Talk:Baháʼí Faith in Morocco

Over-done relying on one biased source
I tagged the article as too detailed, in comparison to the importance of the subject in the religion scale in Morocco which is close to null. I smell militantism from a passionate editor. Moroccan press has never even spoken about Bahais, whilst it spoke about Judaism, Christians, Shia, atheists...Just to give you an idea of how The length of the article is disconnected from the actual state of affairs.

Almost all cited sources are this Bahai proselytism website: Bahai official clergy. This is like writing an article about some Christian denomination and only relying on the story of the official church...You get the idea, the whole article is just ridiculous. --Tachfin (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Added disputed tag, the article really contains some odd, questionable stuff. Needs more eyes. Tachfin (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no clergy, the sources are from beyond the url - that's just collection refs. As for the amount of information, that's relative to the subject of the article. In terms of how much information the subject should have in the religion of Morocco article I agree - it's almost invisible. But of itself, it's fine to have good material. Smkolins (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Too detailed? How can the topic be too detailed if it's sourced? I can't understand what the beef is... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW - I made a claim in the edit comment that ARDA/WCE data had been academically reviewed. See --Smkolins (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

statisics
I think some talking should be done. One thing to note is that ARDA revised their numbers a while back. I can't easily point to evidence perse of this but the history in some articles will show me going around revising numbers. This isn't about 2005 vs 2010 data - they was some kind of change they made. If there were simply a "database error" then I'd think it would show up. As for hundreds vs thousands in claims made it is far from uncommon that Baha'is use more conservative numbers. This is for a number of reasons but they are consisted in distinctions. Basically ARDA/WCE have their own definition of who a Baha'i is and Baha'is have their own internal definitions. That is where the hundreds number is coming from that is also mentioned in ARDA. I don't think it's a mistake, I think it's a difference of sources resulting in a difference in numbers. I'd love to see scholarly review of such stats but all I can find a general analyses of WCE data and ARDA trusts them enough that they brought them in. And I clarified through sources that Baha'is claim the hundreds numbers. --Smkolins (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The figure of 33,000 is absolutely incorrect. It has been stated many times by many people that ARDA and WCD figures are incorrect when it comes to the Baha'i Faith. But Baha'i friends consider this source a "reliable secondary source" and use it all over the wikipedia! That's not honesty. Serv181920 (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they are Baha'is or not, discussing this. It's published. Fankly I'd like to know how the 33k number was arrived at more than the question of whether it is right or wrong. Smkolins (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that publishing inflated statistics from poor sources then defending it with useless arguments is going to help the Baha'i Faith? Most people are now becoming aware of how Baha'is are using wrong and misleading data of the ARDA and WCD. Please stop this my friend. The second source that I removed was quoting the ARDA. Just put a query at that site and check sources! You want to portray that two independent sources are quoting the 33k numbers!? I don't know how and from where the ARDA or WCD has taken their figures. But I am sure those numbers are incorrect and you also know that very well. I am removing that source again.Serv181920 (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ARDA/WCE have source showing reliability, and another reliable source use them too. Show evidence it is unreliable and I'm sure a lot of people in wikipedia would be interested let alone other places. You can't cherry pick using them or not. Smkolins (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For instance check this sentence on the wiki page of WCE "The database also contains some numerical inaccuracies such as the inflated 70,000 figure given for Ahmadis in the year 1900, which directly opposes the 1901 Census of India figure of 12,000." This page also reveals the inaccuracies. I am not cherrypicking, just check the table and see the huge difference between the actual census figures of different countries and the figures of the ARDA.Serv181920 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I meant by cherry picking. I'm saying in wikipedia such sources are used and you cant say it can be used in article y but not z without a source saying the other source is wrong. Not that they disagree - I do that already in all the articles I worked on. If a source say abc and a source says ghi then I put both sources. You are cherry picking something is good or bad based on your opinion against a reliable source. Do it and you are out of line. Perhaps you should do the leg work if Wolfram Alpha is considered a reliable source in wikipedia and decide then if you should have taken it out. Smkolins (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I can resolve this. While ARDA didn't release a 2015 list for Baha'i Faith by country, they did update their individual country profiles and appear to have stopped relying on WCE entirely. See here for Morocco: https://www.thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_155_2.asp. They now state 350-400 Baha'is. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated the article accordingly. By the way,, I do agree that a lot of the Baha'i articles on Wikipedia violate WP:NPOV in various ways so I really appreciate that you're helping to make them more neutral and encyclopedic. That said, I just wanted to try to correct a misunderstanding you may have about how WP:RS works (please correct me if you feel I'm wrong). The question is NOT whether the source is accurate in the specific case of the information being cited. The question is whether the source is reliable in general. Reliable sources will still sometimes be wrong (and I agree that the WCE/ARDA numbers for Baha'is are almost certainly quite spectacularly wrong), but Wikipedia editors are not allowed to make that judgement themselves. I think the reason is that once editors had the freedom to question sources based on their own arguments, it would open the floodgates to all kind of disputes and competing allegations of NPOV. So instead, we have to wait for a reliable source to say the other reliable source is wrong, then we can explain the disagreement without removing the first source (see WP:BALANCE). For the specific case of WCE, you might want to look at Margit Walburg's 2006 book on the Baha'i Faith – she specifically criticizes WCE figures for Baha'is and also has a long section on whether Baha'i figures are inflated that you could cite (her answer: probably by quite a lot, but just because they don't remove people unless they specifically request it). Sorry that got a bit long, but I hope it can pre-emptively resolve some future disputes. Gazelle55 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, agree and appreciate. Serv181920 (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, keep up the good work! Gazelle55 (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Meet the press
Just in case it matters - Meet The Press with guest Morocco's King Hassan II exists but isn't available for viewing.--Smkolins (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)