Talk:Growth of religion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

section on the Bahá'í Faith

I'd like to propose this as a draft for inclusion: … --Smkolins (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Main article: Bahá'í statistics World religions statistics place the Bahá'í Faith around 0.1% of the world population in recent years. The World Christian Encyclopedia estimated only 7.1 million Bahá'ís in the world in 2000, representing 218 countries and its evolution to the World Christian Database(WCD) estimated 7.3 million in 2010 while accredited through the Association of Religion Data Archives(ARDA). However the WCD stated: "The Baha'i Faith is the only religion to have grown faster in every United Nations region over the past 100 years than the general population; Baha’i(sic) was thus the fastest-growing religion between 1910 and 2010, growing at least twice as fast as the population of almost every UN region." This source's only documented flaw was to consistently have a higher estimate of Christians than in other cross-national data sets. From its origins in the Persian and Ottoman Empires of the 19th century the Bahá'í Faith was able to gain converts elsewhere in Asia, Europe, and North America by the early 20th century. John Esslemont performed the first review of the worldwide progress of the religion in 1919. `Abdu'l-Bahá then set goals for the community through his Tablets of the Divine Plan shortly before his death. Shoghi Effendi then initiated systematic pioneering efforts which brought the religion to almost every country and territory of the world and converts from more than 2000 tribes and peoples. There were serious setbacks in the Soviet Union where Bahá'í communities in 38 cities across Soviet territories ceased to exist. However plans continued building to 1953 when the Bahá'ís initiated a Ten Year Crusade after plans had focused on Latin America and Europe after WWII. That last stage was largely towards parts of Africa. Wide-scale growth in the religion across Sub-Saharan Africa particularly was observed to begin in 1950s and extend in the 1960s. There was diplomatic pressure from northern arab countries against this development that was eventually overcome. Starting in the 1980s with Perestroyka the Bahá'ís began to re-organize across the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. While sometimes failing to meet official minimums for recognitions as a religion, communities of Bahá'ís do exist from Poland to Mongolia. The worldwide progress was such that the Encyclopedia Britannica (2002) identified the religion as the second-most geographically widespread religion after Christianity. It has established Bahá'í Houses of Worship by continental region and been the object of interest and support of diverse non-Bahá'í notable people from Leo Tolstoy to Khalil Gibran to Mohandas K. Gandhi to Desmond Tutu. ARDA/WCD statistics place the Bahá'í Faith as currently the largest religious minority in Iran (despite significant persecution and the overall Iranian diaspora), Panama, and Belize; the second largest international religion in Bolivia, Zambia, and Papua New Guinea; and the third largest international religion in Chad and Kenya. A Bahá'í published survey reported 4.74 million Bahá'ís in 1987. Bahá'í sources since 1991 usually estimate the worldwide Bahá'í population to be "above 5 million". References

Gone live… --Smkolins (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Aside from its historical growth, the Bahá'í Faith is projected to have the fastest average annual growth from 2010–2050 (according to the WRD), so it should be included. Thanks for the well-referenced and balanced addition. The progress of this article has been frustratingly slow, but it's beginning to morph into something worth keeping. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Table

Editor 87.14.80.83 (talk · contribs) has voiced concerns that this article's table of religious demographics is "totally unreliable" because "there's not even a clear membership of religions such as Taoism or Spiritualism, and Confucianism has no membership since it's not a religion." These are serious allegations that I want to address. The table is reproduced from a report published by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS), which used demographic statistics from the World Christian Database (WCD) and the World Religion Database (WRD). Both the WCD and the WRD are published by Brill. There should be no concerns that the GCTS is "cooking the books," because essentially the same information appears in other publications. I don't know what methodology the WRD uses to estimate the number of Taoists and Spiritualists, but as a scholarly, published database, the WRD fulfills Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. Reviews of the WCD and the WRD note some weaknesses, but nothing of the sort that would preclude their use as reliable sources. As for the status of Confucianism as a religion, it has traditionally been regarded as a religion by Western scholars, and continues to be treated as one in studies of religious demographics. I don't think this contentious issue is grounds for removing the table. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The table seems to be really misleading, because it says 1.8 billion for Muslim population and 2.5 billion for christianity, while according to many estimates it's suggested that buddhist population is above 1 billion. Such stats are going to be contradiction. So better to just don't add them. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And other sources estimate the Buddhist population at below 500 million, and sometimes significantly below. Those who claim the population is above 1 billion include not only practicing Buddhists but other traditions influenced by Buddhism as well. Most of these "Buddhists" practice multiple religions and may self-identify as "Shintoists", "Chinese folk religionists", etc. The estimate provided in the table is reasonable because it's in line with other estimates, which tend to cluster around the 350–550 million figure. The table is necessary because it is the only information in the article that addresses religious (as opposed to denominational) growth; in other words, the table is the only way we would know that Christianity experiences (and is projected to experience for the next decade) the fastest absolute growth and either Bahai or Islam the fastest average annual growth. Nothing else in the article tells us this and virtually none of the other sources currently used are deemed as reliable according to Wikipedia's own standards, which favor published peer-reviewed academic sources.--66.91.215.247 (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable to you because it probably favors any of the religion which has shown off it's stats in large amount. I don't want to get into the depth of it, because the stats are unclear to the actual point of view, nor it can be decided that what is going to remain after 30 years, considering that it's not economy, but it's religious faith. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A figure of 350–550 million Buddhists is reasonable because that is what the majority of scholars who study religious demographics have agreed is reasonable. I have yet to find a single peer-reviewed published study/database claim there are 1 billion+ Buddhists. Ideally, the article would explain that syncretism makes it difficult to estimate the Buddhist population, that estimates range from 350 million to 1.2 billion, and that most estimates cluster around 350–550 million. There is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water; the table contains a lot of information very important to this article. A footnote is all that is needed to remind readers that the Buddhist population may be significantly higher, although most scholars believe it is not. --66.91.215.247 (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

How scholars can be the reliable source? Is it islamic scholar who actually made this list? Because much of the times, Islamic converts are counted, but not those who have left the religion. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please try to make your responses more comprehensible to other editors. I don't understand what you're saying in your response above, and I don't know how to respond. I would suggest you read Wikipedia's guideline on reliability if you have not read it before, and reread it if you've read it already. The guideline says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The World Christian Database and the World Religion Database are published by Brill, a well-known academic publisher. Further, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." The databases are edited by either/both Todd M. Johnson and Brian J. Grim, two recognized experts in the field of religious demographics who wrote the 2013 introductory text The World's Religions in Figures: An Introduction to International Religious Demography. This book is published by Wiley-Blackwell, a well-known academic publisher. Here is an excerpt from the book; you can see Buddhist demographics in Table 1.29. Note that all of the information in our table is reproduced in this book, which can substitute the report we've cited. The World Factbook says that Buddhists represent 6.77% of the world population, or about 481 million people out of a world population of 7.1 billion (see under People and Society > Religions). The Pew Research Center says "There are about 488 million Buddhists worldwide, representing 7% of the world’s total population as of 2010." The book An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) says there are "around 535 million Buddhists in the world—7.8 per cent of the total 2010 world population," and that "there are at least another 200 million who relate to Buddhism to a fair extent." Even assuming the other 200 million were counted as Buddhists, that is still about 300 million Buddhists short of a billion. Literally the only source I have seen for a figure of 1 billion+ Buddhists is David N. Snyder of the Vipassana Foundation; you can find his estimates at his Web site and his self-published book, which should be avoided according to Wikipedia guidelines. --66.91.215.247 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't really want to get started, no wonder how much you copy paste your own comments more and more. The point is that this table is based on very false stats, it says that Buddhism population is lower than 400 million? Yet there are so many estimates that population of buddhists is much higher, even hindu population is just 948 million according to this table. While almost each source regard hindu's population to be above 1 billion. Obviously, every other figure has to be wrong this way. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of good faith I have been forced to make my posts longer against my wishes, because you do not seem to understand that citations trump personal feelings on Wikipedia. Every single time. I understand that you believe the figures I have quoted are too low, that they are "very false stats"—you have made your personal beliefs abundantly clear. What you have not done is provide a single peer-reviewed reference to support your position. Not a single one. So let me try to make this clear: your personal opinion about Buddhist demographics does not matter; neither does mine. Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. What matters is verifiability. I have provided many references supporting the position that most scholars agree upon a figure of 350–550 million. You have not provided a single reference disputing this and have repeatedly removed referenced content. When there's controversy (as is bound to happen with religious topics), we do not remove information from Wikipedia if the information comes from a reliable source; instead, we give each side its due weight. With these recent edits, due weight has been restored. If you continue removing referenced content I will request mediation. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And such table is allowed? That's what the point is. Just because you seem to be liking the table doesn't means you should insert it here, main reason is, that it actually shows the false figures about the population of almost every single religion. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have already explained over and over again, the WRD is a very good reference because it is regarded as one of the most authoritative sources of religious demographic data available. Here's why: (1) the WRD is a peer-reviewed secondary source of religious demographic data, meaning other experts have reviewed the information in the database and found it to be reliable, (2) it is published by Brill, one of the most well-known and trusted academic publishers in the world, (3) it is edited by Todd M. Johnson and Brian J. Grim, two recognized experts in their field, (4) the WRD project is based at Boston University, an accredited research university, and (5) the WRD is a scholarly database and the most comprehensive of its kind, meaning it was created by scholars for scholars. The WRD meets all of the criteria used by Wikipedia to determine reliability (unlike many of the sources currently used in the article), and thus should be regarded by other editors as one of the best references we have. Wikipedia encourages use of references that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability (which the WRD does). Here are some more things to consider: (1) one of the WRD's largest sources of information is the Pew Research Center. The WRD gathers statistics from Pew and others, collates, cross-references, and analyzes the information, and reconciles conflicts. (2) One of the editors of the WRD is Brian J. Grim, a senior researcher at Pew, so we have no reason to suspect the WRD of misusing Pew data. If you have anymore questions, please read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. I apologize for sounding irritated, but I am beginning to run out of patience and do not have the time nor energy to explain the same things over and over again. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Not about the sources at all. Because a lot of sources suggests that 9/11 was inside job, but doesn't means we can officially add it? These numbers of the tables are not reliable at all. Knowing that Taoism's population is over 20 million, Sikh population is over 28 million, Hindu population is 1 billion+.. By 2010. Such table is indeed misleading. If the stats are extremely low compared to actual official stats, it's obviously irrelevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Come back when you can produce those "actual official stats" you've been looking at, and then we can talk.--50.46.245.232 (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sikhism by country, Hinduism by country, Buddhism by country, Zoroastrianism by country, the confirmed stats differ from the table that you have posted here. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It's clear you haven't read the Wikipedia guideline about reliable sources, which prohibits using other Wikipedia articles as sources, even after I have made the link available to you time and time again. Although I'm amused Wikipedia is considered "actual official stats" by some, I'm not convinced I should trust a conglomeration of disparate sources whose reliability may be questionable and demographic tables that have not been been cross-referenced, peer-reviewed or systematically analyzed for redundancies and conflicts, over a single scholarly database which provides the same international religious statistics. Because you appear to have no interest in participating according to Wikipedia policy despite my best efforts to promote better editing practices on your part, I have no interest carrying this discussion any further. If you still believe I'm wrong to include the table, please request a third opinion or comment; you can find instructions here and here. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I just figured I'd chime in here (I watchlist this article but mostly just revert unsourced additions and vandalism)--50.46.245.232 is completely correct here. Bladesmulti, if you would like to produce sources that meet WP:RS that provide different figures, then we can consider including them. Note that the sources should be at least as reliable as the one currently used--i.e., peer reviewed academic journals. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

So if a academic source supports fringed stats, they should be accepted? It would be better, if we revert to the version, in which we had no tables. Because tables like this one is just misleading. As i described above, much of it's stats are already false. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't produced any evidence to support your claim that the stats are false other than your own opinion that the sources used don't match your own opinion. So, um, no. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Common sense.[1], [2]. A lot more can be added, as the given figures of the tables are not correct compared to actual population of the same year. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit hard to follow jumping sections up and down, left and right but from what I read:

1. ) WCD and related refs are good - I posted a study that checked and found it good with one systematic flaw.
2. ) I agree Buddhism has been overlapped with syncretic practices in the East so making note of that is fine to "modify" the WCD view of Buddhism with additional verbiage that doesn't invalidate WCD data, just adds to it.
3. ) I've tried to find other sources not behind pay walls and have not found simple ways to cite anything other than WCD/WCE.
4. ) I agree individual religions disagree with WCD - mine does as well - yet I cannot find another reputable source. Instead I have adopted WCD data in such articles adding a comment with other sources I can find from time to time make other claims (either the religion itself when they are willing to make a claim or a government census or the US State Department taking the occasional stab at an estimate.) WCD is by far the most available. A problem with Factbook, the other main source of info, is that it reports %'s and you have to back track to actual numbers and worry about significant figures and since they don't keep older data available their %'s and population numbers aren't linked for consistency. And the format of the webpage pretty much defeats the kind of linking for specifics we want. And they pretty closely agree with WCD.
5. ) I agree mass media consumption of data can be misleading like those hoax links. But they don't change the actual reality of the WCD data. Rather they are reacting to extreme unreasonable interpretations of the data that irresponsible people are echoing. That's my view. The tablets should stay.
6. ) I'd agree with extending the comments from those snopes and united-academics links, but prefer more academically originated articles, along the lines they point to - that the media has sometimes exaggerated fears and mis-represented some facts that growth does not mean overwhelming the population for various reasons. --Smkolins (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So you are actually agreeing that the tables is false, but it should be implied? Whoever has inserted the table to the page, never had the discussion. And the table was first removed as per this edit[], i haven't even mentioned yet, that rest of the article mentions the rise of atheists, while this table is only concerned with the numbers of christians, muslims. None other. Also, the population of christians never reached 2.2 billion, it's still 2.1 billion. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No it is not false. No fact exists in isolation. It is the best overall available and it is agreed to by many others. There is acknowledgement that in the far east there is a tendency to combine religious practices - Ive seen lots of commentary about that. That does not diminish that some are "core" followers more likely one way than another as the table shows. The table is sound as far as it goes. You are wrong about the limit or atheists and agnostics. You aren't reading the table. This is the kind of thing that makes it hard to credit discussing things with you as others have observed. --Smkolins (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

But bigger point would be, that the page is not certainly empty, without the table. It's probably as meaningful as it should be. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted, that already 3 people have shown there disagreement with the table. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I only see one--you, editing under this account name and an IP address. Who are the other users? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, i don't count any ips, one is me, others are[3] and this[4]. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism

User:Smkolins, its well known, that the followers of Mormonism have to consider Joseph Smith as the prophet, while with christianity there's no such thing. Mormonism is regarded as independent religion. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree on JS being considered a prophet. But the Mormons see their scripture as an amplification or or extension of the Bible - not a separate new book on par with the Bible. As such they still look to the last days as Christians do, hold Jesus above prophethood as Christians do, and so on. User:Bladesmulti, lets see if there are any reliable sources that list Mormonism as a separate religion, shall we? --Smkolins (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's upto you, whether these sources are reliable or not.

• Why Mormons are not christians
• Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Mormonism. p. 16.
• Neilsen, Reid. Exhibiting Mormonism: The Latter-day Saints and the 1893 Chicago World's Fair. p. 192.
• Hulsether, Mark. Religion, Culture, and Politics in the Twentieth-century United States. p. 71. ... Bladesmulti (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree that there are denominations of Christianity that don't see Mormonism as Christian - but there are denominations of Christianity that think Catholicsm is another religion. If there is a serious case to be made there are plenty of places it should be made - like Mormons. --Smkolins (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

For WP purposes in categorization, formatting, etc (including section headers) this has been an ongoing discussion over many years, with the general consensus that Mormonism is categorized as a form of Christianity. We also already have quite an extensive article on this topic called Mormonism and Christianity, and Talk:Mormonism and Christianity has been used to discuss every angle of this topic ad nauseam (there are 22 archives for that talk page). Additionally wp:WikiProject Christianity includes the Latter Day Saint movement in all its forms as a subtopic of Christianity; if you want to debate including Mormonism as a form of Christianity, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity might be a good place to try first. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

POV in the Islam section

There's a POV-tag on the Islam section, which there should be since there has been a lot of edit warring and adding IMHO very biased material. I can't see any discussion here on the talk page about the problems having been rectified and everyone being happy, which there should be before removing the tag. So are the problems solved or not?

I can't see any conflict. The section looks well balanced and represents scholarly views. I've tried my best to add relevant and reliable material over the last couple of hours as I did notice some problems. There doesn't seem to be any problems now. If there are then no one has discussed them on here, except me (see above). NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The template seems to have been added by one author for dubious reasons. It warrants removal. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have re-written the lead section with proper information. Hopes that is okay. Thank you.117.194.198.198 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Growth of religion

While growth of Buddhism in Europe and Islam in world is persistent but recent growth of Hinduism only in Australia and Ghana is not. Adding it to lead section is a POV. 117.194.204.248 (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not true. The growth of Buddhism is not supported by any secondary reliable source, no statistics but growth of Hinduism has been supported by the Australian census. The growth in Ghana is not cited by any independent reliable source. Hence, mentioning Hinduism as fastest growing religion in many countries is a original research so I have removed that. Please, do not include them on lead too per WP:Lead. Thanks, --Benfold (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You can make your own research if you want any "statistics" or "growth in Ghana". Instead of reverting the clear and proper representation of a reliable source. If you want to stick to such POV, then you may want to object upon the sources that are saying Islam to be fastest growing religion, because they don't provide any statistics either. Delibzr (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea about WP:RS or WP:OR so you can stop violating their meaning. Calling patheos.com, asiatribune.com, wwrn.org, abs.gov.au a unreliable source is obviously one biased opinion. Per WP:OR you have to "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." - Something you are clearly opposing. Delibzr (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop vandalizing and from your edits you seem to me a sock. Firstly, The Australian source is a reliable source which is already presented in the article but the www.patheos.com link is a blog post and not independnent of the subject hence not acceptable. Secondly, you entered that Hinduism is the fastest growing religion in a number of nations -this is vague. Which nations you're referring to? Now, I am not sure about wwrn.org but the Asian Tribune is not relible. It was critised for its political alignment[5] and [6]. For the Islam, it is found to be the only religion with global growth rate supported by non-Islamic sources and Guinness World Records. You can include growth of Bahai faith and Islam in lead but recent growth of Hinduism in 2011 Australia census is definately POV. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you are the sock puppet here, reverting back to nonsense that you had done with your ip 117. until this page received protection, then you got into your main account. Patheos and asiantribune, are incredibly reliable sources. They have been used over hundreds to thousands of times on Wikipidea. None of your sources claim any statistics for the rise of Islam, just because you seem to have no problem with Bahai' faith, but problem with other religions, I wouldn't be completing your wishes. Unless they have WP:RS. Delibzr (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Patheos source is used in many articles for resources hosted by them and not a blog post on their website. My which sources you're reffering to? Please, explain. I don't think your edits are neutral so I requested administrator's intervention. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To chime in, I agree with Benfold that those edits are not constructive. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A vote is not enough, you have to explain why you agree or disagree. You can only rewrite or increase the content bytes if you disagree, you cannot remove any content which is supported by reliable sources. Delibzr (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Individual cases of religious growth are not notable enough to mention in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, we should not mention all the nations where Islam is not the fastest growing religion. The lead is a summary of the article. The overall trend is that Islam is the fastest growing religion. Exceptions should be noted in the body of the article. Additionally, you are incorrect about editing policy. You can removed sourced info if it's against policy or consensus. This is both. I am removing it. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep no religion on lead then. If you keep one you will have to add the growth details about others as well. It is already noted in later sections, that who is fastest growing and where. I guess it should be over now. Delibzr (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not an "all or none" kind of thing. Read WP:LEAD EvergreenFir (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Also per WP:Lead your edits are again non-constructive. The text about Islam you removed was backed by several credible independent reliable sources. You seem to have problem with Islam as a religion. Please, try to be neutral. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.", "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.", in WP:LEAD. Add all 3 or none. Delibzr (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, avoid Wikipedia:I don't like it edits. As per lead the recent growth in just Australia doesn't make it significant enough comparing to Islam for inclusion in lead. Each and every religion has noticeable growth rate in few countries and that should be covered in the article but not lead.Benfold (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You've explained about yourself very well, you are the one blatantly removing the sourced material with reliable sources concerning buddhism and hinduism's growth, for over 1 week. That is Wikipedia:I don't like it. Only Hinduism and buddhism other than Islam have largest growth in multiple nations. Because the lead is small it doesn't even effect, you can remove Islam from the lead too, instead of giving extra support by mentioning on lead and later sections, but not any other religion. Not only australia, but ghana. And singapore, macau for buddhism. But you are trashing that information simply because Wikipedia:I don't like it. Delibzr (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, original research. Do you have sources to support that Only Hinduism and buddhism other than Islam have largest growth in multiple nations. Also, I am noticing how you're omitting Bahai and atheism.Benfold (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Original research doesn't apply in talk pages. Let me know at least 2 countries where Bahai and atheism are fastest growing religions. It can prove my alleged original research of talk page to be incorrect. Delibzr (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Remember the purpose of talk pages is to discuss how to improve articles. It may sometimes be helpful to use limited original research to aide in seeking out sources etc. But this doesn't generally including making a claim based on original research and then asking someone to disprove it. Ultimately even if your claim is true (which with only OR we don't really know for sure), it's not going in the article without better sourcing. So it's largely unhelpful in discussing what to include in the article. In other words, at most you should be asking people for sources for your claim so you can include it in the article, not for people to disprove your claim for any reason. If you want to debate the subject matter of the article, you're welcome to do somewhere besides wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nil Einne. If Hinduism is fastest growing religion in Ghana, Australia. And Buddhism is fastest growing in Singapore, Macau, etc. How come it cannot be written on lead that "Buddhism and Hinduism remains fastest growing religion in number of countries", it is being conflicted today for basically no reason. Delibzr (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Ghana itself[7] doesn't mention their fastest growing religion at all while the book A History of the Nation of Islam: Race, Islam, and the Quest for Freedom by Gibson, Dawn-Marie published from ABC-CLIO in 2012 cites Islam as the fastest growing religion in Ghana[8]. Moreover, if certain religions have significant growth in some countries only in recent years then they can be expanded to their corresponding sections in the article but both Buddhism and Hinduism is declining worldwide including decline of Hinduism in India thus adding particularly these two religion in the lead violates the policy of WP:Lead and definately a POV. Benfold (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[9] Another reliable source supports that Hinduism is fastest growing in Ghana. Buddhism and Hinduism are not declining, but one of the fastest growing religion because their increase is in plus. Seems like you are never going to agree with anything else other than your own personal agenda, even though these information are supported by reliable sources. Delibzr (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong about me and please stop your agendas and desperate attempts to block me. You are clearly misunderstanding Wikipedia policies even after other editors tried to make you understand what lead is. According to studies by World Religion Database, Buddhism and Hinduism both are continuously declining. Try to be neutral when editing Wikipedia and do not drive by your personal religious practise. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Delibzr: I agree with Benfold and EvergreenFir that those edits are not constructive. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article. Religious growth of Buddhism in Singapore and Hinduism in Australia and Ghana are not notable enough to mention in the lead. Islam is the fastest growing religion worldwide. National exceptions may be mentioned in the corresponding sections of the article, if they are referenced with reliable sources. The only reliable source used in these edits was the Australian census. JimRenge (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can also add the countries where Christianity is largest, so that would make 3 another religions that are largest increasing in number of countries. Because you have made a lot better point, I have made the lead pretty more specific to the point of article. I have no problem with the current lead now, and I've notified other editor about it, I think he will have no problem either. Delibzr (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My friend Delibzr, you're again distorting the sources. The references are not credible and reliable except the Australian census and adding particularly these sources which acknowledges only Hinduism and Buddhism and not other religions in the lead is a POV. Those sources do not cite about acknowledging other religions growth in a number of nations. You can add these sources in later part of the article but not in lead. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I find 2-3 more sources for lead, for now, one source is confirmed which is australian gov. Or maybe we can use a "Note" instead of direct reference, which would cite about Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and anything else. I know that many references of this page needs to be arranged properly.. I see some deadlinks too. For now it is good that you agreed with the current lead. References will be arranged anytime soon. Delibzr (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to remind you that I had no problem with the current lead until you changed it. I have no issues on the current lead if those particular references are not added back. Since, the later part of the article already covered each religion thus I see no need of mentioning individual religions in the lead in terms of notes or anything else as this would again raise issues. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do these numbers include toddlers and infants?

Do these claimed numbers of adherents include toddlers and infants? I've seen educated adults refer to babies, whose cognitive capacity was limited to 'touch big blocky thing, poop, waaaah,' as Christians -- is that level of generalization at play in these numbers? Note in fairness that a Deist or Pandeist is most unlikely to deem a child incapable of processing any level of complexity to hold any intelligible theological views at all. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Pandeist is not even mentioned. Delibzr (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well naturally -- no belief system is going to make the list without engaging in outrageous puffery and an absurdly broad counting of infants and others of like mental state. To adopt Pandeism as one's theological model requires thought, and a fair degree of research and intellectual rigor. It cannot simply be claimed as one's belief like so many others, it must be understood!!

But back to the original question, are these faiths claiming infants, toddlers, elementary school children, and others incapable of rationaally evaluating theological thought as adherents? DeistCosmos (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Future growth section

The new section "Future growth" describes a forecast for the year 2200 (!) by Dr. Todd M. Johnson, a reputable expert of religious demographics. I propose to remove the table in this section because a 200 year forecast appears too speculative to be included (in detail) in an encyclopedia. See: Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion JimRenge (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Supplemented my cmt above. (I have removed the table) JimRenge (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think a 200 year forecast is too speculative for inclusion? Benfold (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Because "Projections of future religious adherence are based on assumptions that trends, total fertility rates, life expectancy, political climate, conversion rates, secularization, etc will continue. Such forecasts cannot be validated empirically and are contentious (...)." (see section "Future growth") JimRenge (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Hinduism is the fast-growing religion in Ghana."

This claim is not supported by the citations. Returning to Our Spiritual Roots (Removed copyright violation)

The second source, Religion on the Move!, was also misinterpreted:(Removed copyright violation) In other words, page 135 of Religion on the Move! doesn't identify Ghana's fastest growing religion; the authors only note that Hinduism is growing, and that the Hindu Monastery of Africa is the fastest growing Hindu church. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it was discussed too much already. Just see [10] Bladesmulti (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, the source you are citing is a blog. Please see Johnson, p.26, table 1.18 for countries with fast growing Hindu communities. JimRenge (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no agreement that patheos is not a reliable citation. For preference we can put a question at RSN. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like WP:SPS. It is not used in the article but you might ask at RSN if you want to use it. JimRenge (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks likes Bladesmulti reinstated the deleted content using exactly the same sources. I would just like to point out that Bladesmulti has a history of questionable editing on this article. If I may be so bold, I think he has an agenda to push. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was against those multiple crystallball claims, and the speculative table was actually removed. I wonder how it is questionable. If anything is questionable, it is you who were violating copyrights like now, and you are just gaming system by misinterpreting those weblinks/books and ignoring other links. Also see [11]-[12]-[13], now put up or shut up. For the last time, stop ripping off copyrighted material to here, I have just removed them from your post and giving you a formal warning now. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, I don't know if you were being serious about the block quotations above "violating copyrights" or about the warning you posted on my talk page, but you gave me a chuckle. Thanks! Now, let's examine the new sources you provided. This source does indeed state that Hinduism is Ghana's fastest growing religion, but if you look closely at the bottom of the page you'll see that this "source" is actually a snapshot of Wikipedia! We can't cite Wikipedia as a source. Patheos is a weak source; the "Religion Library" section of the website may be credible because it's supposedly peer-reviewed, but the article you cite is actually a posting on a personal blog hosted by Patheos. That's not a credible source, and there's no indication the author is an expert. This source is probably your best bet. The problem is that it's actually Louise Müller's personal page at the African Studies Centre website; it is not a work of scholarship and it has not been peer-reviewed. It would be best to make a posting on WP:RSN. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It is necessary to stop you from violating some of the serious rules. I cannot find that when did I said that these links are reliable, bigger point is that when you are directly blanking the information without even looking around. Now we have confirmed that this information is certainly not incorrect and we don't have any citation saying opposite. Louise Muller has written Religion and Chieftaincy in Ghana: An Explanation of the Persistence of a Traditional Political Institution in West Africa and it was published by LIT Verlag, a German academic publisher. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, stop removing the block quotations from the talk page; I've cited them properly (author, title, year, publisher) and they're needed to provide background information for other editors who desire to join this discussion. The only "serious rules" I'm violating are the ones spawned from your imagination. Earlier you reinserted the aforementioned "sources" even after responding to this discussion, so I assume you find (or found) them credible. The problem is that they're not proper sources because they don't even make the claim that Hinduism is the fastest growing religion in Ghana. I correctly deleted them "without even looking around" because I'm not the one trying to support this claim—you are, so the onus is on you to provide sources. At the moment, all we have to support this claim is Louise Muller's biography on his African Studies Centre's page. That's a start. Unfortunately, there are much more reliable sources, e.g., the World Religion Database (and JimRenge kindly alerted you to this) that don't support this claim. For the record, Louise Muller does appear to be a real scholar, but his book Religion and Chieftaincy in Ghana has nothing to do with the growth of Hinduism in Ghana. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I will remove the block quotation if they are violating copyrights, you cannot rip off large amount of quotations when you don't own the copyrights, anyone can access them through a weblink. World Religion Database or any of your much more reliable won't ever bother to research on western Africa if it is about the growth of religion. You had asked for the credibility of the citation and it seems that the author is actually credible as his books are published by good publishers. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

For the editor who told me to come here...

It's already in my edit summary, but your reversion was flawed for several reasons. First of all, the initial clause of your sentence was so obtuse, it made no sense. Second, your claim for Islam being fastest growing via CONVERSION came from an old Guinness book. This is contradicted by the FAR more reliable Pew report that Islam's growth by conversion alone is very difficult to gauge, and seems to not be a source of major growth. We have both these sources in the main for the reader to study. Putting just one - and the older, less reliable one - in the lead is not due balance. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I wonder how you missed the Time (magazine) source which I added in the lead. The Pew Report itself showing Islam as the fastest growing religion so it is not due wait to mention Islam in the lead which is summery of the whole page. Yes, I agree that the fact, Islam as the fast-growing religion in terms of converts may not be supported by multiple sources but per the Pew report, the projected fastest growing religion is also Islam so I have changed the lead to be more specific and added multiple reliable sources to it. Please, check and let me know your thoughts. BorisdeM (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Atheism and Agnosticism

Should agnosticism be a part of atheism? In fact should there be an atheist section and an agnostic section? I identify with agnosticism myself, and wouldn't class myself as atheist. It's just for accuracy purposes. Would make more sense if the section was split. NarSakSasLee (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agnosticism also has a long history as a belief that ultimate truth is unknowable, certain Christians and other religious believers are agnostic in this sense .... beyond the 'everyday' use as 'don't know'. Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we have any concrete figures on agnostics? I feel like I'm in a minority since we don't know (!). At the research center I work in, most of the scientists are agnostic (no I haven't done a survey or anything they just don't care for religion!). It would be nice to see pure agnostics who don't associate with any kind of religion counted in surveys. I don't know if this is possible, but there must be more out there who are not hardcore atheists (and by that I mean totally, totally sure that God or Gods do not exist)? NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Growth of religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rsd/rsddocview.html?tbl=RSDCOI&id=437c9cdd2&count=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Growth of religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://media.johnwiley.com.au/product_data/excerpt/47/04706745/0470674547-196.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://media.johnwiley.com.au/product_data/excerpt/47/04706745/0470674547-196.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://eprints.rclis.org/16890/1/WRD.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://media.johnwiley.com.au/product_data/excerpt/47/04706745/0470674547-196.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

POV pushing?

This edit[14] is alteration of the lead section with POV pushing not backed by the sources. Bolialia (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

For future growth projection, please, add to relevant section in the body under Growth of religious groups. Thanks, --Bolialia (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

reomoving

The user Bolialia is removing this caliming that this is not in source and that pew study is wrong to add here. Where he is ignoring that the the three sources that supporting this are from pew study.Jobas (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, not all sources support this claim and PEW report you're referring to refers to the future projected growth and present day statistics so add them in appropriate section i.e. Growth of religious groups. Thanks, --Bolialia (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The CNN source is about muslim convert in the Western World the source dose not giving figures or numbers about the convert or their total ratio compared to the world's Muslims growth in the census, The other three sources are from the Pew study, The pew study do cliams that the total world growth is due to the high birth rate among Muslim, and not due to conversions, This was the same claims of the growth of the muslim population in europe due primarily to immigration and higher birth rates.Jobas (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A paradox that you support the addition of three references from the Pew study in order support the cliams that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world, and then delete the claim of the same study that this growth is mainly due to the high birth rate. The CNN report -it's not even a study- is about the the convert growth in the western world, no mention about the ratio and while only 2% of total muslims lives in the western world. So how is the inflounce of the muslims growth in the western world is affected the total Muslim World growth?. and agian the CNN is not giving data and figures about this convert ratio compared to the world's Muslims growth.--Jobas (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the first source[15] states overall fastest-growing religion and not just West and it mention only "conversion". Second source is[16] which also referred to Pew report but no where mentioned "high birth rate". Third source is[17] which also doesn't mention Muslim population growth due to only "high birth rate". Fourth source is[18] which also doesn't mention Muslim population growth due to only "high birth rate" but on The projections in the report, "The Future of World Religions," are based on birth and death rates, immigration patterns and rates of religious conversions and finally the Fifth source[19] itself no where mentioned "high birth rate" and finally this BBC source [20] refers to both "immigration and above average birth rates" for the Europe only so inserting this in lead is violation of MOS:LEAD and it is OR. Thanks,--Bolialia (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

All the Four sources - Time, New Feed Time, CBN- except the CNN source are based from the pew study and the study do claims that it's due to the "high birth rate".--Jobas (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The only mention in the CNN report about convert is : "Islam has drawn converts from all walks of life, most notably African-Americans. Former NAACP President Benjamin Chavis, who joined the Nation of Islam recently, personifies the trend." it's not even support the cliams the the growth of muslim world population is due to conversion, the report it dose not give the raito or number's of conversion. in the report there is no data about the conversion growth or the raito of the conversion growth, nothing.--Jobas (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not referring to CNN source only. I have presented all the cited sources none of which mention "high birth rate" so how do you include that in the lead? Please, check the sources again. Thanks, Bolialia (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The soruces are based to Pew Study, and The study do cliam that.--Jobas (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I change it to this and separated the soruces.Jobas (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, firstly, you have to go by sources and cannot cherry-pick words. The study titles "The Future of the Global Muslim Population" i.e. it is a future projection and not overall fact and secondly the study mentioned both immigration, high fertility for growth in US and not just the whole world. It also included several other facts such as mortality rates, age structure, Economic well-being, Urbanization and also Religious conversion so just to use "high birth rate" is a OR and fails WP:LEAD. Thanks,Bolialia (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you want to include the future projection of 2050 then do so in body of the article. Bolialia (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have changed the lead[21] as per the sources to make it neutral. Thanks, Bolialia (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Islam section

Hi, the statement "the growth of Islam occurs mainly due to reproduction" is controversial and conflicting with other sources. Please add proper sources that "show the growth of Islam occurs mainly due to reproduction. Only 0.3% (3,220,000 people) of the expected Muslim population growth (1,161,780,000) in the period of 2010–2050 would be due to conversions; 99.7% would be due to a high birth rate among Muslims". Contingencies should not be asserted. I have checked the given sources and none of them mention the same while Pew Research projected a decrease in fertility rates among Muslims from 2010 to 2050 making it same with the Christian fertility rate. Thank you. Bolialia (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace source

Hi, can you please, provide a RS which actually shows that "According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, High birth rates were cited as the reason for the Muslim population growth"? Thanks, Bolialia (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Pew

Lets see the four sources and what they do say:

• Accroding to pew study page 70: The number of Muslims around the world is projected to increase rapidly in the decades ahead, growing from about 1.6 billion in 2010 to nearly 2.8 billion in 2050. Muslims are expected to grow twice as fast as the overall global population. Consequently, Muslims are projected to rise from 23% of the world’s population in 2010 to 30% in 2050.41 This significant projected growth is largely due to the young age and high fertility rate of Muslims relative to other religious groups.

The other souces do cliam the same. Don't remove.Jobas (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Have you checked this [22] which is solely for Muslim projected growth? Thanks, Bolialia (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

While you are right, I am not wrong too so I changed to this[23]. Thanks, Bolialia (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well The article is about Growth of religion not islam growth, It enough to add the main factors.--Jobas (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Well that what the source said about convert: "Statistical data on conversion to and from Islam are scarce. What little information is available suggests that there is no substantial net gain or loss in the number of Muslims through conversion globally; the number of people who become Muslims through conversion seems roughly equal to the number of Muslims who leave the faith. As a result, this report does not include any estimated future rate of conversions as a direct factor in the projections of Muslim population growth".--Jobas (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

All factors are important on which the projection is based on so they should stay. This source[24] doesn't mention at all that "Statistical data on conversion to and from Islam are scarce..." and we have to abide by the sources. You cannot make OR. Bolialia (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, the source states that, "Related factors – which are not direct inputs into the projections but which underlie vital assumptions about the way Muslim fertility rates are changing and Muslim populations are shifting". so they do have effects. Bolialia (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The soruce that you talking about say this: The main factors, or inputs, in the population projections are:

Births (fertility rates) Deaths (mortality rates) Migration (emigration and immigration), and The age structure of the population (the number of people in various age groups) Related factors – which are not direct inputs into the projections but which underlie vital assumptions about the way Muslim fertility rates are changing and Muslim populations are shifting – include:

Education (particularly of women) Economic well-being (standards of living) Contraception and family planning Urbanization (movement from rural areas into cities and towns), and Religious conversion To fully understand the projections, one must understand these factors, which the next section of the report will discuss in more detail.

There is no mention here about the factors of muslims growth, and what reason the muslim growth is more than non-muslim while the first source do cliam that the significant projected growth is largely due to the young age and high fertility rate of Muslims relative to other religious groups.Jobas (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you read that "To fully understand the projections, one must understand these factors" since the projections are based on all these factors so we mention them. What the other source is saying is also kept. Bolialia (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well this paragrph is about why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, these factors don't claims that are the reason why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, these factors do introuduce as factor of population growth (could be Christians, Muslims, Jewish etc), The source do not cited that these factors are part of reasons why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, The first souce do claim that main reason why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population are young age and high fertility--.Jobas (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we are having a content dispute so should we take the help of DRN? Bolialia (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

These factors as the study say are factors of population growth (could be for Muslim, Christians, etc). That dose not mean it's factors why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, since the study also don't cliam that these factors are why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population. The other Study do claim that the reasons why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population is due primarily to the young age and high fertility rate of Muslims relative to other religious group. This paragrah is not about the factors of Muslim population growth, This about Islam s the fastest-growing religion in the world and the reason why it's growing faster.--Jobas (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Again these are factors of population growth, Which are part of Muslim population growth, But the study do not cliam or cited these are factors why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population. The Study cited that the main reason why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population are young age and high fertility. You are pushing your personal opinion. The study do not cited that these factors are the factor why Muslim grow faster comprare to other religous groupes.Jobas (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Accroding to pew study page 70: The number of Muslims around the world is projected to increase rapidly in the decades ahead, growing from about 1.6 billion in 2010 to nearly 2.8 billion in 2050. Muslims are expected to grow twice as fast as the overall global population. Consequently, Muslims are projected to rise from 23% of the world’s population in 2010 to 30% in 2050.41 This significant projected growth is largely due to the young age and high fertility rate of Muslims relative to other religious groups.

The study Pew Global muslim population study do show the factors of population growth (including Muslims) that you pushing in the article, These are factors of Muslim population growth, But the study do not mention or cliam that these are all the factors why Muslim population is growing faster than non muslims. While in the same time you adding these factors as the reasons why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, Which wrong since the study do not cited that.--Jobas (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not pushing my personal opinion. I have presented the Pew Research source itself which clearly mention the reasons for Muslim population growth and this does not contradicts with the other source you have provided as all these factors are the reasons for faster growing of Muslim population. The primary reason may be young age and fertility rate but a population growth also depends on many other factors such as economic well-being, family planning etc. So, to cherry pick only two factors is against the policy of neutrality. Bolialia (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is a difference between the factors of population growth (Muslim ) and factors of why muslim are growing faster than non muslims, The study do not cited that all these factors are part why Muslim are growing faster non Muslims. You claim that these factors are factors of why Muslim are growing faster non Muslims, Can you show where excally the study cited that?. The article here mention that Islam is the faster grwoing religion, The only factors that mention why it is the faster grwoing religion by the study is young age and high fertility.--Jobas (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't cherry pick there is three souces in this paragraph do cited that The reason are these two factors, and no mention for other factors.--Jobas (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Again sure all these are factors of population growth as the study cited, But you ignore that the study do not cited or cliams that all these factors are the reason why Muslim are growing faster than other religious groupes. The study do give two main reasons why Muslim growth faster than non muslim which is young age and fertility rate. There is a difference btween factors of population growth, and why this groupe growing faster than other religious groupes. And these two factors are been cited in the sources, not cherry pick from my side.--Jobas (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Young age and high fertility are primary reasons but are the other factors not reason for Muslim population growth? Bolialia (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

They are a reasons of Muslim population growth as they are also the reasons of Christian population growth or Hindu population growth, But not reasons why Muslim growth is faster than other religious groupes (since the study do not cited that they are part of factors), The study again with other three sources show that the main factors why Muslim growth is faster than other religious groupes is mainly becouse of young age and high fertility. Do you have a source cited that all these factors are why Islam is growing faster than other religious groupe?.--Jobas (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, got your point. Here are two sources[25] by Pew Research and [26] by the Daily Mirror. The research mentions another fact that religious conversion has no affect. This should be mentioned then. Bolialia (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Good, No issue with that.--Jobas (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Islam is fastest growing religion in many aspect

christianity is the largest religion so how could we say muslims are just about fertility, we must not forgot that so many muslims suffered on global war on terrorism and muslims extreme poverty in africa? this source might proved that Islam is fastest growing religion in many aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireman579 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census study

This paper is self-published and has no indication of noteworthy. Not published on any peer reviewed journal. --Bolialia (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The Lead

Certain religions have different growth rates in different countries in different times but as per the independent sources, and Pew Research thinktank Islam is cited as the global fastest growing religion so do not change the lead to include all specially when there are no credible claim from independent reliable sources. --Bolialia (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• The statement Studies and reports show that Evangelical Christian and Pentecostalism movement is one of the fastest-growing religion worldwid is supported by the following citations:

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20131217004703/http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/3/9/8/7/pages39879/p39879-1.php
2. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ic5pyiIkTxAC&pg=PA16&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/weekinreview/more-religion-but-not-the-oldtime-kind.html
4. http://www.pewforum.org/2006/10/05/pentecostal-resource-page/
5. https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/richard-l-wood/pentecostal-christianity-retrogressive-force-or-dynamic-ally-0
6. http://www.economist.com/node/8401206
7. https://books.google.it/books?id=RheC7rG9u6gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+New+Blackwell+Companion+to+the+Sociology+of+Religion&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEyNLAlsfMAhXFVhQKHdgGC_MQ6AEIHTAA
8. http://foreignpolicy.com/2007/05/14/the-list-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religions/

Now,

• source 1 doesn't seem to be reliable as it is a paper that argued Pentecostalism is the fastest growing religion in the world today without any statistical data or references.
• Source 2 doesn't verify the claim at all.
• Source 3 does claim that "The world's fastest growing religion is not any type of fundamentalism, but the Pentecostal wing of Christianity.".
• Source 4 is by the think tank Pew Research which claims, Pentecostalism to be the fastest-growing segment within Christianity. "Pentecostalism and related charismatic movements represent one of the fastest-growing segments of global Christianity. At least a quarter of the world’s 2 billion Christians are thought to be members of these lively, highly personal faiths, which emphasize such spiritually renewing “gifts of the Holy Spirit” as speaking in tongues, divine healing and prophesying."
• Source 5 is a paper by an Associate Professor of University of New Mexico which provides no statistical data.
• Source 6 claims that "renewalist movements" are the world's fastest-growing religious movement.
• Source 7 is a book by sociologist Bryan Turner which states that "The Pentecostal and charismatic movements represent some of the most popular and fastest growing religious movements within contemporary world Christianity." i.e. fastest growing segment within Christianity.
• And source 8 itself list Islam as the fastest growing religion followed by Sikhism and Hinduism.

The sources contradicts among themselves as some claim Pentecostalism as the fastest growing religion while rest claims fastest growing segment within Christianity. No sources mention "Evangelical Christian" at all. Bolialia (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright violations

While most of your edits here are Wikipedia:Copyright violations, you still pushing POV. The study cited that by 2050 the share of Europe’s population is 65% (I don't know why you keeping removing it), and 16% of the world’s Christians population are expected to be living in Europe. In the pagraph it is mention the by 1900 93% of population were living in Europe and the Americas, and by 2010 25% of world’s Christians population lived in Europe, and by 2050 its expected to that 16% of the world’s Christians population to live in Europe. in absolute number is expected to grow from 517 million to 1.1 billion in Sub Saharan Africa, and from 531 million to 665 million in Latin America and Caribbean, and from 287 million to 381 million in Asia, and from 266 million to 287 million in North America. So the change in Regional Distribution of Christians, 2010 vs. 2050 is already mentioned.--Jobas (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not POV pushing. According to the study for "Regional Change", the forecastd change of regional distribution of Christians in 2050 is considerable and moderate decline in global Christian population in Latin America and the Caribbean and North America.The Future of World Religions; Regional Change p.60. Thus when the research explicitly mentions growth or decline, this should be mentioned with proper citation and I would prefer to quote from sources for researched data. If copyright is the issue, it can be re-written. Also, you wrote in your edit summary not to remove any source while you're doing that yourself in the subsequent edit[27] --Bolialia (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Improve other religious information

The article has been extensively edited for both Christian and Islam religions but other religion sections do not have sufficient data so it needs expert's attention for expansion. --Juliandas51 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The User:Juliandas51 edit

Your last edit is misrepresentation of the information the pew study, the source do not cited what you cliams let see:

• your edit: According to Pew Research study, the demographical change of Christian population will be marked by 2050 and there will considerably be a decline in the total Christian population in the world. Despite you cliam you took this information from the page 60, where in fact the source cited in p.59-60 : "The world’s Christian population is expected to grow from 2.2 billion in 2010 to 2.9 billion in 2050.3". also the source cited: "In all other regions, the absolute number of Christians is expected to grow in the coming decades". So the soruce do not mention in no place that there will considerably be a decline in the total Christian population in the world.

• Okay, I am quoting from p.60 here:

"The regional distribution of Christians is forecast to change considerably by 2050. Europe is no longer projected to have a plurality of the world’s Christians; in fact, only about 16% of the world’s Christians are expected to be living in Europe as of 2050.

In addition, the shares of the global Christian population residing in Latin America and the Caribbean (23%) and North America (10%) are projected to decline modestly."

So, in my edit, for The regional distribution of Christians is forecast to change considerably by 2050, I wrote "demographical change (i.e. regional distribution) of Christian population will be marked by 2050". Another fact the study brings is that notable demographical change of Christians living in Europe which will loose its plurality of the world’s Christians. --Juliandas41 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Your edit: The study also suggests that by 2050 Europe will lose its status of the plurality of the World's Christian population. In different parts of the Christian world, there also will be a modest decline of the Christian population., You sound you do not understand the difference between the distribution of Christian and between the number of Christians, the Paragraph, which cited that christianity, is becoming less concentrated in Europe and more evenly distributed throughout the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia Pacifi region and the majority of Christians are no longer living in Europe is already contained, This does not mean that Europe is no longer with Christian majority as you trying to suggest (in fact according to the study 65% of Europe's population will be Christians by 2050), or there also will be a modest decline of the Christian population as your trying to suggest in fact the study cited in p.60 - the page you took it as source-: In all other regions, the absolute number of Christians is expected to grow in the coming decades. So the study do not mention there also will be a modest decline of the Christian population.

I will try to exmplain this point, in 2010 12.3% of the world’s Christians population lived in North America, By 2050 10% of the world’s Christians population is expected to be living in North America, This decline is not in popultion numbers as you try to suggest, since the Christian number will grow from 266 million to 287 million, The decline is the shares of the global Christian population residing in North America, Other example; in 2010 24.5% of the world’s Christians population lived in Latin America, by 2050 22.8% of the world’s Christians population is expected to be living in Latin America, the decline is not in popultion numbers since christian number will grow and from 531 million to 665 million in Latin America, the decline is in shares of the global Christian population residing in Latin America. There is a big differece between these two cliams right?.

• There is no such a claim in the study that total Christian population in the world will considerably be a decline due to conversion to the other religion and atheism.

• Now, the source states that, "Europe is the only region where the absolute number of Christians is expected to decline by 2050. Europe’s Christian population is projected to fall from 553 million in 2010 to 454 million in 2050. In addition, the shares of the global Christian population residing in Latin America and the Caribbean (23%) and North America (10%) are projected to decline modestly."

So you're right about other region but the fact is that Christianity will decline only in Europe in coming decades therefore Europe will loose its status of plurality of World's Christians.

It also states that, "In all other regions, the absolute number of Christians is expected to grow in the coming decades. However, the share of the population that is Christian is forecast to decline within all regions except Asia and the Pacific." i.e. though Christianity will increase but in compared to the region's population it will decline except Asia and Pacific.

Thanks for pointing out the the decline is not in absolute number but in comparison to World's Christian share so I will put it accordingly. --Juliandas41 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• your edit: Christian population will experience the greatest loss than other religions. It will decline 27.7 million in North America, 23.8 million in Europe, 9 million in Latin America and Caribbean, 2.7 million in Sub-Saharan Africa and about 2 million in Asia Pacific region. The source do not mention that the decline is with absolute numbers as you trying to suggest, in fact the number of Christians in absolute number is expected to grow to more than double in the next few decades, from 517 million to 1.1 billion in Sub Saharan Africa, and from 531 million to 665 million in Latin America and Caribbean, and from 287 million to 381 million in Asia, and from 266 million to 287 million in North America. (The decline is the net movement or the cumulative Change or net loss in switching which not necessarily in the overall absolute numbers like you are trying to suggest), beside that that inforamted been already coverd. It POV you trying to push it.
• In fact between 2010-2050 the Buddhists will experience the greatest total population loss than other religions, since their numbers will decline from 487,760,000 as in 2010 to 486,270,000 as in 2050 (net loss -1,490,000), while christianity is in the second place in experience the greatest gain. according to the study the christian numbers will increase from 2,168,330,000 as in 2010 to 2,918,070,000 as in 2050 (the net gain is + 749,740,000), So Christian population will experience the greatest loss than other religions is from you.
• Your edits has problems, you the twisting of information and claims thing that do not mentioned in study, or change the context of the information.--Jobas (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you clearly misunderstood here! p.67 clearly mention that:

"In specific regions, religious switching is forecast to have a more substantial impact on Christian populations. In North America, Europe and the Latin America-Caribbean region, Christians are projected to experience net losses because of religious switching, with most of the switching toward no religious affiliation. Consequently, population projections with and without religious switching can differ dramatically." i.e. Christians will have net loss due to religious conversion in North America, Europe and the Latin America-Caribbean region.

Again in p.12, it is clearly mention that:

"Over the coming decades, Christians are expected to experience the largest net losses from switching. Globally, about 40 million people are projected to switch into Christianity, while 106 million are projected to leave, with most joining the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated". Further the table in p.11 explicitly pointed out that Christian will loose 66,050,000 which is highest than Buddhists.

Now, p.43 gives clear view of Christians living out of their religion. It clearly stated:

"The largest net losses are expected among Christian populations, notably in North America (28 million), Europe (24 million), Latin America and the Caribbean (9 million) and sub- Saharan Africa (3 million). In the Asia-Pacific region, Christians are expected to have a net loss, due to religious switching, of more than 2 million adherents."

The table in p.43 provides absolute numbers of Christians living out in particular regions. i.e. 28 million in North America, 24 million in Europe, 9 million in Latin America and the Caribbean and 3 million in sub-Saharan Africa. And 2 million in Asia-Pacific region. Juliandas41 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)