country" if the information in the article is not compromised in anyway.Serv181920 (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I definitely agree that the information should not be deleted. Better to just rename it if merging would mean deleting content. But it does seem like a by country page like other religions have would be suitable for this information., are you sure about removing the continental pages? I agree that they are not the most useful, since they tend to encompass different regions that are entirely distinct, but there are quite a few countries without individual pages (just within Asia: South Korea, Singapore, Cambodia, Yemen, Iraq, etc.) and there would be nowhere to put that content. Other religions have by continent pages despite the fact that they become hodgepodges. (I don't mind getting rid of the overarching Baha'i Faith by continent page.) Gazelle55 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * So... I think we should just match what we see with the big religions. Make  the main page, with the , etc. as summary pages from the main, and each country with its own page. And yes of course most of this page would merge into the main by-country page. I'm the one who created, named, and put 90% of the info on this page and I wouldn't want to just delete it. Also what we should be shooting for is something more like this for the country comparisons on the main page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  08:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, so perhaps I should restart the proposal as a proposal to change the name to "Baha'i Faith by country," and we can deal with the "Baha'i Faith by continent" page after? Gazelle55 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, What would be the fate of these items?
 * * Difficulties in enumeration
 * * Worldwide figures
 * * Figures from various countries
 * * Baháʼí sources - Recent / Early
 * I was under the impression that the article is going to be moved to other name! All this information at one place (in one article) is very useful for those who are interested in learning more about Baha'i Stats. This is an important subject for the Baha'is and non-Baha'is alike. I would suggest to keep the article as it is, except if you wish to change its heading/name. If you wish to create another one  to replace with this article, please make a draft first for everyone to see. Thank you everyone for contributing to this article and making it so resourceful. Special thanks to Cuñado for his major contribution.Serv181920 (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

All the sections will remain intact and no material will be deleted. We for sure have consensus on not deleting any material. I think we should take down the templates about merging with "Baha'i Faith by continent" and leave that for later. First step should be renaming this page "Baha'i Faith by country" so I think we should put a template to discuss renaming this page to that. Does that sound reasonable? Again, no changes to the content of this page :) Gazelle55 (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. :) Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: I removed the proposed merger templates at both articles. I tried to move the page myself but couldn't (maybe the accents mess it up?) so I listed it at requested technical moves. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What happened to adherents.com?
It appears to be a loan website at the moment. Hard to believe all that information disappeared. It is used several times on this page and is still referenced on several other pages like religioustolerance.org. I'd say give it a few months and see if it comes back. If not, delete all the pointers to it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  00:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The website is down since March 2020. Much time has passed since then. We should now remove it's links.Serv181920 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we just use archived links? Gazelle55 (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We can, I was not aware of the policy of using the dead links. If you wish you can add it again.Serv181920 (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, was Adherents.com WP:RS in the first place? It seems to be WP:SPS so I think the material based on it should be removed. It is mostly citing WCE, so if needed we could include that in the adherents by country chart instead. Gazelle55 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for the WCE database? Cuñado ☼ - Talk  05:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the most recent data from that research group is in the World Religion Database... I will check soon when I have time to see if I have access. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi and, adherents.com doesn't looks WP:RS to me. The website is down for more than 9 months! I remember I had read somewhere that one Baha'i Mr. Simon Rabbani has provided Baha'i related figures to adherants.com. I agree, it should be removed. If I find the source to support my claim, i will share it here.Serv181920 (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I found this on the archive of adherents.com : "Most recent published estimates of the world Baha'i population are about 6.5 million. This is the figure provided in current Baha'i publications. A recent, updated estimate in the 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica is reportedly 7.67 million, higher than any Baha'i-provided figure we have seen. The accuracy of all of these figures is difficult to determine, and the organization does not provide a breakdown of membership data for each country." And here it says : "Adherents.com wishes to thank David Barrett, principle author of the World Christian Encyclopedia, and Simeon Kohlman Rabbani, who compiled the Baha'i statistics from the WCE, combining the data with country population data, thus making these lists available." So, i think we should remove the data sourced from adherents.com.Serv181920 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Technically that is saying that Simeon Rabbani compiled the numbers for WCE, and adherents.com is compiling the data from WCE. I don't see how this is much different than using ARDA data. It looks like the WCE data was pinned down in the 1990s, and both sources simply use expected growth rates to increase the population over time. ARDA has a few numbers that drop in 2010 but mostly just percentage increases.
 * It's clear that the WCE data is too high, but it was compiled by an independent source and it's the only one out there besides the UNSD. I think the best way to approach it in the article is to write about the sources, assuming there is commentary. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  18:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If ARDA and Adherents.com are citing the same source then keep any one. For me, Adherents.com is not reliable because it has taken data from an non-academic Baha'i individual, Simeon Rabbani, so it makes it a poor choice as a reliable Source.Serv181920 (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As best I can tell, adherents.com is no different than ARDA, in the sense that they took the WCE data as a baseline and made their own estimates, a decade apart. But they are obviously different sources with different assumptions if you look at the data. Also, all three sources were done by professional demographers who reviewed all religions in all countries. If you want to criticize the source, I think commentary is the text is the right way to go, not deleting the data. Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is in the article about WCE data, "Its definition of membership is broader than the official Baháʼí definition and would include people who attend Baháʼí gatherings regularly even if they have not declared their faith or persons who state they are Baháʼís in government censuses as a result of reading about the religion or hearing about it on the radio." I'm not sure what the source is but if that's true it should be more prominently mentioned. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  20:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ARDA is not taking its figures from an unknown Baha'i individual, adherents.com is. I think adherents.com should be removed.Serv181920 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It turns out I have access to the World Religion Database (successor of WCE) and they updated their figures for Baha'is in 2019 (giving projections for 2020). I thought they might have realized how bad their estimates were, but apparently not – they've increased their world estimate above 8 million as well as their national estimates. So I think we should replace the Adherents.com figures with WCD's (will do it fairly soon if no objections). Also nobody seems to be disputing that Adherents.com's own analysis is not WP:RS, so it should go.
 * ARDA appears to have entirely stopped citing WCE for its 2015 edition, so I would lean towards removing its data except where it provides 2015 figures. And if not, we should at least use their 2015 estimates where available. I also think we should either indicate that UNSD's data is based on national censuses or else making a column for "National census" separate from "Other" because those are probably by far the most accurate sources available. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the info. That's really bad. As per Margrit Warburg, even Baha'is don't believe in such exaggerated numbers! Please go ahead and remove adherents.com figures. I agree to the rest of your suggestions.Serv181920 (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I ordered paper copies of the World Christian Encyclopedia, 1982 and 2001. If those have the source data that the others are relying on then it would make sense to replace adherents.com. I'm not convinced that ARDA should be removed. I'll say again, commentary on the sources is the appropriate way to address them, not removing information. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  07:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone, let's wait for some time for as he has ordered the copies of WCE. For adherents.com, I think no explanation/commentary is needed because it is clear that Baha'i data is provided by one individual with no sources and academic record.Serv181920 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think your assessment of how the data was gathered is just your opinion. You can't throw out the source because you don't like it. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  18:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, No that's not my opinion. I have already given the proof, the data was compiled from WCE, by one Baha'i individual and submitted to Adherents.com. Who is this Baha'i individual and why he should be trusted? What is his academic record? And Adherents.com is not working since past 9 months on so, why are you taking help of a dead website when there are good sources available? If you want to include the WCE data please add it with proper references. A website like Adherents.com that trusts individuals and adds data is definitely a bad choice as WP:RS, especially when there are other sources like ARDA and WCE itself.Serv181920 (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If we're allowed to judge sources and exclude data that is obviously incorrect and less reliable, then why are you pushing for promoting the census of India? 5,000 Indian Baha'is gathered in-person in 2008 (only a small fraction of believers could gather in-person), there are currently 60,000 Baha'i core activities in India, and the census counts Hindu as an ethnicity. An intelligent person analyzing the discrepancy can tell the census is undercounting Baha'is by one or two orders of magnitude, but you promoted it as the actual number of Baha'is. So now that you're holding sources to this high standard, that should be removed, right? <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  09:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

How can you compare the Official Census of a Country with a website that is not functional and takes its figures from an unknown individual!!Serv181920 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Both of them are obviously showing incorrect data, one too high and one too low. I can sympathize with your desire to eliminate data that looks incorrect, but it can't be one-sided - only eliminating the data that fits your POV. You're assuming that adherents.com asked an individual Baha'i and took whatever numbers were given and just shared them as fact without oversight. That is illogical, and imagine someone trying to document the size of all religions in every country, the first places you would go is their membership data, census/survey data, and World Christian Encyclopedia. You can't say that because they looked at Baha'i membership data then the source is junk. Obviously adherents.com didn't do any original field work. WCE was the first of its kind and took a decade of research by a team of professionals. Adherents.com and ARDA would have seen the three Indian censuses and chose to ignore them for the number of Baha'is. The Indian census has been heavily criticized and is ignored by demographers. The census has implications for politics and budgets and there is an obvious reason why it undercounts Baha'is. So if we're compiling data from various sources, then compile the data with commentary on the sources. If we're performing original research and eliminating the data that we can tell is inaccurate, then the Indian census shouldn't be cited. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  19:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, how are you? Hope I am not disturbing you too much. :-)
 * You are a knowledgeable person, i appreciate your knowledge and i am learning from you. However, at places I see your evident pro-bias towards your religion, which is a natural thing, but not expected from experienced wiki editors. I have no personal issues with adherents.com, there is ARDA and WCE, both of which are giving highly inflated data. If those are there, then it doesn't matter if adherents is also there! I am assuring you and other Baha'i editors who are editing wikipedia pages, that I won't break wiki rules and try to understand and co-operate with Baha'i editors, only thing required is intellectual honesty. I like the editing and 'debating' style of and I want to learn a lot from him.
 * Coming to the census of India, i agree, it could be under-reporting Baha'i figures, no census can be 100% accurate. Baha'i faith is a new religion and it does not have many followers, a minor error in reporting their numbers would make a huge difference for Baha'is. But there are some points to observe 1) I am myself from India and I know there are very few "real Baha'is" in India, most real Baha'is are Persians. 2) Most Hindus and Muslims who attend Baha'i core activities or as you say 5000 or 8000 attended a youth gathering, are still not Baha'is. They do attend Baha'i programs, they do appreciate Baha'i cause but they are still Hindus by heart, when visiting census official asks them about their religion they say "Hindu", they are not yet "consolidated" as Baha'is say, they have not yet "converted" to the Baha'i faith. This kind of people come and go, most of them are never a part of the community like the Persians. 3) If the Indian Govt. is under-reporting Baha'i figures then the NSA of India should report this "injustice" to the concerned authorities. From the past 3 decades (3 Censuses) Baha'i figures are being under-reported and Baha'is are doing nothing!! 4) There was a Census Task Force established by the NSA of India to train the Baha'i communities to assure that their religion is written as "Baha'i" in the census form. If you want more details about this Task Force, please don't hesitate to ask me. 5) No other faith or group has problems with the census figures. You are citing two-three sources and claiming "the Indian census has been heavily criticized", that is too much. According to Mr. Hamid Ansari (former Vice-President of India), there are around 4600 religions, sects, castes, cults, in India - some groups claiming inaccuracies is not something to say "heavily criticised".
 * Regarding the so-called "census inaccuracies", i would suggest you to compare census data of these countries with ARDA / WCE data. Check this table, which you have successfully eliminated and replaced it with a more confusing table!
 * "Adherents.com and ARDA would have seen the three Indian censuses and chose to ignore them." - Do you really think so!!? I understand that ARDA / WCE is not at all checking the census figures of any country. Have a nice day.Serv181920 (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . :) I think whether the census is accurate is besides the point, it's RS and we don't have any sources specifically commenting on its Baha'i numbers so it stays in (and I think that was Cuñado's point). If we have sources for 5,000 people at a youth gathering or 60,000 (!) core activities in India, they should certainly go on the Baha'i Faith in India page, at least with "Baha'is claim..." depending on the sources. Bei Dawei also quotes in an internal report from the Indian NSA saying 86,000 or something like that, which he quotes alongside the census without taking a side. I'll try to find it.
 * Anyway I do agree that the current table, while it is more comprehensive (which is great), should have a census column. Also, Adherents.com is just quoting WCE, ARDA states right at the top that it is just quoting WCD (successor to WCE), so that should be indicated. My big question though is whether I'm allowed to add all the 2020 WRD numbers... I will ask at the Teahouse when I have a chance whether I can include them here. I'm concerned whether publishing an entire copyrighted database (from behind a paywall) is allowed by Wikipedia. If I can add those numbers, I don't see any reason to keep WCE, Adherents.com, or ARDA. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should add columns for WCE 1982, 2001, and the WCD data you have access to, then remove the adherents.com columns and maybe ARDA. I'm split on a separate column for "census/survey" data because there are so few and it would clutter the page having two columns mostly empty. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  18:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if it comes to it, perhaps we could have a UNSD/census column and then an "Other" column? ARDA's 2015 data where available could go in "Other" since it is only available for a few countries. Anyway, by my count on the Baha'ipedia page there is census data for about 30 countries or territories, which is plenty... some from Serv's old table were removed when the new one was made. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and, after looking over Copyright in lists I don't think I can include the WRD estimates. A database is copyrighted if there is a creative aspect to it. While that might not seem to be the case here, the guideline has this note:


 * "One might think that a list of the market value of used cars would be objective. But in CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports (1994), one such work was found to be copyrightable expression because it was based not on "data" but on the predictions of the authors using a "wide variety of informational sources and their professional judgment"."


 * "Where criteria cannot be determined, we may not always be able to assess the inherent nature of content and comfortably determine that it is "safe" to freely reproduce."


 * WRD may not have the same problem as that example but since there is no way to remove something from the public history once something's on Wikipedia I'm not going to take the risk. There might be similar problems with using WCE 1982 or 2001. We may want to just stick with the ARDA 2010 list. It says right at the top it is based on WCD – we can put a note that says this. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge
what's the merge justification? Note that I moved the merge template to the article page, but a case for the merge should be started here. Klbrain (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Support – I'm not Cuñado but I think this is justified on the grounds that the notability of Statistics on National Spiritual Assemblies hasn't been established. All the sources cited are either primary Baha'i sources or else from Baha'i publishing houses. Graham Hassall has published academically about the Baha'i Faith so his source might carry a little more weight even though it itself is not academically published, but I don't think that alone establishes the notability. The main table could be merged into the table on this page which already covers National Spiritual Assemblies by year (though currently in less detail). Any highlights from the longer list could go to Spiritual Assembly, but I think most of it can just be deleted. We had a long thread on a different talk page about the need to consolidate and trim back Baha'i pages to meet notability guidelines and stick to WP:RS. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes as Gazelle55 said. I think Statistics on National Spiritual Assemblies was meant to be a breakout page using Baha'i statistics as the summary page. There is not enough content or notability for a separate article and I think consolidating makes sense here. I think the only spinoff from this page would be the "Baha'i Faith in Asia", etc. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  05:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If no objections from &, I think we've waited long enough to go ahead with this. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Bei Dawei article
<moving comments to new section> <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  18:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Also,, if you're looking for critical sources, I found the Bei Dawei article. See footnote 2 in here. The footnote has important information overall and for India (plus Taiwan but he doesn't give a specific number). The template for citing a conference is here. If you don't get to it don't worry, hopefully I will soon. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything that can be used in the article. It is un-published by an otherwise unknown author. It uses blogs as sources on India and the link to the annual report doesn't work. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  21:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, There is some info about using offline sources and material behind paywall here. Even I don't see any reason to keep WCE, Adherents.com, or ARDA. If you are updating with latest WCD numbers, which are even more inflated, then I think Baha'is would be more than happy to see it! :)
 * Census figures are important and they are RS so there should be a separate column or may be we can make a new table for countries that have census figures to avoid cluttering.
 * And thank you for directing me towards Bei Dawei's article, I will check it. Cuñado claims that it is self-published, he has also reverted one of my edit on Baha'i Review page, where I had cited Vance Salisbury's article about censorship, available on Bahai-library - saying that it is self-published! I am now supposed to show him that some self-published sources are considered as RS. Would appreciate if you can help me on that. If I am incorrect, I would be happy to undo it myself. It is so ironic that Cuñado himself cites Sen McGlinn's personal blog sometimes!!Serv181920 (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Each article on bahai-library.com has an "About this document" on the top right. here is the one for that article. It is listed as "un-published". I believe bahai-library.com does not have its own editorial review, so each source needs to be analyzed. Self-published can be used but you have to consider: is the author notable from other works? is there a better source? is it sourcing something that is likely to be contested? A google search of Bei Dawei comes up with nothing, so it is an un-published article by someone who is un-published otherwise. I don't know what the report actually is counting, fund contributors? Participation in study circles? If it is counting active participation, then it needs to be noted as such and not stand side-by-side with numbers counting registration. Margit Warburg estimated 100,000 active participants in India with good methodology. I don't see any way to quote reference to 86,000 unless there is a copy of the report somewhere or someone reliable is summarizing it in a way that the number makes sense. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  18:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cuñado that Baha'i Library Online doesn't have any clear review process—it is only as good as the source that's on it. (And thanks for making this a new section.) Sen McGlinn has been published academically, so according to WP:SPS we can use his self-published work (with caution). As for Bei Dawei, he actually isn't unknown. He is "an assistant professor in the foreign language department of Hsuan Chuang University, Taiwan" (see here) and has co-edited an academic anthology on religious studies (see same link). He also contributed a chapter to the anthology and co-authored the introduction along with the other co-editors. That article has not been published in a journal but it was accepted to an academic conference (it is available on the conference website), which means there was a peer review process. I agree with not using the 86,000 figure unless we can find an archived version of the image in order to figure out what the number means. But his overall note on Baha'i demographics deserves to be included for sure. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update, I checked archive.org and some other archiving sites and no record of either the report or the image. So I agree with not using the 86,000. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have the latest Annual Report of the NSA of India. I also have the latest newsletter published monthly by the NSA of India, in Hindi. It has records of all core activities in every state of India. Remember these figures are self-reported and most Indians taking part in these activities are not Baha'is. They are just villagers who don't know anything about the Bab or Baha'u'llah! If you are interested, please let me know - I will share the links with you.Serv181920 (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Newsletters can be found here: http://bhartiya-bahai.blogspot.com/p/bahai-samachar-pdf.html
 * You may like to check the Newsletter of February 2020, it claims 59472 activities and 412852 participants. As an Indian, I am pretty much sure that both of these numbers are inflated.Serv181920 (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing . I can only read English and French unfortunately, but you could add the core activity numbers to the Baha'i Faith in India page with something like "The NSA of the Baha'is of India reported...". Great to hear your experience and perspective from India. I think in the West too, most non-Baha'is at core activities are interested in the way the social message is presented, nothing specific about Baha'i spirituality or theology. But we would need sources to write that. In any of those reports do they say the number of LSAs or the number of Baha'is who gave to the fund or something like that? Gazelle55 (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I do have some issues of "The Life Blood" magazines, i will try to find out the number of Baha'is who gave to the fund. In India most LSA members and Baha'is are not real Baha'is, by their heart they are Hindus. For most of them, Baha'u'llah is just another Bhagwan (God).Serv181920 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds great. No rush, I was just thinking including that in the India article could give some sense of the actual activity level. We could also put Warburg's estimate. Yeah, I think Garlington has mentioned these "half-conversions"... it is a problem when quantifying many religions. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I found this in one issue of "Life Blood", you will find this interesting: "This symbol of their Love-the Temple, is being maintained since then only with the generous and sacrificial contribution of the believers. Around Rs.3 crores is required every year for maintaining this House of Worship. Although the Indian Baha’i community has contributed a sum of Rs.3.65 crores during the last financial year towards National Fund, from which the partial expenses for Temple maintenance were also met, the ear-marked amount received for the Temple was only Rs.38.25 lakhs. We are happy that besides this amount, Rs.32.45 lakhs was contributed from friends outside the country. The major chunk of contribution towards National Fund (Temple Maintenance) came from Maharashtra (Rs.31.55 lakhs) followed by Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Sikkim." Source: (Life Blood, Issue #3, July-Sept. 2014). [unsigned – User:Serv181920]


 * It sounds like they really can't afford such a large, beautiful temple... which suggests there are not so many Baha'is in India. That said, I think we need to be very careful adding material from primary sources. There's too much room for POV deciding what information to include or not. If they gave a number of Baha'is we could put that against the various other estimates, but I don't think highlighting one aspect of the financing from one year is fair. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup, AFAIK 95% of the above amount is donated by Zia Mody. She is very rich and she is committed to the Baha'i faith. This is only FYI.Serv181920 (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That would help explain why so much of the money came from just one state. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The International Baha'i Fund subsidizes the national funds for most poor countries. It's up to 80% in very poor countries. Nothing strange about that and not a reflection of activity levels in the country. The number of people contributing to the fund is a good indicator, not the amount. But even so, fund contributors are typically only half of the active Baha'is and 1/4 of registered Baha'is in the United States. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  00:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the context, Cuñado. Anyway, as I said, I think none of this should go in the India article until a secondary source covers it. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Good addresses
, regarding this edit. The details of active vs inactive are on the country-specific pages, and I think it kind of just adds to the clutter to try and include it here. I was also debating removing the note on US jurisdiction covering continental states for the same reason. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I reverted. I think the other note should stay for precision though. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

World Religion Project
Just popping in here to drop this link:

This dataset was published by Maoz and Henderson (2013) and offers historical estimates for religious groups by country, including for Bahá'ís. The interesting thing about it is that figures tend to be less inflated than WCE/WCD/WRD numbers, and the global numbers are actually in a similar ballpark with official Baha'i estimates. There are also estimated figures for various regions, i.e. Europe, Asia, Africa, Middle East. dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 08:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, I just saw this. I'll try to take a look soon. Currently, the two WCE columns and the ARDA column in the chart in the article are all basically the same source so it would be great to have another independent one. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sort order for adherents list
I'd like to suggest a slight change to the list of adherents by country. Right now, when a table cell contains multiple population figures, these are sorted in ascending chronological order, so that the oldest figures for each country appear at the top in each table cell. Visually this is fine, but the upshot is that, when the table is sorted based on a column that contains multiple figures, the sort order becomes quite chaotic—and, IMO, virtually meaningless—as countries are effectively sorted according to the earliest known population figure, which may be from any year at all, producing little more than a randomly ordered listing.

What might be more helpful is to reverse the order, so that the figures in each cell are listed with the most recent first; in many cases, these are from the last ten years or so, which means that sorting the list would show the largest populations as measured in the last ten years.

To illustrate what I'm suggesting: Currently, Baha'i figures for the United States appear like so:


 * 1,500 (1899)
 * 1,200 (1906)
 * 100,000 (1988)
 * 130,000 (1995)
 * 177,647 (2020)

I'm suggesting we flip these around to read:


 * 177,647 (2020)
 * 130,000 (1995)
 * 100,000 (1988)
 * 1,200 (1906)
 * 1,500 (1899)

Any thoughts? dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 06:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)