Talk:Baháʼí Faith in India

Emergence from Obscurity

This is a loaded Baha'i phrase which doesn't really belong in an article like this which is seeking to have a neutral point of view. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a decade late but I just fixed it. Gazelle55 (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

another ref to include

• http://bci.org/religiousunity/BahArt/Baha'i%20Faith%20in%20AP.htm
• http://www.iptu.co.uk/content/india_profile.asp
• Religions of South Asia By Sushil Mittal, G. R. Thursby which might be a reprint of an earlier article or new. Not sure.
• Amazing Race 13, episode 6: Delhi, India is hard work by Jamie Rhein Smkolins (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

how about some pictures you Indian Baha'is?!

Look over at Bahá'í Faith in the Netherlands where we finally have some pictures! Smkolins (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Rabindranath Tagore

Abdu'l-Baha mentions Rabindranath Tagore might be worth a mention …"From what has been heard he is one of the promotors of peace and reconciliation. He is kind to all people and now he is going to America… Therefore, the friends of God in all the cities should receive him and exercise toward him utmost respect so that it may become apparent how kind and the friends of God are." Thompson, Juliet (1931). "Master's Tablet Delivered". Bahá'í News (48): p. 4. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I agree. In Barbara R. Sims' Traces That Remain it is stated: "Tagore was aware of the Faith. He had met 'Abdu'l-Bahá in Chicago, and when he met Miss Root in Hong Kong in 1924 he asked her how the Faith was progressing."

In Garis, M.R. (1983). Martha Root: Lioness at the Threshold. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-87743-185-X. Tagore is also mentioned several times. Wiki-uk (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

a news item

• Agarwal, Sanjay (Jun 29, 2010). "1st Regional Baha'i Institutional Gathering held in Tadong Baha'i School". Sikkim News. Retrieved 2010-06-29. Smkolins (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Another:

• Desai, Shweta (Sept 25, 2014). "How Indian cavalrymen rescued Bahai spiritual leader during World War I". Scroll.in. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) --Smkolins (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Census

With edit I reverted the additions of Jammu58, which added a section on the census of India.

I have explored this issue in the past, and there appears to be no commentary from reliable sources as to why there is such a discrepancy (and it's a huge discrepancy). For example, there is some commentary here from a Baha'i giving some ideas (including a comment that there is no commentary), but it is not a reliable source and can't be used. The census appears to be undercounting, and the number from Baha'i sources seems to be overcounting, but that's about all anyone can say. And yes I agree that ARDA and WCD are both the same source and I'm almost sure the WCD didn't run any independent surveys around the world, but I also agree with that blogger that the census is probably counting cultural heritage and not belief, and "more than 5,050 Indian Baha'is gather[ed] in person during 2008. Any physical gathering would only bring a small fraction of the self-identifying Baha'is in the country."

The article currently has both sources in the lead, which I think is appropriate because the relative size should be mentioned in the front, and both numbers should be mentioned. If you're going to add a section detailing all the census results, please have it make sense with a coherent narrative using reliable sources, otherwise it's... "lies, damn lies, and statistics". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

1-Well you agree that the ARDA and WCD didn’t run any independent survey but relied on some sources which according to you is not reliable. Then why you are quoting that unreliable figure 2 times.

2-Your idea that Indian census counts cultural heritage and not belief. is incorrect statement.

The Indian Census forms has about 30 questions which is being asked to the individual person by visiting his/her house, which includes, what is your Religion? They don’t ask what is your Culture.

3-I have given three decades Official census just to show that it is consistent and coherent with number 4572.

4-There are many other reputed Bahais who are questioning the Bahai numbers in various countries. Some 100 years back Abdul Baha in his visit to United states have talked about millions of Bahais.

http://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/FalseStats.htm

https://worldbahaicensus.blogspot.com/2020/

You may also like to look over her:

https://bahaism.blogspot.com/2020/09/once-again-inflated-bahai-statistics.html

5-I suggest:

Either you remove the numbers by WCD and ARDA and let only 4572 figures.

Or if you are putting those number then put the official census of India for three decades with or without the new heading. Jammu58 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to expand, you need context and a narrative. You are trying to create a narrative that the Baha'i numbers are inaccurate, and I agree, but the census is also obviously wrong. The closest thing to an independent review of the numbers came from WCD, which surely saw the census numbers and chose to ignore them. The current version of the page includes the most recent census and the WCD number, which seems like a reasonable approach considering the lack of commentary from reliable sources (I'm not counting the bloggers we linked as reliable). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Well both of us agree that WCD numbers are wrong so the question why to mention.

You say that census numbers are also wrong well I say they are right. The reasons:

1-Three consecutive census cannot be wrong by an elected Secular Govt. for whom even 2 million Bahais are insignificant looking at the total population of India.

2-The Bahais of India never complained to the Govt that why 4572 is quoted when we are 2 million.

3-The deepened Bahais and the Head of Census dept. of NSA of India also says that there is deep exaggeration in the WCD number. Jammu58 (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• My input - the sources are reliable and whether we or others agree or disagree with them, the sources exist. I've heard of discussions about defining membership vs adherents but not seen a published source about it. As the sources exist they should be used. Smkolins (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It is clear for me that Cunado and Smoklins both are short of arguments. Cunado said the sources (WCD) are not reliable Smoklins is ::::saying that it is reliable for him. For you both only the source of Census of Govt of India is not reliable. Well if you think that  ::::You are doing great service to Faith by giving incorrect information’s it is wrong. Every NSA members believe that the figure 2 ::::million is not exaggerated but untrue.Jammu58 (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between two senses of reliability. One sense is accuracy, and this is the sense in which I believe Cuñado was saying the sources are unreliable. However, the important sense of reliability for inclusion in a Wikipedia article is whether they come from reliable sources, which is the sense I understand Smkolins to be using. I'd like to add my voice in favor of the current use of the sources, although I think data from past census years could be appropriate given it is a history section. Gazelle55 (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Its not possible that Census of 1991, 2001 and 2011 all be biased (or incorrect) towards the Baha'is. I believe that all census figures should come in the article as a matter of fact.Serv181920 (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I say go ahead and add them, Serv181920. The article body also contains multiple years of Association for Religion Data Archives stats, so it is fair to have multiple years of census data. Another editor has put an argument against the accuracy of the census below, but I think we can agree it's not our place as Wikipedians to dispute WP:RS. Gazelle55 (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with the census

Here is an article about the census from Firstpost (not sure of the reliability). "Census 2011 - like many before it - is a substantial piece of fiction. It has been computed with unsound methods and will not represent a true and fair picture of religious affiliations in India." It says the census doesn't distinguish between "people who may be civilisationally grouped as Hindu and those who are Hindu by religious affiliation and practice." The surveyor must select Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain. Caste Indians who receive benefits based on caste are automatically assigned the religion "hindu". I'm sure there is a lot more material out there about why the Indian census seriously undercounts the non-hindu religions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cunado

You said your input sources regarding Bahai census are reliable i.e. WCE and ARDA.Please take a look.

'A closer scrutiny of the encylopedia shows that the Baháʼí figures reported in WCE for some Western countries are highly exaggerated. For instance, she states, the World Christian Encyclopedia reports an estimated 1,600 Baháʼís in Denmark in 1995 and 682,000 Baháʼís in the USA in 1995. According to her, the Baháʼís themselves do not acknowledge such numbers; the number of registered Baháʼís in Denmark, in 1995, were about 240 and in the USA were about 130,000.Therfore Word Christian Encylopedia is not a reliable source as far as Bahai population is concerned.'

Citizens of the world : a history and sociology of the Bahaʹis from a globalisation perspective. Leiden: Bril. 2006. p. 218.Jammu58 (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Jehangir Sorabjee

This article mentions the Panama Papers include "Jehangir Sorabjee - the son of former attorney general Soli Sorabjee" as someone with links to the Panama firm that was helping people avoid taxes. This article mentions "Jehangir Sorabjee, chairman of the local spiritual assembly of The Baha’is of Mumbai". I don't see anything confirming that these two articles are talking about the same person. As this is negative information about a (presumably) living person, Wikipedia policy is to remove it if there are any verifiability concerns and the burden lies with the person trying to add the material. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverting on Baha'i Academy

I have undone your changes on Baha'i India pages. Because the primary source of information is the Governor's letter which is the highest office in the state of Maharasthra. The Governor office has asked for the action to be taken. The Secondary source of reference is the official website of the University. There cannot be more profound news than the official site of the University. One cannot deny its authenticity Jammu58 (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Copying the response I made on my talk page:

Hi Jammu58, thanks for your explanation. The governor and the university are both primary sources – a secondary source means one that is one degree removed from the events (usually an academic paper or a news article, see WP:PSTS). And the governor just said "appropriate action," meaning he was leaving it up to the discretion of the university.

But in general I do think a lot of the Baha'i pages on Wikipedia violate WP:NPOV so thanks for helping to clean them up. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear I'm not trying to deny the authenticity of the letter or that it was forwarded. However, there's no evidence the university took any action (that would be much more notable). At this point it's just some guy who wrote a letter and it got forwarded according to standard protocol. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Copying another response from my talk page: Gazelle55 (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55"

Under secretary to the Governor Dr.S.M. Salunke wrote to the Principal Secretary to the Government Higher and Technical Education ::::Department, which in turn wrote to the Vice Chancellor University of Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, The Registrar office of the university posted on the official site of the university. I wonder how it is just a Primary source.

Moreover the Governor has taken the action in his capacity by asking the university to take "Appropriate Action"

Whether a positive or negative action was taken that shoud'nt be the part of this news.

Thanks.

Jammu58 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, thanks for your respectful reply. First of all, just to be clear, I am not trying to keep material that is embarrassing for Baha'is off the page. Another editor added claims sourced to a newspaper about nefarious Baha'i activities at the New Era Teacher Training Centre, and you can see that material is still there under "Recent events."

I agree that the source has gone through several steps, but they are still all primary sources. Primary does not mean unimportant. Understanding the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources can be difficult at first, so please read WP:PSTS (it is not super long). Part of that section says: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."

Regarding the mention of "appropriate action," I have worked in government before (though not in India) and this kind of vague language is used all the time and shouldn't be taken too literally. I think it's best interpreted as meaning "action if appropriate." If a source goes further and says the university actually cut ties with the Baha'i Academy or something like that, then that would be notable. Gazelle55 (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

LSA of Lucknow dissolves itself

Cuñado It is important that out of so many assemblies in the world the LSA of Lucknow passed a resolution dissolving the assembly. Isn’t the Bahai Holy writings demand that there should be a guardian so where is the issue of POV. It is NPOV. In Baha'is of India page, it is a fair representation I don’t think it is undue weight. The Baha’is of India should know their history and The Unique Action performed by the LSA of Lucknow, which later on was named as the Mother Assembly.Jammu58 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The assembly of Lucknow was already mentioned in the article. "The Baha’is of India should know their history" is surprisingly honest about your intentions and why you're editing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The Assembely of Lucknow is mentioned as a Mother Assembly in 1960 after Recognition By Mason Remey. But its dissolution till the next Guardian is appointed is no where mentioned.This has to come, may not be as a separate heading but in Section of Mason Remey's influence.Thanks for appreciating my honesty of intention.Jammu58 (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a very obscure piece of information. Is it even mentioned in Johnson's Baha'is in Exile? The weight in articles should reflect their weight in independent sources. If an independent, reliable source were to write an article about the Baha'i Faith in India, would it mention that the Assembly of Lucknow dissolved itself in 1958 and waited for a Guardian? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 09:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado , Gazelle55 , Serv181920,I added two lines regarding Dissolution of LSA of Lucknow:

“After the sudden death of Shoghi Effendi, the LSA of Lucknow in its meeting held on November 9, 1957 in presence of seven of its members passed a resolution suspending the activities of the Assembly till next Guardian is appointed. The matter was conveyed to the National Spiritual Assembly on November 18, 1958. The letter was placed in the meetings of the Custodian hands on February 12, 1959.”[28][29]'Italic text

Cunado removed it giving the reason that it is undue weightage. In Bahais of India Wiki pages when the LSA of Lucknow dissolves itself till a further Guardian is appointed is it UNDUE weightage? Or it is a UNIQUE ACTION? Isn’t the Bahais of India have a right to know this? According to Wikipedia policy “There should be no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity”. It authenticity was proved when Mason Remey recognised the LSA of Lucknow as one of the three "mother assemblies" that he appointed in 1962.Jammu58 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with what you added, it doesn't seem WP:UNDUE to me to have a few more details, given that Johnson, who has perhaps written the most in-depth work on Baha'i divisions, thought this was significant. Looks like only a slight expansion of what is already there. (Note: Not just the Baha'is of India, but everyone, has a right to know about the information on Wikipedia – we don't write for a specific audience.) Gazelle55 (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Johnson did not think it was significant. It wasn't mentioned in his book. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My bad, yeah quoting Remey himself is definitely WP:QUESTIONABLE. We would need a better source. (Though the same could be said for a few parts of the article.) Gazelle55 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Gazelle55 Be Bold! Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, I have checked the edit history of this article. Your edit here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baháʼí_Faith_in_India&oldid=1002399456 is not supported by a source. If you have a source, please add it and I see no weight issue with your edit.Serv181920 (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit : I see you had added the source in your later edits. The sentence is sourced from Mason Remey's daily observations. I think if you attribute the sentence to the book or Remey then there should be no issue.Serv181920 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Gazelle55 , Serv181920 The main issue is that Mason Remey the second Guardian is considered as unreliable source where as Smith and Momen are reliable.It is strange.

Wikipedia policy says Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information.If There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. It clearly proves that there is no reason why the Dissolution of LSA of Lucknow cannot come on Baha'is of India pages.Especially when I am giving the reference that Remey says.Jammu58 (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he is unreliable for Baha'is only.Serv181920 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Self-published material can be used about the author under certain cases. In this case, it is not about the author, it is contestable, and it is also too obscure an issue to warrant inclusion on the page. Articles should be written from the point of view of a neutral third party. Show me an independent writer giving an overview of the Baha'is of India that even mentions Mason Remey.

Smith and Momen are widely-published by independent, reliable publishers with peer review. They are not comparable to Remey's memoirs. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Gazelle55, Serv181920 please help solve this issue. Cunado is talking like a Bahai and not as a Wikipedia editor. He is pushing his case of POV and not NPOV.Please read this paragraph of Wikipedia policy and tell me whether two lines regarding dissolution of LSA of Lucknow can come on this page.Wikipedia policy says:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

The matter is not an exceptional claim , nor it involve claims not directly related with the subject and there is no reasonable doubt to its authenticity. As later on LSA of Lucknow was recognized by Mason Remey.Jammu58 (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, I see no problem in your edit. It seems to be in accordance with the policy.Serv181920 (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is kind of amazing. The material is self-serving and about a third party. Pretty simple. Separate from that, the issue of weight is not trivial. This point does not appear in Johnson's book that tries to document everything there is to know about Remey's schism, nor does Mason Remey appear in any reliable, independent source covering the Baha'is of India. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jammu58, thanks for looping me in here. I'm not sure I agree about Cuñado's WP:UNDUE point, but I do agree that numbers 1 and 2 for WP:QUESTIONABLE aren't satisfied by Remey's source. Seems like not much has been written about the Baha'is of India, so we're limited in what we can include. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Also Jammu58, I don't agree that Remey is equivalent to Momen or Smith. Remey was a participant being written about. Momen and Smith, while they certainly have a point of view, have published in academic sources, which means they are held to a higher standard (including being reviewed by non-Baha'is). The equivalent to Momen and Smith are Garlington, Cole, MacEoin, Amanat, etc. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I would take Cole off that list. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Remey has also written a couple of pro-Baha'i books before he was shunned by the mainstream Baha'is.Serv181920 (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Was this criticism non-notable?

Cuñado, thanks for cleaning up this page. It was in need of some work. I agree with removing non-notable content in principle but I'm not sure the content you removed was non-notable. The Panama Papers point was about an individual not the Baha'i community as such, so I don't mind it being removed. However, the New Era Teacher Training Centre point and the Lotus Temple arrests clearly relate to the Baha'i community and were reported in good sources as far as I can see. I don't believe they've been reported in overview sources, but recent events generally won't have been (and for this page the only overview source is Garlington's 2006 chapter).

I am restoring the material for now but feel free to make your case. Serv181920, this is material you originally added so you might be interested in this discussion. Gazelle55 (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55, How are you? Yes those points should be there. Some Baha'i editor has also removed "Mason Remey's influence" section from this page. I am very busy these days to spend time on wikipedia arguing with the Baha'i editors for petty edits. I believe this type of whitewashing is absolute dishonesty! Have a nice day.Serv181920 (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Serv181920, doing well thanks. :) Good to hear from you. And no worries about being busy, real life should come first! Gazelle55 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Just realized that I was wrong is saying that those edits are "petty". I will continue with wikipedia again when I have some time. Hope sooner. Wikipedia is enjoyable.Serv181920 (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It is enjoyable, basically what I do when I should be doing my real work. Anyway, I will discuss this with other editors if they think the sections should be removed. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

In the case of Jehangir Sorabjee, the details were originally added dishonestly and I had to fix it months ago. When you get into the details, Sorabjee was obviously not involved in fraud, and he is a non-notable Baha'i so shouldn't get a mention even if he were convicted of a crime.

Regarding New Era High School, the main controversy in the section is that students were "offered fee waivers if they converted to the Baháʼí Faith" as if this is an aggressive form of forced conversion. My town has a private Catholic school that offers discounts to Catholic families. This is standard practice for any religious school in the world and not controversial. One of the news sources is a dead link, and the other is a Youtube video in Hindi that can't be translated, and has comments from a devious anti-Baha'i blogger promoting it as controversial. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem I see with the Lotus Temple arrests is the total absence of information after 2006. The High Court stayed the arrests, and presumably cleared them of charges. I'm pretty sure if they were found guilty there would be a lot of coverage. That leaves it in the category of accusations that were not substantiated. Leaving in 15 year old accusations without mentioning how the case unfolded seems misleading and might violate WP:BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with taking out the Jehangir Sorabjee part.

Regarding the New Era High School, yeah the link is dead and doesn't seem to have been archived. I'm on the fence about the video – it is a news channel's YouTube but I can't find any information about that news channel to see if it is reliable journalism. (I don't think who is in the comments matters for Wikipedia's purposes.) If it does stay in, I think it could be reworded a bit to not use the word "forced". I went to a religious school that didn't ask about my religion, but fair point that many religious schools do.

About the Lotus Temple, I certainly don't think we're violating BLP provisions given that (1) the information is accurate, and (2) no individuals are named. It is true that it is left incomplete, but I assume readers will come to the same conclusion as we did that nothing happened. I don't think that's grounds for removing it given it was reported in an excellent source (The Hindu, which is listed at WP:RSP). What we could do is take that out of "Events" and put it briefly in the Lotus Temple sub-section. That sub-section also probably deserves expansion since the temple is widely visited and won many awards. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920 promotes on Wikipedia a sanitized version of conspiratorial anti-Baha'i blogger points. That's why I mentioned the Youtube comment promoting his blog entry, which is why this ended up on Wikipedia. I've already searched for more/better sources on all these points and didn't come up with anything. Seems like a weak argument combined with poor sourcing.

There are people named in the linked articles about the temple-related arrests. The point from BLP is that there should be a high standard for inclusion of criticism/praise. If they appear to have been exonerated, but there is no further coverage of the issue, it seems to be maybe misleading, but I don't have strong opinions on this one. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm nearly 100% sure that citing an RS that gives accurate information—that, if taken out of context, could damage someone's reputation—does not violate BLP rules, especially if the person isn't even named in the Wikipedia article. I think the material should definitely stay at Lotus Temple, and I don't see why some form of it shouldn't appear here.

I mean, I have argued against Serv181920's edits on quite a few occasions, but saying or implying that he is the author of a certain blog doesn't seem in keeping with WP:AGF. He's certainly trying to add critical material about Baha'is but I don't see any compelling reason to think he's doing so in bad faith.

Anyway, separately, would you mind writing the quote from WCE about Baha'is being counted as Hindus in the census here? For my own interest and for this and other articles. Gazelle55 (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not ideal but I'm not removing the arrests. Seems like if it were notable then there would be a follow-up article.

Serv181920 is not the blogger, she is an Ahmadi college student in India. The blogger is one of a few anti-Baha'i bloggers that Serv181920 gets ideas from. That's all I was trying to say.

WCE 1981 and 2001 have the same wording: "In government censuses Baha'is are usually counted as Muslims or Hindus and not shown separately." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying, that seems possible though I don't know. And thanks for copying the statement – is that referring to India or the world in general? It seems to be cited as referring to India here but the same source is used for the world overall at Baha'i Faith by country.

Also, the second source you used for the point about the census counting Baha'is as Hindus uses the author of the census in the citation but when I follow the link, it's clear that it is actually citing a separate statement by Prof. Anil Sarwal from over a decade later. The two are on the same page but only because the site author chose to place them together. I'm not sure an SPS by Sarwal counts as RS because WP:SPS requires that an expert have published on that topic in reliable sources. Based on a Google Scholar search, it looks like he only publishes on the topic of teaching English. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You're right on both counts. The WCE reference is part of its definition of the Baha'i Faith in general, but it's pretty easy to apply it to India since it references Hindus. I can think of two reasons this can be made reasonably. 1) The WCE itself is giving the Baha'is at 1.8 million and they surely knew of the census results. This seems to be their way of explaining the contradiction. 2) Warburg evaluated activity data and came up with ~100,000 active Baha'is in India in 2001. The referencing to Vijayanunni (the census official) is due to how it was published on BLO. I wasn't trying to suggest that Vijayanunni made the statement, and I think anyone following the link will figure that out pretty quickly. I also agree with your assessment of it as a self-published source, but it has the value of having (at least a professor?) someone say the obvious, that census takers are counting ethnic and tribal identities based on family backgrounds. There are also several reliable sources criticizing the Indian census as overcounting Hindus for several reasons, including political implications, but those don't mention Baha'is specifically. This is not an easy subject to write about and reference. I'm open to advice. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely not easy since there is not much agreement between sources. I think in the end we will want to expand the "Demographics" section to include what various sources say, without trying to settle the matter. Then we can have a summary of that in the lead. It's not urgent though, it is not too bad how it is now. I'll just leave a few more thoughts here for the future.

Using WCE in that way is a bit of a stretch but I'm okay with leaving it since it does seem to be implied that India is included in that. We'll also probably want to include a note about partial conversions somewhere... Garlington has discussed this and it may be relevant to understanding the gap between Warburg's number and the census. We'll also want to note (as Garlington and Warburg both do) that the 2 million number is of people who ever signed up, not necessarily those who still consider themselves Baha'is.

I don't think we should use the note from Prof. Sarwal; self-published sources are already supposed to be used with caution and that's only when they have published on the issue elsewhere. It's certainly plausible that the census-takers go off people's name or ethnicity but there are other possible explanations for the discrepancy. And the sources I remember seeing that were saying Hindus were overcounted were news articles written from a Hindutva/BJP perspective so I think it may be those sources that are politicized rather than the census. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Expanding the demographics section will be a good place to expand on all the sources and clarify. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Great, and just one other note: we might be able to quote Sarwal in his capacity as a member of India's NSA if it is attributed in-text as such. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)