This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Major religious groups article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

WikiProject Religion	(Rated Start-Class)	ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WPReligionReligion articles
Religion portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Comments: edit · history · watch · purge This page quotes the number of Buddhists as 324,000,000, while the page Religion in China [1] quotes 1 billion (80%), apparently arbitrarily picking this figure from the "Surveys" that "have found that about 30% to 91% identify with Buddhism as one of their religions." [2] Which puts the number between 1.1 and 1.7 billion, it would seem from what I have read that 324 million is too low and 1 billion is too large, while I don't recommend a figure between these is simply guessed, it would be useful to have the two figures the same. I only mention this because I quoted both figures in the same document, very nearly causing embarrassment. Not quite sure how this Talk section works so apologies if this ends up in the wrong place. [edit] Number of Buddhist Adherents The number of Buddhist followers on the article is estimated to be "250 million". This is ignoring the number of chinese buddhists which number at "More recent surveys put the total number of Chinese Buddhists between 660 million (50%) and over 1 billion (80%)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhidhamma (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Major religious groups/Archive 1

Talk:Major religious groups/Archive 2

Contents 1 Number of Buddhist Adherents 2 Maps Misrepresent the Non-Religious 3 World Population 4 How many religions? 5 Nation of Islam? 6 No Shamanism, please! 7 Concerning the use of Encyclopedia Britannica as a source 8 Adherents.com as source of data 9 Ibadi Islam 10 Subdivisions among Hindus 11 Mormon Membership Numbers Are Incorrect 12 Removed word "Lamaism" 13 Validity? 14 Growth Rates 15 Eastern Orthodox? 16 Confused numbers in subdivisions within Christianity 17 Mormonism vs. Islam 18 Have Islam 1,3 billion or 1,5 billion followers ? 19 Scientology 20 Jewish Denominations 21 The Christianity/Islam map could use a better color scheme 22 Humanism as a subset of Islam 23 Masonry's creation of cults 24 Sikhism as the youngest of the top 5 25 Figures 26 AD/CE 27 Jeff3000 revisions 28 Map of world religions disputed 29 The predominant religion in Vietnam is Mahayana Buddhism! 30 Leading image 31 Chinese Universists? 32 My recent revert 33 Discrepancy between this article and the "Judaism" article 34 Atheism, Agnosticism, et al... 35 Vietnam need to fix!Quickly! 36 Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions? 37 Jehovah's Witnesses 38 Minor Edit 39 Chinese folk religion and Taoism on the table 40 Demographics 41 New Image 41.1 Religiosity 42 Upload new version 43 New world religion image 44 MAPS 45 Are there any older pie charts or graphs available to show how religion’s have grown and shrank? 46 Zoroastrian numbers 47 Issues around two minor religions (Druze and Rastafarianism) 48 Religions by numbers of adherents 49 Image:World religions pie chart.png 50 The map of major religions of the world 51 Number of Baha'is 52 Why is Christianity subdivided and Islam not subdivided in the discussion? 53 Error/ false information 54 Judaism a Major Faith? 55 Arguing that Juche is not a religion 56 Split suggestion tag regarding religious demographics 57 Christian denominations. 58 percentages 59 Maps at the top of the article 60 the denominations of religiouns (Islam ): 61 Is that figure for Roman Catholic accurate? 62 Classification of religions 63 Combination of religions 64 Marxism 65 Edits 66 Irreligion missing 67 Islam Date of Origin 68 Muslim population 69 Yech!

[edit] Maps Misrepresent the Non-Religious

Take the Scandanavian countries for example. There are more non-religious people in some (all?) of them than people belonging to any one organization. Showing them as Protestant countries is inaccurate (Look at the numbers for Sweden in particular.) Not every country has to be thought of as belonging to an organized religion. If the majority of the people are "nothing," then reflect that on the maps! 76.113.70.148 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] World Population

I think the religion by population table could be improved. The order seems strange in that it is cultural tradition then religion, surely as it's "by world population" it would be better to be sorted by world population first, with a sortable table if required? Also the cultural traditions and religions do not match the religion topics in the Topic table on the bottom of the page, and the numbers in the table are difficult to scan at a glance (over multiple lines and in different units). 86.217.200.7 (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've layed out the table, made the units consistent, sorted by numbers and made the table sortable. I used List of countries by population as a guide. 86.217.200.7 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How many religions?

I think an important qustion should be included in the article, how many world religions are there? According to one reference, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world ([3]) Danma10 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems like an impossible question to answer. Surely the answer would vary wildly depending on who is asked the question. Any attempt to answer the question is also highly dependent on the working definition of exactly what a "religion" is, or what a "world religion" is (if that phrase is intended to mean something other than "a religion found in the world"). Criteria would need to be established. Requiring a "religion" to be something that has a written guiding text or an organized governance structure or minimum adherent population level would help obtain a countable answer to the question, but would introduce biases. Decisions would also need to be made about what is the difference between a religion and a sub-group within a religion. —Wookipedian (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nation of Islam?

Can NOI be added to Islam? Reported to have a following as large as Scientology (which is on the list).

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is in the list only because the source that the article references (mostly adherents.com) lists it in this fashion. Although it seems clear that the Nation of Islam exists and has some number of adherents, it doesn't seem to be identified as a major group by the sources referenced in this article. The referenced source does discuss it somewhat as part of the Islam category, but doesn't make it a major bullet item category. (I don't actually see an estimated number of adherents on the Nation of Islam page.) -Wookipedian (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Shamanism, please!

Shaman is the name of the spiritual healer/leader of indigenous people in Northern Mongolia/Siberia. To name all indigenous religious traditions as shamanism is the same as naming all religions as Buddhism! Better using terms like animistic, tribal or mediumistic religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.155.19 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the use of Encyclopedia Britannica as a source

ElvenHighKing has said in this discussion: "A better solution for this article would be to use numbers from well-respected sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica directly." ([4]) I agree with him that statistics for the major world religions from the Britannica website should be posted in this article.

Wookipedian, however, disagrees with ElvenHighKing. Wookipedian has said: "[The Britannica website] seems to require some kind of subscription for access to the information. I think it is helpful for resolving disputes if we use a source that everyone can easily access without such restrictions. As far as I can see, Britannica does not satisfy that criterion." ([5])

My response to Wookipedian is that posting Britannica statistics on this article does not mean that we have to stop using adherents.com as a source. We can still keep the adherents.com list on this article just as we always have; but at the same time, statistics from the Britannica website should be posted in this article as an alternative list for people to look at. It is not necessary for all of the readers of this article to be able to look at the Britannica website for themselves. The statistics from the website can be posted with a link to the website, but a disclaimer can be used in order to warn people that the website requires a subscription. Besides, the article already contains some information from alternative sources, such as the Christian Science Monitor, anyway.

I would appreciate it if any wikipedia user who has a subscription to the Britannica website would post the Britannica statistics of the world religions on this article. - SadisticSuburbanite 3 April 2007

Nearly two weeks have gone by and no one has commented on the above comments, which were made in response to previous comments by me. I would like to make a few relevant remarks:

• SadisticSuburbanite refers to the existing use of the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) in the article. It may be worth pointing out that the CSM list is freely accessible on the web, via secondary reporting of its content on the adherents.com site. The Brittanica information (if such information actually exists in the Brittanica) does not seem to be that easily accessible. Also, as a minor point of clarification, the population estimates in the section of the article that refers to the CSM categorizations do not actually come from the CSM. See the footnote in that section. Only the categories came from the CSM. The numbers listed alongside them came from adherents.com.
• Anyone who has watched this page for a while will know that people come here all the time and play around with the numbers and categories, usually without saying what they are attempting to achieve or why, and once in a while the page gets all confused with such edits and we have to go back and look at the cited adherents.com source again to make sense of the situation. If we use a source that some/most of us can't easily access, it will be even harder to keep the page sensible. Really only a couple of us are diligent about keeping the page from spinning out of control as it is.
• Perfection in the estimation of such numbers and in the structuring of religions into categories is impossible to achieve. That should be obvious. All of this should be understood as rough estimates and "best effort" categorizations about something that no one can really accurately know and about which there will be no universal agreement. After a certain point, more effort becomes pointless. Even small differences in how you ask a person what their religion is, or in the context of the question can make a significant difference in the outcome. (Is it the government that is doing the asking? Is it a church? Is the person doing the asking acting friendly? Is the person answering the question feeling cranky or mischevious? What penalties are associated with what answers in the neighborhood where the person answering the question lives? Etc.)

–Wookipedian 03:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I just happened to notice this link in the Wikipedia page to some statistics published by Brittanica. So I did a quick little study of their differences relative to what adherents.com is reporting. Basically, for the most populous religions, the two sites list very similar numbers. Adherents.com seems to have a few more people overall, and a few more of them assigned to the non-religious category. That's about it. I only compared the most numerous categories, since below that, it seems to become harder to make sure the categories are the same — for example, the Brittanica spreadsheet doesn't have a category called "primal indigenous" (also, I didn't want to spend all day on the effort). See table below.

Religion	Adherents.com	Brittanica	Percent difference
Christianity	2.1 B	2.0 B	+5%
Islam	1.3 B	1.2 B	+8%
Secular	1.1 B	0.92 B	+20%
Hindu	900	828	+9%
Chinese Folk	394	390	+1%
Buddhist	376	364	+3%

—Wookipedian 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Below are a few more. For these smaller groups the correspondence is also very good, but with adherents.com being slighly lower than Brittanica. For groups smaller than this, it should not be surprising that there are significant differences in the counts. Overall, I would say that the two sources match each other very well in the vast majority of cases.

Religion	Adherents.com	Brittanica	Percent difference
Sikhism	23	23.8	-3.4%
Jewish	14	14.5	-3.4%
Baha'i	7	7.4	-3.4%
Jainism	4.2	4.3	-2.3%

—Wookipedian 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adherents.com as source of data

I have strong doubts about the suitability of adherents.com as the source of data for this article. The website lists a variety of sources for calculating the number of adherents but fails to follow a cardinal rule of scholarly publications -- it does not indicate the source for each particular number; it simply provides a laundry list of books and other sources, making it almost impossible to verify any number. In addition, the website does not appear to be refereed or peer-reviewed in any way.

As an example, consider the population figures attributed to branches within Hinduism: Any student of Indian religions will realize that only a small minority of Hindus adhere to exculsive branches, while most Hindus do not consider themselves as belonging to any branch, or in fact know that such "branching" exists. I tried to contact the webmaster for adherents.com requesting the source for these numbers but email delivery fails. There is no way of knowing what is the source of these numbers or how authoritative the source is.

A better solution for this article would be to use numbers from well-respected sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica directly.

Maybe you have had this debate before -- "longstanding consensus" seems to indicates this. In that case, can someone kindly point me to the debate transcript.

ElvenHighKing 01:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See the talk archives at the links above for the history of the subject. I think adherents.com has been the primary source for the numerical estimates in this article for at least roughly two years. If you have some concrete suggestions, then we can discuss them. I have no problem with the basic idea of agreeing to use some other source(s), but we need a way to avoid chaos and stick to a consensus-based and disciplined editing process. Often people just come by here, change a few numbers in whatever way suits their mood, and move on their merry way leaving a mess behind. We already deviate from adherents.com in a few ways (see the notes at the end of the first section of the article for explanations of those differences) and those particular differences have documented reasons and have seemed generally agreeable. I just looked up the Britannica source that you mentioned. However, their site seems to require some kind of subscription for access to the information. I think it is helpful for resolving disputes if we use a source that everyone can easily access without such restrictions. As far as I can see, Britannica does not satisfy that criterion. I realize that I have not responded to your discussion of Hindus yet - I will try to look into it. –Wookipedian 02:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the Hinduism categorization. Each of the categories has well-developed Wikipedia pages, so I think it is difficult to argue that the categories don't exist. In probably all cases where we list sub-categories within some religion, different people would probably have different preferences on how to do that (see the discussions of sub-categories of Christianity, for example). The only way we can say anything at all is to have a clear method for resolving such issues. Thus far, we have primarily relied on adherents.com for that purpose, and I don't see a big problem caused by that reliance in this case. –Wookipedian 02:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well this page needs updating because Adherents.com has the pie chart summarizing Islam at 1.5 Billion and its Main Database has it as high as 1.78 Billion [[6]]MPA 03:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Good point about the apparently-updated estimate on Adherents.com. Yes, it shows 1.5 Billion now. I have fixed the article accordingly. —Wookipedian 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibadi Islam

Shouldn't Ibadi Islam be listed among the Muslim denominations, especially since it is the majority denomination in Oman? It's not reasonable to leave it out of the list, especially when you consider that Druze is included as a Muslim denomination, when it really isn't Muslim at all. In any case, it's certainly much less Muslim than Ibadi. - SadisticSuburbanite 27 March 2007

This site primarily references adherents.com to establish its categorizations and numerical estimates. That site does not appear to provide a category devoted to Ibadi. Perhaps they have been lumped into one of the other categories. How many Ibadi are there? (I didn't see a numerical estimate on the Ibadi page.) Note the discussion below about Christianity sub-categories. Many people would have used different sub-categories for Christianity too, but using one referenced source is the way we deal with avoiding turmoil. –Wookipedian 04:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, we have to had the Kharidjism-Ibadi, because there are between 3.000.000 and 5.000.000 living in Oman and South-Algeria (WIKI-FRANCE). Also, they took an important place in the "Islam History". --83.134.216.132 14:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subdivisions among Hindus

What is the source for population figures for adherents of various Hindu traditions? I am not even sure that Hindus can be categorized along such mutually exclusive lines.

ElvenHighKing 02:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

By longstanding consensus, the page generally uses adherents.com as its source for such numbers, and it references that source. In the case of Hinduism, the corresponding table can be found here –Wookipedian 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon Membership Numbers Are Incorrect

Self-published sources are not viable under Wiki standards. The 12 million world-wide membership number is claimed by the Mormons themselves (ie self-published), but has been proven bogus. The Salt Lake Tribune has released several well documented articles over the past few years showing a world-wide membership around 4 million, and declining. http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_2886596

The 2000 census in Mexico is a good example. The Mormons claim 1.2 million members, yet the census showed only 205,000. http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-16344.html

Mexico is just one example, the links show the same pattern of false membership claims across at least a dozen countries. Additionaly, the Salt Lake Tribune aquired through the freedom of information act, the actual statistics provided to the State of Utah under a confidentiality agreement (why would they need one of those?) which showed dramatic differences in membership numbers within the State of Utah, by at least 10%. Recently the Mormon leadership has responded to the Salt Lake Tribune by claiming that the difference in membership was becasue all those people were moving at the time. The Salt Lake Tribune responded by showing that home sales and rental rates could not match the claim.

The Salt Lake Tribune articles show that the Mormons have a habit of falsifying there data. The membership number should be changed to a verifiable source. http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_2886596. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.12.220 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 19 November 2006

All independent sociologists have verified that the numbers are accurately kept according to the disclosed standards that are used. Members are counted according to disclosed and strict criteria. Your references do not at all show what you claim.

1. [7] does not show a decreasing membership, but discusses a decreasing percentage of total population in Utah. Additionally it does not mention world-wide membership at all.
2. [8] the issues of retention and activity in mexico (in fact in all of Central and South America) are well documented and should come as no surprise. There are completely different criteria for the two counts (thus no intelligent person would ever think they would correlate). Additionally, government gathering of religious information is suspect because of possible improper use (for example the US census abandoned gathering information about religions after 1936 - and now Title 13 prohibits the government from requiring answers about religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body).US Code

The common misconception about fastest-growing has not been the case for a few years, but gathered steam from the past when it was the fastest-growing for several years in a row.

Please don't misstate the information going forward. --Trödel 04:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

On this site, we use adherents.com as our source. If the neutral, unbiased site lists twelve million, then we use twelve million. The Mormons have 12 million in their records too. I'm sure that if you look, you can find numbers talking about how all religions listed don't actually have this number too. We should continue with precedent of using adherents.com.

I just looked at the articles you listed and found that of the claims you make, only the one about Mexico is correct. Nowhere do you cite a source verifies "Mormons have a habit of falsifying their data;" no where do you cite a statistic supporting a claim that Mormons have been "showing a world-wide membership around 4 million, and declining." The articles simply talk about Utah--not the world

Pahoran513 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed word "Lamaism"

hello, I removed the word "lamaism" from the description of Vajrayana/Tibetan Buddhism, as it is an outdated and inaccurate word to use. Also, it is considered somewhat derogatory by practicing Tibetan Buddhists.

thank you,

K. Jamba —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.243.135 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 September 2006

Agreed, most modern sources use Tibetan Buddhism, but how is Lamaism derogatory? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a random note, this debate is not continuing, but for those interested in how Lamaism is a term used by Protestants as essentially an anti-Catholic polemic (really interesting and of itself), I'd refer you to Donald_S._Lopez,_Jr. who wrote an excellent book on the subject Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West, The University of Chicago Press, 1998. There's also a shorter article on the same subject that's a chapter in the book The Curators of the Buddha: the study of Buddhism under colonialism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.203.120 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Validity?

I think this page is WAY off. The primary source that it sites is a website (adherents.com) which uses sources such as the world christian encyclopedia, etc. You mean to tell me the worlds youngest religion (by a 100 fold) is 33% of the world and the largest of all? Impossible. Islam, Hinduism, and other religions have by far many more followers than Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.219.191 (talk • contribs)

Keep in mind that Islam is younger than Christianity. And if you look at any source, Christianity is the largest religious group in the world. Let us speak no more of this. Pahoran513 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

saying "any" source isn't enough. if "any" source is looked out, then it should be referenced. "Let us speak no more of this." doesn't fit the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I added the unreferenced and verify needed tags to make it more clear.

But adherents.com and the CIA sources are clearly not reliable sources.What we have here is lots of Christian sources citing each other and mostly dependent on information provided by evangelizing groups. Overall it seems more accurate to say that Buddhism, Christianity and Islam are roughly equal in overall numbers.here We have no means to estimate numbers more accurately than that.SelwynC 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

also i wanted to add Pastafarianism http://www.venganza.org/ if that's not vandalism.

Tsinoyboi 09:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We already have sources referenced in the article. Pahoran513 was simply pointing out that there is approximately zero dispute between various well-recognized sources about these issues. Pastafarianism is not listed in the sources for this article, and does not appear to have a large population of adherents listed in any reliable source, so it should not be in the article. The article is not about listing every possible religion or variant - the article is about major religions, not all religions. There is another page where listing it would be more appropriate - specifically, the List of religions page, and it is in fact already listed there. It may not really be appropriate to list joke religions there either, but that is something to reach a consensus about on that Talk page, not this one. -Wookipedian 05:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism seems to be rated much lower than seems realistic. The Buddhism by Country page gives a minimum estimate of ~490 million adherents and a safe-bet estimation of ~690 million. 71.217.3.59 (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Growth Rates

Anyone have any links / stats. on rates of growth / % of change of the world's religious population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.70.70 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 December 2005

Religion#Trends_in_adherence--Smkolins 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Orthodox?

What's happened to the Eastern Orthodox? Were they removed from a listing alongside Oriental Orthodox and Assyrians? john k 12:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

They seem to have been removed without explanation by 195.229.242.83 in an edit timestamped as 15:35, 1 August 2006. Presumably they would be considered to fall into the catch-all "Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrians, and Other Christians" subcategory. I hesitate to speculate about why the change was made. Perhaps it was just vandalism. Some of the other edits associated with that IP address appear to have been vandalism, including at least one on the same day (see the user's edit history and discussion page). —Wookipedian 05:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I just made an attempt at reverting that unexplained anon change of 1 August. The change affected the status of Mormons/LDS in a way that may need further consideration. —Wookipedian 05:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced that the change was an improvement, but I'll leave it there and see what others think. It does seem desirable to me, considering the diversity of variations within Christianity, that we have some lower-level granularity in the categories. But I really don't know whether what is there is appropriate or not, and I suspect that it has some problems. —Wookipedian 06:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused numbers in subdivisions within Christianity

Where are the numbers coming from for the adherent count estimates within the subdivisions of Christianity? I don't think they are coming from adherents.com (I looked there and what I found was quite different than what is here). I recently lumped together Protestantism and Restorationism when I discovered that I could not determine who fit into which category. The same faiths seem to be counted in both categories in some places. Now someone has separated these again, which is fine, but where are the numbers coming from and who is in which category? Here is the current content of our article:

• See also the List of Christian denominations by number of members and List of Christian denominations pages.
• Roman Catholicism: 1.1 billion
• Protestantism: 675 million
• Restorationism (including Mormonism): 275 million
• Eastern Orthodoxy: 200 million
• Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrians, and other Christians: 325 million

Now let's look at a couple of numbers. On the List of Christian denominations by number of members Wikipage, there are only 30 million in the Restorationism category. Where did our additional 245 million come from? We are off by a multiple greater than nine! Similarly, the List of Christian denominations by number of members lists only 500 million in Protestantism, but we seem to have another 175 million of them here. So our extra Restorationists did not come from drawing a different boundary between Restorationists and Protestants (both numbers seem to be too big by a couple of hundred million). –Wookipedian 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing the other day - I think it is more likely that it is 27.5 million and someone just didn't read carefully when they were doing the table. That also jives with the numbers on adherents.com for the groups included in restortionism. --Trödel 13:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

When I made that edit, I got my numbers from past editions(?) of the article. And I agree the numbers don't make sense. I was just using numbers that already had made an appearance on wikipedia; under no circumstances would I make up my own numbers. Please, correct it. My issue was with the categories, not the numbers. So please--make this article better. That's all I was trying to do. Pahoran513 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

But the reason the categories were the way they were was that we have no reliable/referenceable source for numbers to go along with the categories. The categories and the numbers are connected to each other. Rather than having numbers with no cited source, I suggest that we restructure our subcategories within Christianity according to the "Major Denominational Families of Christianity" table found here on Adherents.com, the site which is our primary reference in the corresponding section of the main article. In other words, our divisions will become Catholic, Orthodox/Eastern Orthodox, AICs, Pentacostal, etc. rather than different subcategories that we invent ourselves. We need to be able to cite a source. We cannot have numbers that just pop out of nowhere and just get adjusted upwards and downwards on the whim of every individual Wikiperson. —Wookipedian 23:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I like that table. It does seem a bit too jumbled for this article, but the numbers are reliable and such. Let's go ahead and change the article after a few more editors comment. Pahoran513 01:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wookipedian in that we should use the categories, and numbers from the adherents.com page. Verifiability is of utmost importance, and helps defray the criticisms against Wikipedia. Thus we have a reliable source, with that page, and should go with it. If, however, we do find another source, we could, of course, change the categorization, to something that is most acceptable to the editors, but currently we are limited in what sources/categorizations we have. Regards. -- Jeff3000 06:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but should we use all of the list? It would seem to make the article crouded. But I know that this would make disagreements spring up like liberals around Dick Cheney. Still, my concern is there. But hey, what do I know? Let's add the list. The numbers are good and that's what we're worried about. Pahoran513 03:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Personally, I think more detail is better. In other categories outside of Christianity, we have groups as small as a half million, so I think it is best to use the whole list for the sake of completeness and providing the most possible information. —Wookipedian 04:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it is probably also obvious now by looking at the article that I also aligned the divisions of all other listed religions in this section (not just Christians) with what I found at adherents.com. —Wookipedian 20:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That was a lot of work. Thanks Wookipedian for improving this article so drastically. Pahoran513 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no listing for Protestantism now? I added the numbers in the Christianity group, and came up with 1.96425 billion, not 2.1 billion like the table says. Where are the other 140 million, and where are the protestants? –—Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown (talk • contribs)

Thre is no listing for Protestants because that is not the way adherents.com performed its corresponding categorization. Several of the listed categories are considered Protestant. Also please read the referenced site regarding trying to make numbers add up perfectly. The intent is to make each number a best estimate rather than to try to force the numbers to conform to mathematical rules. –Wookipedian 03:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism vs. Islam

I've commented out the following sentence of the second paragraph:

For example, Mormons are ordinarily considered Christians, while Muslims are ordinarily not — yet both of them share a common heritage and each of them adds one major prophet and one major text to those that distinguish Christianity from other faiths; and these faiths, in turn, share a common heritage with Judaism as Abrahamic faiths.

This is a very misleading statement. First of all, it's true that LDS and Islam each add one major prophet; but whereas LDS Christians, like other Christians, take Jesus as the Son and as the most important prophet, Muslims view Jesus as a minor figure compared to Mohammed. Second of all, it's true that each adds one major text, but LDS appends the Book of Mormon to the ordinary Christian Bible, whereas Islam substitutes the Koran for the Christian Bible.

I understand the point that is trying to be made here — that it's not always easy to draw the line between two religions — but the example is a bad one, because it's very easy to see that Mormons are fundamentally Christians and that Muslims are fundamentally not. This kind of statement risks offending Mormons, who consider themselves Christians but are often rejected by other Christians; that risk would be understandable if the example served its purpose, but really it's a better example of how to lie using facts, and of how to justify an intentional miscategorization of a religion, than it is of the difficulty of categorizing religions.

Addendum: By the way, I'm neither Christian nor Muslim, so consider myself relatively unbiased in the matter. (I do have some Mormon and some Muslim friends, though. And plenty of non-Mormon Christian friends, for that matter.)

Hardly a "minor figure", since it's he who in Islamic theology comes back to lead the faithful on Judgment Day. But well analyzed on the Mormon-Muslim difference. 90.15.14.30 (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruakh 19:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because Mormonism is used as an example does not mean that we're picking on Mormons. And besides Mormons there are several other religions and categories of religions mentioned as examples in the paragraph. The example shows that it is not always obvious what fits into a category and what does not. I haven't noticed any Mormons or Muslims offended by the example. Obviously there are other issues involved that we are not discussing in detail - the idea is to just give an introduction to the notion that categorization can be difficult and provide some specific examples where obvious difficulties arise. Providing two easy examples like Roman Catholicism and Protestantism defeats the purpose, because most people would consider those to be rather obvious fits within the category of Christianity. The substitute wording that you changed it to is rather poor and does not illustrate the same problem of determining what is a religion versus a subcategory within a religion. Here is what you changed it to: "For example, within each of the main Abramic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) are a number of sub-categories; given two subgroups of one of these religions, say Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (both subgroups of Christianity), some might consider them to be as far apart as Judaism and Islam, and argue that they should be considered separate religions." What is "Abramic"? I also find the phrase "as far apart as Judaism and Islam" to be a unnecessarily restrictive criterion - what we are trying to show is that it is not always easy to form categories. I think it is useful to show some example(s) that illustrate the difficulty of determining whether something fits into a category or not. Muslims hold Christ and the Christian Bible, or at least the Torah, in very high regard, so on the surface they could plausibly be considered Christian (although this is not a typical interpretation, which is why the example was chosen). Mormons have an extra prophet after Christ and have an extra text, so on the surface they could plausibly be considered to fall outside of the typical umbrella category of most Christian faiths (although that is not a typical interpretation either, which is why this example was chosen as well). The idea is to show some examples that would result in what most people would consider miscategorizations in order to show that there is some degree of judgment involved in establishing categories and showing how some people might therefore differ in their categorizations. Providing only examples where everything works out in the obvious conventional way defeats the purpose of the discussion. —Wookipedian 20:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It may also be useful to point out that you did much more than comment out the one sentence that you quoted. You also extensively changed much of the rest of the paragraph. —Wookipedian 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Based in part on the above feedback, Ruakh has changed the paragraph again. I am less hostile to the new version and I am trying to step back and not be too defensive of the previous text. However, I have a problem with the following new sentence: "Conversely, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are commonly both considered variants of Christianity, but members of each variant have often viewed the other as non-Christian, and ..." That sentence asserts a fact, namely that some substantial number of Protestants have said that Roman Catholicism is not a Christian faith and vice versa. This may be true, but I am not aware of it, and such a statement of fact should be supported with a citation to back it up. Unless one is provided, that needs to be changed. —Wookipedian 21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right that a citation needs to be provided eventually (lest we run afoul of WP:OR), but the general idea that many Protestants don't consider Catholics Christian is easily confirmed by googling "Catholics and Christians" (40,000 hits) and "Christians and Catholics" (34,000 hits). (The reverse is less true, though: "Protestants and Christians" gets only 100 hits, and while "Christians and Protestants" gets 24,800 hits, the first few pages of results suggest that only about half of these are implying that Protestants aren't Christians, the other half being in phrases like "{Orthodox Christians} and Protestants", "Christians, and {Protestants in particular}", etc. That said, I think the English-speaking world is more heavily Protestant, which might have something to do with it; I notice that Googling for other-language equivalents of "Christians and Protestants" and "Protestants and Christians" also pulls up hits, with a higher proportion of hits implying that Protestants aren't Christian.) Ruakh 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph was further edited by Trödel and the statements made there seem sufficiently obvious now to not require citation. I think I'm basically OK with the current version. (However, its use of a semicolon may be a little hard for some people to follow.) —Wookipedian 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have Islam 1,3 billion or 1,5 billion followers ?

It says 1,3 here, but in another page here it says close to 1,5 billion And near the beginning of the article it says 1100 million (i.e., 1,1 billion) [9]

and in another place here I remember reading that the figure is 1,4 billion [10] and yeat another place that it is somewhere between 1,4 and 1,5 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.167.190.29 (talk • contribs) .

This page uses adherents.com for all its sources. -- Jeff3000 00:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Honey, but the site is not updated! The information should be updated. SeMiTiC (This remark attributed to SeMiTiC was added by 58.109.114.88 on 25 March 2007)

Personally I doubt the quantity of Islam adherents has changed dramatically in the (less than two years) time since the referenced site was updated. Percentage-wise, the estimates are likely to be even more volatile and rough for other less major religions. In any case, it is most important that we have a reasonably consistent and agreed consensus-based way to establish what is said in this article. Otherwise, everyone just picks their own individual favorite reference (or no reference at all) for their own favorite estimation, and we have a completely useless unobjective, and constantly changing battle of numbers. For a long time now, the consensus has been to use Adherents.com, and I see no constructive suggestion of a better alternative approach that makes sense. –Wookipedian 04:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The pie chart summarizes Islam at 1.5 Billion and the Main Database has it as high as 1.78 Billion.[[11]] This page really needs updating.MPA 03:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Yes — since the main page at adherents.com now shows 1.5 Billion (perhaps a recent update), I changed the article to match it. —Wookipedian 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is still inconsistency on this page. Islam cannot have both 1.1 bill and 1.3 bill. The same goes with hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.147.2 (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

Is Scientology an actual, recognized religion? On the surface it seems more of a cult or marketing scheme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.4.70.65 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

The section of the page that you are referring to uses adherents.com as its source, and it references that source. –Wookipedian 03:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is no argument surely? Scientology has not been awarded the status of religion in many countries (UK, Germany etc.). They are recognised as a cult, and as such, shouldn't be on the Religion page. BroxiRangersFan 18:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, a reasonably-good working definition of the word "cult" is "a religion that the person who is doing the talking doesn't like". We arean't here to decide whose religions we approve of and don't approve of. We are just here to document what exists. If you want to start another page called "religions approved by governments of countries", please go ahead. But this is not that page. —Wookipedian 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Denominations

Are there really more Conservative Jews than Reform? I can't find anything about it in the source. And I have heard that the Conservative population is getting smaller. Can someone find a reliable source for Jewish denomination information? --Max 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See this table at the referenced source site. I added a link to it in the article. It seems to match the numbers in the article. –Wookipedian 03:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This table is pure rubbish. Reform and Conservative Judaism are almost negligible outside of the USA. Most Jews in Israel and other countries are "traditionalists" and this category, that has nothing to do with either Reform and Conservative Judaism, is absent. The problem being also that most non-American Jews don't even recognize the idea of Jewish "denominations" and see "Orthodox" Judaism as simply "Judaism" - this being particularly the case of traditionalists Jews. So this table makes no sense. 85.250.74.39 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Christianity/Islam map could use a better color scheme

The map with relative concentrations of Islam/Christianity has a very confusing color scheme (at least to my eyes). The two extremes are both bright colors while the transitional colors seem to all be more reddish giving the illusion that territories on the 50/50 line are actually more Christian than majority Christian countries. Could you please change it to a more intuitive color scheme? The Dharmic/Abrahamic scheme for example is very accessible.--Karkaron 09:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humanism as a subset of Islam

Obviously it's merely a typo, but the way the page is set up makes Humanism appear to be a subset of Islam. I haven't done anything about it, since I'm afraid of messing up the article by fixing this myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KriskoDisko (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

There was a change made by Chsbcgs (on the same day as your comment) that caused that. It appears to have been vandalism, and it was reverted after about 9 hours by Jeff3000. –Wookipedian 04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masonry's creation of cults

i know we have alot of left handed admins.. but really. it's time we just called a spade a spade and lumped all the stupid cults that masonry has created together. mormons, christian science, theosophy, scientology, wicca.. moonies (i dont have direct proof on the moonies as yet, but.. that cant be hard to find)

it's just sicking having to explain to everyone the issues seperately. it's all just a part of the same group - you cant create a big cult without some major funding.

i could go as far to tie it to a universalist one world religion movement - or point to the hundreds, if not thousands of pastors/priests/ministers that are masons in 'Christian' churches.. when by Christain scriptures, they cannot JOIN masonry. the 'universalist/unity/etc' churches seem to have the highest number of mason leadership.

anyone wanna work with it? info is easy enough to find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.184.3.60 (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

The section of the page that you seem to be referring to uses adherents.com as its source, and it references that source. –Wookipedian 03:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sikhism as the youngest of the top 5

"Youngest of the top 5 with most located in Punjab region of parts of India and Pakistan."

However, Sikhism is the 6th on the list, so it couldn't possibly be in the top 5 :)

It's because someone has just inserted Confucianism. I doubt the source that list if from (CSM) included that as an organized religion. 87.194.38.9 18:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the CSM did apparently list Confusianism, according to this. I just removed the self-contradictory claim of being the youngest of the top 5. –Wookipedian 04:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it also listed it as having 5.3 million followers.... 87.194.38.9 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops. It looks like you're right about that. The reference page has different numbers of adherents than what this page does. We should probably copy the numbers from the reference. This would restore Sikhism to the top 5. It looks like the numbers here were copied from Adherents.com. But if the source we're citing in that section is the CSM, we should use the numbers reported from the CSM too. —Wookipedian 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Figures

I think that it is important for the figures exposed in this article to be the same as those exposed in List of Christian denominations by number of members. Now they are different. Can someone solve this problem? --Checco 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By longstanding consensus, the page uses adherents.com as its source for such numbers, and it references that source. By Wikipedia policy, other Wikipedia pages do not carry the authority of being considered source material. –Wookipedian 03:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but these two pages need to be coordinated. --Checco 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The other article is already tagged for not citing the sources for its numbers. It's perhaps not a big problem to have differences between what different articles say when they cite different sources. But when you have an article that doesn't even cite its sources at all, that's a problem of its own. I suggest taking that problem to the other page as an action item. (But I don't see a problem here on this page.) –Wookipedian 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AD/CE

I don't suppose there's any chance that we could settle on CE/BCE for this particular article? I'm guessing this is a huge can of worms (as I know it is for Wikipedia as a whole), but just in case it isn't... —Ashley Y 08:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it up here instead of just editing it into the article. It's been discussed several times before. See the discussion archives. I suggest not waking it back up again. –Wookipedian 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WIkipedia Should settle on a standard that everyone can agree on, if their is such a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wake266 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 April 2007

[edit] Jeff3000 revisions

Jeff3000, interesting comment in your last edit.

rvt back further to remove vandalism, and match the cited data

You reverted several people's edits calling it "vandalism." Setting aside the obnoxious term, you should at least provide more explanation regarding your reversion here. Can you clarify the "cited data" you are referring to? --Mcorazao 02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The article uses adherents.com as the source for the statistics, and you added statistics that not only were not cited by any source, but clearly did not match the source of all the other statistics on this page. Please read all the above comments regarding the use of adherents.com as the source of statistics for this page. Furthermore one of the anonymous editors changed the date of the one of the groups, that's why I had to revert back more than one edit to fix it. Please assume good faith, it is one of core pillars of the talk page discussions. -- Jeff3000 03:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of edits made by Jeff3000, I would like to thank Jeff3000 for those edits, and in particular for his diligent help in keeping the page reasonably coherent and consistent with its cited sources. His editing has been a great service to this article. —Wookipedian 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map of world religions disputed

There has been discussion about the suitability of this map. The debate has to do with the factual accuracy of the map. One point of view is that the maping of religions within state boundaries is misleading. Another view is that the map is informative in that it shows the primary religion of each state.

Join this debate here. Sunray 19:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The predominant religion in Vietnam is Mahayana Buddhism!

The map of World religions disputed was wrong when in Vietnam and Japan; Mahayana Buddhism and Roman Catholicism is equal===>idiot!

85-88% Vietnamese people is Mahayana Buddhist or more exact is "triple religion" is Buddhism mainly and Taoism with Confucianism!Only over 6,5% of Vietnam's population is Roman Catholics!

China,North Korea are also like Vietnam!

95-96% Japanese people is Mahayana Buddhist with Sinto.Less than 1% is Christian!

The coloration for Japan seems to be light yellow (Mahayana Buddhism) striped with Grey ("Other;" in this case Shinto). This may be a little misleading, since the country isn't "split" so much as most Japanese practice a syncretic mixture of the two, their lifestyles being affected by traditions, events, holidays etc. from both. Still, I think striped is probably the best way to show it on the map. As far as I can tell, it doesn't show any Christian presence in Japan. - June 9, 2007

[edit] Leading image

Regarding the article's leading image labeled, Major religious groups (percentage of world population):

(1) The image does not give a percentage for Other. It looks to be near 3%.

(2) The image starts by showing the percentages clockwise, so the final order should be as per the article: Chinese traditional, Buddhism, Primal indigenous, Sikhism (0.36%) Judaism (0.22%) and the final grab-bag of Other, with its percentage.

--Wfaxon 18:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Universists?

in the featured pie graph it mentions "chinese universists" as a major world religion. What is this exactly? I looked it up but it just gave me the article for Nigeria. Just curious really.

–

Apparently the term refers to Chinese folk religion. Shouldn't the graph be edited to avoid confusion with the Universist movement ? Ed Mercer 20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My recent revert

I've reverted the changes made in the past 24 hours for a couple reasons. First, the changing of the names of the different religions/names requires consensus. While some of them become the Wikipedia the name used as the Wikipedia article, most differ from the Wikipedia article and are thus do not follow the naming convention which is to use the most commonly used name. For example, Sunnism is rarely used, etc. Second, there were some added groups with no citation, and the third, the moving of other groups based on different sources of data, which makes the listing inconsistent, which has been a consensus, over the many discussions above. Regards, -- Jeff3000 20:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully support the above-mentioned edits made by Jeff3000, as usual (and I am not his sockpuppet). While the edits that he reverted may have been well-intentioned, they are problematic for the reasons mentioned above (and others). Also, while it may not be fundamental to the issue under discussion, I strongly suggest that people who make edits to this page should provide a meaningful edit summary when making them to explain their motivations. The reverted edits had no explanation provided. We should not need to examine the details of edits in order to get some understanding of the motivations for making them. —Wookipedian 18:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancy between this article and the "Judaism" article

This article cites Judaism as starting in "13th century BC/BCE". The "Judaism" article ([12]) cites it as starting "ca. 2000 BCE". It seems that this discrepancy should be fixed.

My understanding is that Wikipedia policy places more of an emphasis on having reliable sources than on consistency across different articles. I believe neither page cites a source for its date. Hopefully someone can dig up a decent citable source to justify one estimate or the other (or some other date). —Wookipedian 06:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you define as a beginning. Abraham was c.2000 BCE while Moses was c.13th century. Even the bible implies in different places that one or the other is the "beginning." Smw543 10:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism, Agnosticism, et al...

Since when did "non-religious, ahteism, agnosticism, etc..." become a religion??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 13:03:57, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I second the strangeness of lumping this group together. Presumably this is just following the method used on Adherents.com. I like this website, but a list of adherents is a different thing to a list of major religions! I am willing to consider the grouping of agnostics and non-religious as a category, and I am willing to consider the grouping of secular atheists, anti-theistic et al as another, but to combine the two into one category is entirely specious and disrespectful to both groupings. Frankly, I advocate not attempting to do any such thing and mentioning these after the list of the religions. If the attempt here is to group all of these people together as "Humanists" it is misguided - while most secular atheists may indeed profess humanism, non-religious and agnostic people rarely if ever do so. If the purpose is to make Humanism seem bigger than it is, then I dispute the neutrality of this article. If some other purpose is in play, I would appreciate if it was revealed so it can be discussed. It is okay to say that 17% (1.1 billion) people do not identify as having a religion (although Humanism is an odd one since some people consider it a religion and some do not), but it is bizarre to have a list of major world religions and list this hodge podge of disparate people as a religion! Adding 'or belief systems' isn't enough to qualify this. Humanism and agnosticism are wildly different belief systems - there is simply no basis for counting them together. Best wishes! 67.172.109.240 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read the explanation at the head of the list, which says "For completeness, it also contains a category for the non-religious, although their views would not ordinarily be considered a religion." To me that seems sufficient. Also note that the section of the article that we are discussing has a cited source. We can't expect everyone to agree about what is a religion and what is not or many other such questions. Without relying on a consensus-agreed source we will get nowhere. Relying on adherents.com has seemed satisfactory to the vast majority of Wikieditors for quite a while, and I see no constructive suggestion of a reasonable alternative. —Wookipedian 05:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It lists atheism/agnosticism/irreligion as originating in "prehistory." I think this is an unprovable statement and potentially misleading. There are clear indicators that prehistoric man had a kind of animistic religion of spirits. The idea that before that they had no religion is unproven and probably unprovable. Granted there is no evidence of religion in early hominids, but to go back to predecessor species seems a bit weird. Besides we don't really know even then. Maybe primates do have a kind of religion we're not privy to. Or maybe not. Still to list atheism/agnosticism as essentially the oldest "faith" is strange.--T. Anthony 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

But when a human is born they don't have a religion do they? So everyone starts off as an athiest until they can comprehend religion. 86.149.44.241 (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)There

In that case everyone starts out as an agnostic, not an atheist. 90.15.14.30 (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I came to the article looking for world demographic numbers on nonreligious people. I can see the point of "technically it's not a religion", but it makes enough sense to belong here. Omitting them implies every person/area in the world has a religion, and that's just not accurate. Also, there's really not much difference between atheists and agnostics. Agnostics just prefer to word their thoughts in a less confrontational way. Both of them are basically saying, "I won't believe those things without verifiable evidence." Grouping them together is no worse sin than including devout Catholics in the same group with those who only go to church on Christmas and Easter to make their mother happy. (Although I would love to see the numbers on devout vs religious by name only) --74.93.118.129 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam need to fix!Quickly!

I've saw in Vietnam map and that showed Mahayana Buddhism and Catholic are equal===>TOTALLY WRONG 100% because:

1. 1. Only total Christian percentage in Vietnam is only 8% (7% Catholic and 1% Protestant)
   2. At least 16% people have taken the Rufuge of Three Jewels (all sect of Buddhism) but at many International sources said at least 50% of Vietnam's population is Mahayana Buddhists and 85% are "traditional beliefs" (similar as China with the mixture of Mahayana Buddhism,Taoism,Confucianism and Ancestor Worship).

Vietnam MUST BE colouring as "Chinese folk religion" or "Mahayana Buddhism" (But in 85% those "tradiotal beliefs",more than half of these people prefer Mahayana Buddhism than other).With me I think it should colouring for Vietnam as a Mahayana Buddhist country! Angelo De La Paz 10:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. A good alternative is Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As many editors have pointed out to Andries, whether "Indian religions" is a good, or even acceptable, alternative to "dharmic religions" depends entirely on the context. Here, for example, I don't think a simple substitution works. Johnbod 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The two concepts are identical lists of religions i.e. Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, and Sikhism. See Indian religions. and the following sources for the now deleted article dharmic religions. These are by the way all reliable the sources that I could find.

Frawley, David. From the River of Heaven: Hindu and Vedic Knowledge for the Modern Age. Pg 27. Berkeley, California: Book Passage Press, 1990. ISBN 1878423010. Frawley mentions only hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism as dharmic religions. [13]

Encarta encyclopedia [[14]"Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism share with Hinduism the concept of dharma along with other key concepts, and the four religions may be said to belong to the dharmic tradition."

Tharoor, Shashi in a column in The Hindu newspaper Different takes on the faith, available online

Westerlund, David Questioning the Secular State: The Worldwide Resurgence of Religion in Politics page 16 "may provide some possibilities for co-operation with Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists, who like Hindus are regarded as adherents of ‘dharmic' religions."

Andries 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit that in a few cases the term Indian religions is not a good replacement for dharmic religions depending on the context. Sometimes dharma, indology, or Indian philosophy is better. Andries 21:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And sometimes (quite often, actually) you have to rewrite the whole sentence, listing the ones you mean. Johnbod 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Andries 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses

According to other articles on Wikipedia, such as Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses, JW has 6.6 million followers.

The number 16 million is the number of attendences of the Memorial, and anyone interested is invited, often people that do not otherwise attend meetings.

adherents.com also includes the correct number, see http://www.adherents.com/Na/i_j.html

/ Fred-J 09:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the 14.8 M number used in this article is the appropriate one for this page:

• The source cited in the article is the http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity page on Adherents.com, which lists 14.8 Million as Jehovah's Witnesses.
• This section of the article (generally) does not pick and choose different sources for each individual number on the page. It uses the list of religions and their major branches at adherents.com for (nearly) all numbers.
• The page you referenced, http://www.adherents.com/Na/i_j.html, has four different lines for various categories of JH's, one of which lists 14.8 M adherents. Apparently, adherents.com considers that number to be the proper way to summarize the JH affiliation, since that is the number used on the page listing branches of Christianity.
• What other Wikipedia pages say is not relevant, as they are not the cited source in this article, and Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia pages should not be considered reliable sources.
• Probably the primary differences are not a matter of one source being "correct" and the others being "incorrect", but simply a matter of how the category is defined and measured.

-Wookipedian 02:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edit

i just to let everyone know i edit the article

Views evolved during the Enlightenment, however, and, by the 19th century, Western scholars considered the five "world religions" to be Judaism, Christianity, Islam,and Buddhism. These remain the classic "world religions."

as you can it says five and only lists four. so i added Hinduism since the next sections implies it should be there.

The remaining four classic world religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are also the largest contemporary religions by far. They all have more than 300 million adherents, more than ten times the number of the next largest organized religion (Sikhism, ca. 19 million per the CSM source cited below).

antixogh

[edit] Chinese folk religion and Taoism on the table

For some reason, either Taoism has to be part of Indian religions or Chinese folk religion has to be its own group. WTF? Why is it when I try to get it to normal it ends up making the other messed up? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

I have a few comments about the population figures for religions. One, the table based on the Christian Science Monitor is 10 years out of date; as a result, for example, the figure for number of Muslims is way too low. I think it should probably be removed, and that we should only have up-to-date information.

Two, I wonder if something better can be done than just citing Adherents.com in the next table? Who are they, and frankly what do they know? What scholarly qualifications do they have? I see them citing the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001), Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. These are probably reliable sources, but possibly dated, and they don't say in detail exactly what numbers come from what sources (at least, I didn't see it). They admit that their estimates are on the high side, and if you add up the numbers you get something like 6.9 billion which obviously IS too high.

Three, the article says that Abrahamic religions account for 3.4 billion people, but if you add Christianity and Islam as given in the table you get 3.6 billion, which is a significant error. If you add the numbers for the Indian religions, you get 1.3 billion as opposed to 1.4 billion as given, but this is less troubling because some minor Indian religions may be missing from the table.

Four, a suggestion. One possibility is that somebody can find these figures in a scholarly book or journal, dating within, say, the last year. Another is, we have presumably up-to-date, reliable figures in the CIA World Factbook for percentages of the world's population in the major religions. We also know roughly the world's population (for example, from the CIA World Factbook again). We can multiply the percentage by the world population and use that figure in our table. If we do this, we find, for example, that the number of Christians is about 2.2 billion, and the number of Muslims is about 1.4 billion. If this were correct, we should say that the number of adherents of Abrahamic religions is 3.6 billion. Kier07 (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Image

Sectarian distribution by country: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Religiousandsectariandistribution.PNG Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:87.14.77.20's edits, saying that France is Catholic is not POV, its common knowledge (and is shown on its Wiki page). A secular Japan is shown on the Japan page in Wikipedia. The only sources that list China as a non-secular country are Vipassana Foundation and various websites that obviously copyed Wikipedia when User:Angelo_De_La_Paz had his way for a while. With "Indigenous religions", what about it is POV? Sure, I'd like advice on how to improve the map. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this academic surveys by Eurobarometer? Why don't you let strong secular countries in Europe as Denmark, France, Slovenia, Latvia, etc... into your map [Image:Religiousandsectariandistribution.PNG] but youdid it with onlyeastAsian countries and some strong Atheist countries in Scandinavia???

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_European_Union#Secularisation

You must be fair-dealing, Saimdusan!

[edit] Religiosity

Today, theism is losing prevalence in most (but not all) countries within EU in favour of secularity. Some EU countries have experienced a decline in church attendance, as well as a decline in the number of people professing a belief in a God. The Eurobarometer Poll 2005 found that, on average, 52% of the citizens of EU member states state that they believe in a God, 27% believe there is some sort of spirit or life Force while 18% do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or Life Force. 3% declined to answer. According to a recent study (Dogan, Mattei, Religious Beliefs in Europe: Factors of Accelerated Decline), 47% of Frenchmen declared themselves as agnostic in 2003. The situation of religion varies between countries in European Union. A decrease in religiousness and church attendance in western Europe (especially France, Germany and Sweden) has been noted and called "Post-Christian Europe". Contrary to it, there is an increase in Eastern Europe, especially in Greece and Romania (2% in 1 year).

The following is a list of European countries ranked by religiosity, based on belief in a God, according to the Eurobarometer Poll 2005. The 2005 Eurobarometer Poll asked whether the person believed "there is a God", believed "there is some sort of spirit of life force", "didn't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force".

Eurobarometer Poll 2005

Country	Belief in a God	Belief in a Spirit or Life Force	Belief in neither a Spirit, God or Life Force
Malta	95%	3%	1%
Cyprus	90%	7%	2%
Greece	81%	16%	3%
Portugal	81%	12%	6%
Poland	80%	15%	1%
Italy	74%	16%	6%
Ireland	73%	22%	4%
Slovakia	61%	26%	11%
Spain	59%	21%	18%
Austria	54%	34%	8%
Lithuania	49%	36%	12%
Germany	47%	25%	25%
Luxembourg	44%	28%	22%
Hungary	44%	31%	19%
Belgium	43%	29%	27%
Finland	41%	41%	16%
United Kingdom	38%	40%	20%
Latvia	37%	49%	10%
Slovenia	37%	46%	16%
France	34%	27%	33%
Netherlands	34%	37%	27%
Denmark	31%	49%	19%
Sweden	23%	53%	23%
Czech Republic	19%	50%	30%
Estonia	16%	54%	26%

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Angelo, with Denmark, France, Slovenia and Latvia. According to France's Wikipedia page, it is mostly Catholic. According to the Denmark page, 80% belong to the Lutheran Church (but I guess it could have the same thing that Japan, Sweden and Norway do). So if you could find a figure that specifically says that the largest group in Denmark is the non-religious, because most of the 40% of those who believe in a "being, spirit, or life force" could be Lutherans, I would be happy to change it. According to Slovenia's Wiki page the 2002 census says that most are Catholic. Regarding Latvia, I wasn't sure (the Wiki page isn't very revealing). If you can find a source for Latvian irreligiosity (since the majority who believe in a "spirit or life force" could be Eastern Orthodox) then I would be happy to change it. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also willing to change Vietnam to Mahayana and South Korea to Protestantism if that is true (there seems to be conflicting figures on this). Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, South Korea and North Korea are SECULAR as you did! And if you want to secularized the World so don't forget former-Communist states as Russia, Cuba and many countries in Eastern Bloc.

I can see that you are total pro-Christianity and anti-Buddhism because:

• You like to pick East Asian countries with predominant Buddhist/East Asian religious population or Muslim countries (such as Albania, Turkey, Bosnia, etc) change into secular (atheist) or Christian (South Korea). But you don't pick European countries with predominant secular population change into secular and still keep it as Roman Catholic countries although more than 50% people in those European countries don't believe in God and less than 10% - 20% attend church ceremonies weekly (it could less if it's monthly)! You are really autocrat!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ha! I'm pro-Christian? I said I'm willing to change Vietnam to Mahayana, and I did give Thailand, Singapore and Taiwan Buddhism (and various other nations). Instead of giving me the sources that would change my mind, you simply accused me of being a biased autocrat! Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Angelo, with your last remove, Bosnia is mostly Sunni Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bosnia#Religions), R. Congo is Catholic Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo#Religions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_the_Republic_of_the_Congo), so is Cote d'Ivoire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cote_D%27Ivoire#Demographics) and Kazakhstan is mostly Sunni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan#Religion). Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with you (Saimdusan) about your map because:

1. Bosnia and Herzegovina: Muslim 50%, Christian 40%, Atheist 9.9% ([15][16][17])
2. Republic of Congo: Christian 50%, Aminist 48%, Muslim 2% ([18][19][20])
3. Cote d'Ivoire: Muslim 35%-40%, Christian 35%-40%, Animist 25%-30% ([21][22][23][24])
4. Kazakhstan: Muslim 47%, Christian 46%, etc ([25][26][27])
5. Tanzania: Muslim 30%-40%, Christian 30%-40% ([28][29][30][31])
6. Ethiopia: Christian 45%, Muslim 45% ([32][33])

And you only picked East Asian countries as Atheist countries but didn't do it for catholic or Christian European countries where the percentage of Atheist is higher than 50% of total population! You are only extremly anti-Buddhism and anti-Chinese religions.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Angelo, those figures do not contradict anything.

1. With Bosnia, that doesn't contradict anything. Muslims are still the largest group, and Sunnis the largest within that.
2. With Congo I have it as Christian...
3. With Cote d'Ivoire its mostly Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire#Religions)
4. Kazakhstan is mostly Muslim, yes, thats what I have.
5. With Ethiopia, all of the estimates that have a majority in Ethiopia have Christians as the majority. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ethiopia#Religions)

I actually picked Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Estonia and the Czech Republic as secular. I did the same amount of countries in East Asia. Of course, East Asian countries are comparatively larger, but can you show me the figures I was asking for that shows more European countries as secular, or more Asian countries as Buddhist?

Regarding your comment in the history, "Europe, Tanzania, Nigeria, Cote D'voire",

1. Which specific European countries do you think are secular?
2. Tanzania is Muslim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Tanzania (equal to indigenous on the mainland, but 99% on Zanzibar), Nigeria is Muslim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nigeria#Religions_.282000_estimate.29
3. The religion of Cote d'Ivoire I have already shown above. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, that your map is incomplete and just biased for only 1 religions! About Europe, see the estimates and pics above. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Angelo, those figures do not show that any countries other than Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Estonia, Sweden and Norway are non-religious. How is it biased? The point of the map is to show the one majority religion of the country. If you want one with the top 2 or 3 religions, then make your own map. Angelo, give me a reference and I'll change it.Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources? Couldn't you see? Above with a table, 3 maps from it's from Eurobarometer. From Lithuania to Estonia with less than 50% of total population believe in one God (Jesus or Allah or Jehovah)! Can I ask you one question: Is Buddhism is your most hateful religion? Yes or No, no more no less! Angelo 00:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo De La Paz (talk • contribs)

Everything until Finland has a clear majority of "believe in a god". However, you can be a Christian who believes in a "spirit or life force". No, Buddhism is not my most hated religion. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upload new version

I have replaced the new map created by Saimdusan because some European countries have less than 50% of total population believe in one God (including Jesus, Allah or Jehovah)

I've turned Lithuania, Germany, Luxembourg, Hungary, Belgium, Finland, United Kingdom, Latvia, Slovenia, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Republic, Estonia and Russia from Christian sects to Secular (see the table, maps and sources by Eurometer below)

And not all countries in the Caribbean are Roman Catholic, they are Cuba(offical Communist/Atheist) and Protestant islands as Bahamas, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Turks and Caicos Islands, and United States Virgin Islands. And the largest religious sect is Suriname (South America) is Hindu, notRoman Catholic.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Angelo, I appreciate your Caribbean correction. However, there are many nominal Christians who believe in a sort of "spirit thing", who would be considered Christians because they call themselves Christians. So saying that Russia, Finland, Denmark, Albania, Germany, France, etc. are non-religious is a gross exaggeration. Of course, these countries have secular governments, but thats altogether different than a secular population. Regarding Cuba, it seems to be in a situation similar to Laos and Vietnam (I will change Vietnam to Mahayanist, it seems that it is that way), socialist governments that are now more OK with religion. Same thing is happening in China, and will happen in North Korea. Regarding Suriname, Hindus make up a larger population than Protestants, but all together Christians make a larger population, while Protestants are the largest population of Christians within that. That's how I'm measuring it. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I wish that that much of Europe is secular. But in places like the UK an Denmark, I'm pretty sure that nominal Christianity is dominant. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK! I think your ideas were better, you should open-minded and I appreciate it. Although in France, Germany or the UK; the percentage of people who believe in one God is less than 50% of total population and the percentage of people who attend the church ceremonies weekly is lesser but they are still...secular Christians or at least nominal Christians.

About the Communist countries as mainland China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos and North Korea...they hate only Abrahamic religions (mostly Christianity) because they considered it as a religion of CAPITALISM and COLONIALISM. In recent years, all of Communist governments are supporting Budhism and traditional religions (Taoism, Confucianism) because it's national origin and they think it could help the country and the people better with beautiful traditional values. Some Vietnamese articles for you; you can read more about the Chinese gov.'s support Buddhism in Religion in China again,

1. http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/?catid=3&newsid=5647
2. http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/?catid=3&newsid=28624
3. http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=28589
4. http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=28503
5. http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=27775
6. http://www.thanhniennews.com/entertaiments/?catid=6&newsid=26350
7. http://www.thanhniennews.com/entertaiments/?catid=6&newsid=24514
8. http://www.thanhniennews.com/entertaiments/?catid=6&newsid=21987
9. http://www.thanhniennews.com/entertaiments/?catid=6&newsid=11725
10. http://www.thanhniennews.com/entertaiments/?catid=6&newsid=15144

I agree with you the the true numbers of Buddhists (who have taken the Refuge, extremly vegans, read Buddhist prayer-books every day, mustn't kill any animals including fishes or eggs, etc...) could be really low as in Vietnam (16%), China (8%), Japan (20%), South Korea (23%), Taiwan (35%), etc...but I disagree that you only call us as NON-RELIGIOUS only because the influence of Mahayana with East Asian religions (Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto and Ancestor Worship) are very heavy as the "cultural adherents"; that is why you can see in many articles, surveys have wrote about the relationship between Buddhism and East Asian religions as one and the people are not perfect non-religious. Some examples:

• "Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism are the three major religions in China, although it is true to say that Confucianism is a school of philosophy rather than a religion.

Generally speaking, Chinese people do not have a strong religious inclination but despite this the three main faiths have had a considerable following. The fact that Confucianism is a philosophy rather than religion meant that it became the orthodox doctrine for Chinese intellectuals in the days of the feudalist society. However, these intellectuals did not stick to their doctrine as a believer clings to his belief. Someone summarized the true attitude of Chinese intellectuals as - they followed the teachings of Confucius and Mencius when they were successful but would turn to Taoism when they were frustrated.

Many people say they are Buddhists yet have never read the sutras. Most people will say they believe in gods, destiny, fate, luck and an afterlife. Even so, on most occasions, rather than rely on prayer, people will make decisions all by themselves or resort to either family or friends for help. A visible human being is considered far more reliable than invisible gods or spirits." (China) [34][35]

• "...The majority of Vietnamese people classify themselves as non-religious, although they visit religious temples several times every year. Their everyday behaviours and attitudes are dictated by the synthesis of philosophies which can be traced from many religions, especially Mahayana Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. Those religions have been co-existing in the country for centuries and mixed perfectly with the Vietnamese tradition of worshiping their ancestors and national heroes. That special mix explains why the people there find it hard to say exactly which religion they belong to...." (Vietnam)

• "...The country has an area of 145,884 square miles and a population of 128 million. It was difficult to accurately determine the number of adherents of different religious groups. While academics estimated that 20 to 30 percent of adults actively practiced a faith, the Agency for Cultural Affairs reported in 2004 that 213,826,661 citizens claimed a religion. That number, which is nearly twice Japan's population, reflected many citizens' affiliation with multiple religions, particularly Shintoism and Buddhism. Many citizens practiced both Buddhist and Shinto rites. Furthermore, membership statistics kept by the agency were based on self-reports from various religious organizations.

Of citizens who claimed a faith, 51 percent were Shinto, 44 percent were Buddhist and 1 percent was Christian. Shintoism and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive and most Shinto and Buddhist believers follow both faiths..." (Japan) [36]

• "...Taiwan has an area of 13,800 square miles and a population of 23 million. The 2006 Government Information Office Yearbook, the Religious Affairs Section of the Ministry of the Interior (MOI) states that 35 percent of the population consider themselves Buddhist and 33 percent Taoist. While the overwhelming majority of religious adherents are either Buddhist or Taoist, many people also consider themselves both Buddhist and Taoist.

In addition to practicing organized religion, many persons also followed a collection of beliefs deeply ingrained in Chinese culture that can be termed "traditional Chinese folk religion." These beliefs may include some aspects of shamanism, ancestor worship, belief in ghosts and other spirits, and animism. Researchers and academics estimate that as much as 80 percent of the population believes in some form of traditional folk religion. Such folk religions may overlap with an individual's belief in Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, or other traditional Chinese religions...." (Taiwan)[37]

So they are not really perfect non-religious at all but they were influencing by these traditional religions and there is no doubt if we call that mostly East Asian people are nominal/secular adherents of Buddhism and East Asian religions, it's as similar as secular/nominal Christians in Europe or secular/nominal Muslims in Balkans or Turkey and Secular Jews.

I want to hear your opinions about these cases. I hope you will know and this discussion will end in peace and friendly! Thanks.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Brunei and Malaysia. Even though I think Buddhists are the largest group in Taiwan and Singapore, I think saying that 90+% of the population is Buddhist is an exaggeration. Of course, 90+% of the population is influenced by Buddhism, but that's altogether different than being an adherent. All of the government figures/censuses in Singapore/Taiwan (figures by the Singaporeans and Taiwanese themselves) consistently show that its 30-40% Buddhist.

• Regarding China: according to a recent reputable survey, only 300 million Chinese people identify with a religion. Most other estimates say that there are 100 million Buddhists. I think it would be a bit over 100 million, and I do think it is increasing everyday. The "300 million religious" survey says that 200 million consider themselves "Buddhist, Taoist or worshipers of legendary figures". I think it would make sense if 110 million Buddhist, 80 million Taoist and 10 million Confucian. Unfortunately, that would constitute as original research, so I have to go with the "100 million Buddhist" number. I do think it could be as high as 150 million, though. For Japan, most of the numbers by the Japanese themselves say that there are 30-50% religious people. The only number for Buddhists specifically that doesn't contradict those figures is 20% (accompanied by a 3.3% Shintoist), so the 30% number is more likely. That leaves 50-70% non-religious. With South Korea, although I agree that the numbers for Christians in the country are exaggerated by many Western sources, I still don't think it is majority Buddhist. The difference between Europe and East Asia is that in Europe nominal Christianity is far more prevalent, while in East Asia it is only cultural influence, and they wouldn't actually call themselves Buddhist. Same for the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Norway and Estonia. However, in the UK, Germany, France, Finland, Russia, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam, it seems that there are more nominal Buddhists/Christians than in the aforementioned countries. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you colored in based on what people really where rather than what they say they are, you would probably end up with something like this (I'm probably wrong on Central Asia)

• I disagree with you again because you are still keeping biased opinions for Christians or Atheists and let non-Abrahamic religions as Buddhism (East Asia), Hinduism (Suriname) and Chinese religions down. I think your biased map must be remove because we have got a partly exact (90%) map and your map is just superfluous, biased and it was makingthis article more confusing. So I will invite Jeff3000 who is the main contributor of this article to judge it.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that map is ridiculously wrong. Algeria is "indigenous religions"? Pakistan and Bangladesh are Hindu? Armenia is Catholic? john k (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading the above discussion, I think I'm with Angelo on this one. Making judgements about who is/is not nominally Christian in Western countries, and who is/is not nominally Buddhist in Asian countries is not a discussion we should be having, as it is original research. Given that this article is about religions, and not secularity, I believe the current map of the world is the correct image to be included in this page, as it shows the predominant religion in each part of the world and it removes any value judgements from the editors. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm basing it on the Wikipedia articles. There are also a few problems with the other map that I can name - It confuses Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy, it shows the 2-3 main religions rather than the one main, the largest religion in North Korea is Chondogyo, which is not a Chinese religion, the largest religion in China is Mahayana Buddhism and it doesn't have all the countries in Oceania. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not OR because we actually have statistics of how many Christian/secular people there are. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in the above discussion there is dispute between how to classify secular Christians and secular Buddhists, etc, and therefore, it is better not to make that value judgement in an image, where the small, but important points cannot be made. The solution is to fix the problem with the current image which is about the main religious populations, which is the subject of this article, (if there is consensus that the points that you brought up are actually problems), than to bring in another image that further adds to the issues about classification. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, its a dispute because its with someone who thinks that North Korea is 60% Buddhist. I'm actually using sources, while he just asserts it. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

John k, this map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Realratherthannominal.PNG) is not the map we're arguing over, that was just used as a tool to show what we would end up with if his line of reasoning went through. The actual map is here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Religiousandsectariandistribution.PNG). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimdusan (talk • contribs) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's wrong even by that line of reasoning. As to the current map, there are some mistakes. Azerbaijan and Bahrain are majority Shia. The largest single religious group in Lebanon are the Maronites, I believe, although I'm not certain of that. The number of Maronites, Shia, and Sunnis is pretty close to equal. There appears to be some dispute as to whether Ethiopian Orthodoxy or Sunni Islam is the plurality religion in Ethiopia. At any rate, I don't find the map particularly useful, in that it allows for no nuance. Sunni Islam is, at best, a bare plurality religion in Lebanon. It is the religion of almost everybody in, e.g., Morocco. 90% of Italy is Catholic. It is, again, a plurality religion in Germany, where traditionally there were more Protestants (Communist atheistization in the east is largely responsible for Catholicism's current plurality). I also don't like including "secular", since it really detracts from understanding - is it really more useful to show China as "secular"? john k (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I also dislike the color scheme. Both strains of Islam should be greens, and Hinduism should not be. The Christian groups should also all use somewhat similar shades, as well. john k (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Thanks for showing me that about Azerbaijan and Bahrain. 2. Regarding Lebanon, Muslims are larger than Christians. The largest Muslim group is Sunni. 3. Yes, Germany has Catholicism as the plurality religion. 4. How does it detract from understanding? It shows which countries have the largest group as non-religious. 5. Why? Of course, I guess I could change the color scheme, I just went with the colors that I thought made the most sense for the religion (brown doesn't make sense for Shi'a, nor does green make sense for Hinduism, now that you mention it). Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1. You're welcome. 2. On what basis do we organize it via "Major religion first, then largest subgroup in that religion" rather than "largest group that we have a color for"? Furthermore, Shia and Sunni are at this point close to equal, and Shia may actually be more numerous. It seems to me that, by the standards of this list, if there are more Maronites than Sunnis in Lebanon, it should be colored red for Catholicism. 3. I know, that wasn't the point - the point was the lack of nuance. 4. Again, the lack of nuance can be misleading - different countries are colored the same despite very different religious situations. 5. Well, green is the color of Islam, so it makes sense to make both major sects shades of green. Again, because green is the color of Islam, it is confusing to use it for Hinduism. 6. I notice that you don't address my question about Ethiopia, where Sunni Islam may (or may not) now outnumber Ethiopian Orthodoxy. john k (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, dark green is the color of Islam, so light green does sort of make sense. Is it possible for you to make a new version of the map that shows pluralities/equal religions somehow? And also, its accepted that Lebanon is a Muslim country, coloring it in as Catholic would be misleading. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "it's accepted that Lebanon is a Muslim country?" It's a country whose president is always a Maronite Catholic, by law, and where the most seats in the legislature are reserved for Maronites. There are, at this point, more Muslims than Christians, it's genuinely a mixed religion country. My sense is that Lebanon is "accepted" as a country of Christians and Muslims, and that the map ought to be able to show this. I can't really make maps, but I'd suggest cross-hatching in cases where there are several notable religions. john k (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried the cross-hatching and it looked absolutely dreadful. It doesn't seem possible to do in paint. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New world religion image

Hello I have recently uploaded a new pie chart of the religions of the world, it provides the new data for all the religions from the world population of 6.7 billion. For example I have used the Christianity data by reviewing the total population from Europe, Americas, Africa etc. and was around from 1.92+ billion, and for Islam 1.52+ billion etc. which shows the true percentage I believe but I would like to discuss whether the image is reliable for the article or not, please share your views of the pie chart, Thanks a lot. Moshino31 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I think your new created image is in dispute. Here is my reasons:

1. Unsourced or uncertain sources.
2. It's lacking small religions. Which is others?
3. Where is the percentage of non-religious, athiest?
4. Christianity 28% + Islam 23% + Hinduism 16% + Buddhism 7% + Chinese 6% + Tribal 6% + Others 1% + Sikhism 0.3% + Judaism 0.22% + Baha'i Faith 0.1% = 87.62% and where is the sources of these figures???
5. As all of you can see that the green of Islam is the largest and in the center. Although the Christian percentage is larger than Islam. Is it an imply purpose of you, Moshino?

But the only one thing in your created image which I appreciate, that is the colours. Because the traditional colours of Islam is dark green, Hinduism is orange, Buddhism is golden and Christianity may be light blue, etc

Please stop making more confusing things. The current image from Encyclopaedia Britannica was enough and much better than your created image.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I cannot believe you are still atacking me because of that, well you must realise pie charts go in CLOCKWISE < did you know that! Starting from Christianity, then Islam, then Judaism, then Hinduism, then Buddhism..... can't you notice that mate, I have started with the largest to the smallest (Abrahimovic then Indian religions). OK, now I have realised why you don't want it personally, very noticable - Islam upfront, that is not my idea! Now you all realise what you can see why this guy doesnt want it. Moshino31 (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I applaud your effort in creating this but my feeling is that the existing chart is much more valuable due to the fact that it includes so many more groups. Also it is easier to read having everything grouped on the right side of the image. You include 9 groups while the other has 19. T0lk (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey sup this is cool!!!!!!!!

---

Insert non-formatted text here --98.19.81.32 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

69.132.231.114 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)but what are the 2 major religions of the phillipines?

i need to know!!

Only 1 majority in the Philippines, that is Roman Catholicsm (with about over 80%). The second largest is Protestantism (about 10%) but if we count both Catholics and Protestants as one as Christianity, so Islam is the second largest (5%).

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Why not use the old data to create a modern chart? 24.36.19.38 (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MAPS

In order to get a more complete view of the situation, we can merge these two maps to get the countries from each of them that the other does not have. One map shows the percentage of people who regard religion as "important", while the other shows the percentage of people who regard religion as "unimportant". I think we should make the new map as the percentage of people who regard religion as "important", as that way, a clear positive number can be given, whereas if we choose to make it as "the percentage of people who regard religion as unimportant", then we will be dealing with a negative hypothesis, if you see what I'm saying?

So what are other people's views on merging the maps? I think it should almost definitely be done, as they both show the same thing (but the opposite way round), except the two have some countries with each other do not have, so by merging them, we could get a better view of all the countries. 78.149.215.235 (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I made this map as a combination between the two. However, there were several instances where the two maps contradicted eachother. I tended to follow the Pew Research Center one, but in some cases where the two were in complete disagreement, I looked towards other similarly placed countries and their adherents of religion. What do people think of it?

78.149.215.235 (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are there any older pie charts or graphs available to show how religion’s have grown and shrank?

Or data to show this in any form? I see there are percentages of growth from 1990-2000, but are there any figures of the total number of followers of each religion, especially figures that predate 1990? It would be interesting to see if Christianity was always the world's biggest religion or if the irreligious group was always so large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.185.73 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zoroastrian numbers

The section "According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press)" is clearly wrong in saying there are 2.5 mil odd Zoroastrians! Danausi (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues around two minor religions (Druze and Rastafarianism)

The Druze article estimates the number of its adherents as being 0.45 to 2 million, so shouldn't there be more on them in this article? Also, should Rastafarianism be mentioned under the Abrahamic religions. The Abrahamic religions article includes some discussion on Rastafarianism. Bondegezou (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Druze is already listed in this article. I don't understand what more you would suggest to do about them here. As a very small group, they should not be especially prominent here. I suppose you're right that Rastafarians would probably be considered Abrahamic, but again I suggest that they are such a small group that they do not require being mentioned when discussing high-level categories. Perhaps there should be some mention of them on the Abrahamic religions page. -Wookipedian (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religions by numbers of adherents

I've restored my version, which gives 2 points of view, in place of the previous 1, which is mainly 1. It probably needs tidying, & others can be added, but please don't censor. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've reverted it again. The removal *should* have tipped you off to begin with.

This has nothing to do with "censorship" as you choose to put it, but with the fact that a) Adherents com has that text as the source, so you are effectively suggesting that two sources substantiating the data when there is actually only one, and b) you have not bothered to check *who* wrote that. At least the name "adherents.com" at least doesn't scream "systemic bias" quite as loudly.

Further, this is at least the third time that you have dicked around with the Zoroastrianism data. Quit it already. They screwed up, ok? Enough already.

So please do everyone a favor and quit the tendentious reinsertions. This article is bad enough as it is. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WCE is published by Oxford University Press, so satisfies the criteria at WP:RS.

Adherents mentions WCE as its main source, but not the only one. It often summarizes the views of other sources. These summaries ought to be included in the article, instead of just adherents' own views. Also, other sources not mentioned there should be inserted where found. The article shouldn't follow the opinions of a single source.

As far as I can recall, the only change I made to the information on Zoroastrianism was to change it to agree withn the source it claimed to be taken from. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Please pay attention. RS/who-WCE-is-published-by is not relevant. The point is that the blanket adherents.com used by *THIS* article is WCE data.
   Accordingly, "the article shouldn't follow the opinions of a single source" doesn't hold because you are suggesting you have data from two sources when in fact you have only one. You can either use WCE, or you can use adherents.com's use of WCE data, but you cannot use both. You cannot pretend that you have two independent sources that substantiate each other.
   That WCE is not adherents.com's only source is irrelevant -- adherents.com may have data from multiple sources, but the data that *THIS* article is blanket citing adherents.com for is from WCE.
2. You recall wrong.[38][39] The statement did not "claim" to use those WCE numbers, nor did it link to them, but instead unambiguously said it did not follow those numbers. Moreover, there is a big difference between using adherents.com and using WCE data at adherents.com. And besides, the statement uses more than just adherents.com, but you simply obliterated all those sources as well, in preference to--and only to--the WCE number.
   But besides that removal contradicting your "shouldn't follow the opinions of a single source" mantra, the WCE numbers for Zoroastrianism are fscked. Period. Those WCE numbers are a mistake (to put it kindly) and fly in the face of everything else, common sense and adherents.com's other numbers included.

-- Fullstop (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:World religions pie chart.png

Hi Wikipedians, just created a new pie chart of religions by using the source from the CIA World Factbook, used all the statistics from the website in order to create it. If there are any problems, suggestions or comments of the pie chart then please do make one now so no problems are found, and I could make the changes if reasons provided. Thanks!!! Moshin (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

just one comment, either the pie chart should be religions, or it should be sub-divisions of religions, not a mixture of the two. In other words, re-combine all of Christianity, or sub-divide the other religions (I would suggest the former). IanCheesman (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I done the chart like that, because the CIA stated with figures of the sub divisions, so I used it when available. By the way if you view people or politicians who are Christians, they don't state they are Christians but state a church which they are joined to or divisions of Catholicism or Protestantism, such as Baptist or for example George W. Bush, not stated his religion as Christianity but, United Methodist which is a 'denomination' of Protestantism, and I that is why it questions me why not stated Protestant or Christian? Moshin (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The map of major religions of the world

Dear friends, Kashmir being a Muslim region is shown green. Likewise, shouldn't the Punjab state in India be coloured as a Sikh area. Most of the people there are Sikhs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.41.237 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Baha'is

The first reference on the page says there are 6.1 million Baha'is, a little further down it says there are 5 million, and yet past that the figure 7 million is listed. Is there a source for all this? T0lk (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The numbers may have changed somewhat since that remark was made. Currently I see two estimates in the article, which makes sense because two difference sources (with different dates) are cited for the estimates in the sections where the estimates are provided. There is a 1998 estimate of 6.1 million from the Christian Science Monitor and a more recent estimate of 7 million from Adherents.com. When attempting to estimate such figures, I suggest that those numbers are about as similar as can be expected. —Wookipedian (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Christianity subdivided and Islam not subdivided in the discussion?

Is Christianity divided along denominational lines (Catholicism, Protestantism, etc) while Islam is just one monolithic bloc? They have their divisions too (Sunni, Shi'a, Sufi...) Either divided them both or don't divide either. 90.15.14.30 (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That must have been a temporary problem. I don't see such a difference in the article (currently). -Wookipedian (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Islam has only two divisions: Sunni and Shi`ah. The maps reflect this. Sufism is a set of ascetic principles and concepts and not a sect like Sunnism and Shi`ism. There are Sufis amongst the Sunnis and the Shi`ah (though it is rare in the latter).

[edit] Error/ false information

In the second pararaph, it says "Christians are criticized for believing in Christ as the Messiah and God incarnate" by Islam. However this is not true, as the Qur'an (the highest authority in Islam) explicitly calls Christ the Messiah several times (Al-Maseeh in Arabic). Thus, Islam's criticism is only due to the belief that he is God. (94.96.150.71 (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

I just attempted to fix that. I changed it to "Christians are criticized for believing in Christ as God incarnate, rather than considering Christ as one prophet and/or messenger along with others (especially Muhammad in particular)." -Wookipedian (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your "correction" is wrong and the original statement was more correct. Though Muslims do acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, they do not believe he was God incarnate. The oft-repeated "Muslims believe in Jesus as a Prophet" is misleading and incorrect as being a "Prophet" in a Biblical context is not even close to as significant a prestige as it is in the Qur'an. Christ is not just any "prophet" in Islam. He is the Messiah foretold to the Children of Israel. Also, contrary to common Christian misconception, "Messiah" is not any indication of divinity. It should say "Christians are criticized for believing in Jesus as God incarnate, rather than considering him the Messiah of Israel and a Prophet along with the other Prophets and Messengers shared between the Qur'an and the Bible." It appears this sentence was removed from the article anyway. Also, on a side note, Jesus should not be referred to as "Christ" as this is a title that the Jews do not accept. Wikipedia standards require Muhammad be referred to with his name only without any honorific titles such as "Prophet Muhammad" or followed by "Peace be upon him", etc since non-Muslims do not believe he is a Prophet. Therefore, since Jews and other non-Christians do not believe Jesus was a promised Messiah, the word "Christ" ("Christos" being Greek for "Messiah") should not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiblizaman (talk • contribs) 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism a Major Faith?

Why is Judaism ranked among the five major world religions? According to the pie chart near the top of the page, there are more Sikhs than Jews; shouldn't Sikhism rank ahead of Judaism in terms of 'major' or 'minor' world religions? If it has to do with being the basis for Christianity and Islam, that would mean that Judaism is a major historical faith, but not presently. I think this might betray a Western-centric perspective; for example, ask the Chinese or the people of India if Judaism is a major religion. If we're going off numbers and current world influence, I don't think Judaism belongs up there. Thoughts? 76.181.42.38 (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Above was me, sorry, logged out. Dfunk1967 (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anywhere in the article that lists Judaism as one of the top five religions. Every listing on the article that I could see has it as the 6th largest religion. - IanCheesman (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arguing that Juche is not a religion

Here's arguing, and suggesting that it be removed from the list. What say you? elpincha (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There was prior discussion of that topic, resulting in removing Juche from the list in the "Largest religions or belief systems by number of adherents" section. This is discussed in that section in "Note c" below the list. However, Juche was put back in the list on 4 April 2008 by someone trying to repair conflicts with the referenced source. Per the prior discussion and the suggestion above, I have removed it again. -Wookipedian (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split suggestion tag regarding religious demographics

There is a tag in the article suggesting that the demographics section be split to become a separate article called "Religious demographics", and directing discussion of the suggestion to this Talk page. However, I do not see any actual record here on the Talk page of a discussion of this suggestion. Personally, I disagree with the suggestion. To me it appears that demographics analysis is inextricably part of the concept of this article. But I don't want to just remove the tag without discussion, so I am writing these remarks to encourage the proposed discussion to take place. -Wookipedian (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

After further study, I believe that I have found that the split suggestion was inserted into the article in an edit of 08:30, 12 October 2007 by Dbachmann. That edit was part of a large series of edits by that user that resulted in significant persisting changes to the article. Since the tag has been sitting in the article for nearly a year with no apparent actual discussion or expressions of support for the suggestion, I plan to remove it unless the situation changes quickly. But it seems fitting to wait another 9 days before removing the tag, because that day will mark the one-year anniversary of the tag insertion. -Wookipedian (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the tag as discussed. -Wookipedian (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian denominations.

This page lists Jehovah's Wittnesses and Latter Day Saints as Christians. I think that this makes a controversial claim.

Both groups [JW + LDS] reject the doctrine of the trinity and would not accept either the Nicaean-Constantinople creed [with or without Filioque, Apostles' creed, or Athanasion Creed. Arguably what makes Christians so radically different from other religions is not only their profession that Christ is the only Son of God, but importantly, the doctrine of the Trinity, which Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints reject.

163.1.89.71 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty of categorizing religious groups is already discussed in the article. It is an inherently difficult subject. I'm sure you could pick any random branch that is categorized under Christianity and find a significant number of people who would say that the people in that branch aren't really Christians. The same problem also occurs in Islam and other religions as well. We are certainly in no position to decide who is and who is not a true Christian (or a true anything else). The article relies on cited sources, which mostly rely on the principle of self-identification. It is probably impossible to obtain any lasting consensus without using the idea of self-identification. -Wookipedian (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] percentages

I love the pie. what's up w/ some scientology? anyone? thanks. Headlikeawhole (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

maybe I was unclear, so I'll rephrase my thought: the pie chart at the top of this article is a very interesting visual aid that presents the world religion break down real clearly. I've been wondering about scientology which calls itself "a church" + a thousand other related organizations & libraries. I'm not pushing for inclusion of something. just saying "hey, if not here- where on wikipedia can wee look at this subject?" I'm just seeing what people say. it might be "no, that's not a religion". or "that wasn't on the radar of the people who collected this data." maybe this has already been covered. just tell me. see also k thanks. Headlikeawhole (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maps at the top of the article

The various maps at the beginning of the article are great, and really help to show various concepts. However, I think there are far too many. Maps at the beginning should cover major concepts. I suggest we cut them down to the following (and in this order):

Religions of the world, mapped by distribution, with no sects.

Map showing relative importance of religion by country. Based on a 2006-2008 worldwide survey by Gallup.

Major religious groups as a percentage of the world population in 2005 (Encyclopaedia Britannica)...

The other three maps are great, and if they can be used elsewhere in the article, or in other articles, I fully support that. What do others think? - IanCheesman (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] the denominations of religiouns (Islam ):

The Article states when showing the denominations of islam that it is Sunni and Shia and sofis the sofis is not different from sunni or shia it is a matter of sofisism when a muslim does not care any more about the material life and spends his life in the worship and love of god and almost most of the sofis if not all are sunni and they are not a demoniation of islam on its own and cannot be differed from sunni41.252.46.251 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the objection. Sufism can be better described as a family of mystical tendencies within Shi'i and Sunni Islam--together with institutions and lineages devoted to these--rather than a rival grouping per se.Dawud (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is that figure for Roman Catholic accurate?

I'm not sure if that figure for Roman Catholic is accurate, it seems exaggerated to me... --DaniAmaranth (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of religions

In the article, a classification of religions is given based on their origin (eg middle-east, asia, ...). Also, some sub-forms of these are treated as a seperate religion. This classification is offcourse very confusing and not really any classification at all.

Thus, I propose a alternative classification, classifying them on the teachings themselves:

• Christianity, Judaism and Islam (Abrahamic religions)
• Hinduism (main difference here is worship of several gods;
• indian religion (encompasses jainism, Buddhism, ...) -->perhaps use other "name", indian religion again points toward geographical location; perhaps buddhistic religion or something ?
• Animism (should encompass African diasporic religions, zoroastrims, taoism, paganism, shinto -rather than keep these seperate)
• New relious movements; these encompass older religions in a new way of thinking; thus no animistic religions (eg unitarianism, universalism, bahaism)
• Any combination of 2 or more of the main religions (eg abrahamic religions, hinduism, or subreligion and main religion as bahaism and buddhism...) or atheism

Not sure about Sikhism, forgot how the religion went again; guess it needs to be classified with indian religion; as for the korean, ... religions; I'm guessing these are animistic ?

Together with the new classification, also alter the main image, the Shinto, Sikh, Baha'i, Jain really have no place in the Religious syms.svg image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.180.13 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, a pie chart could be made of this classification. See http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html or adherents.com webpage. Note that the abrahamic religions as above should be placed together in abrahamic religions, yet christianity, islam and judaism should be colored each in their own color (use green for islam))

Adherents.com is not a reliable source. Also, as a Buddhist I think it is strange to claim that Jainism is based in Hindu tradition but Buddhism is somehow not. Shii (tock) 18:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Modified text again, I ment indian religion in stead of hinduism; note that a alternative name should be used, see above. Hiduism should have its own section, as it is polytheistic; does anyone know whether natural elements (rain, floods, ...) are ever used to signify the gods(eg Brahma, Shiva, ...). I guessed so (eg shiva= fire, ...); perhaps the religion can be classified as animism then ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.135.162 (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Combination of religions

Perhaps a small section could be added to explain why the combination of religions is a seperate classification of religion and where it is practiced. This is the following: any religion always states that it is the one and true religion, any other side is always "wrong" despite the fact that religions still preach that we must live in coexistence with them

As such, anyone relying on 2 religions, actually isnt part of any at all. Still, in certain countries (eg countries in the sahel), eg islam and christianity is often combined. Also, islam and animism is combined frequently troughout the whole of africa

Not all religions claim to be the one true religion. Confucianism doesn't; and I think some Buddhists don't either. And atheism, which you came back to add, is no more a religion than 'hunger' is a cooking style. In my opinion, your suggested change would be adding your own personal opinion about religion to this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marxism

...is a religion? Since when? Preobrazhenskiy (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Tsukamasa (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

I removed the supercategories-- it's not clear to me why Abrahamic religions were at the topic and other ones below them. I also changed back the population estimates from the improbably accurate ones at the non-reliable source adherents.com to Adherents' own compilation of more reliable sources. Shii (tock) 14:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Irreligion missing

How big is this group? Should be a big group, or? Why missing here? --213.168.121.113 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Irreligion is not a religion. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 01:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Islam Date of Origin

It should be 7th century, not 5th century. Muhammad was active in the 600's. 174.102.212.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Muslim population

Pew Research Center published a study on Muslim demographics on their site, stating that there are 1,57 adherents of Islam in the world (about 23% of all Earth's population). It's already in the table as an inline reference but it is used to source the old numbers, which it clearly doesn't support. Maybe their results should be included in the article instead of the broad ±150 million estimation it contains now? --Koveras ^☭ 06:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yech!

This is an icky article indeed! For example, why is the table in the section By world population using different sources for different religions? Isn't that Undue synthesis? And by carefully selecting sources here and there, one can prove anything. Secondly: presenting percentages for religion growth is absolutely ridiculous since it will be biased towards small religions. Counting the alleged fast growth of Islam (1.84% - sometimes said to be "fastest growing") in comparison to Christianity (1.38%) gives increases in number of adherents 23920000 for islam versus 30360000, using the numbers in the single source The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions. What religion is fastest growing really? And what does it matter when Earth is soon reaching population maximum? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 13:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about the different sources for different religions except that some sources are pretty old even if they do cover all the religions. As for the percentages vs absolute numbers it's a valid way of comparing. The article Claims to be the fastest growing religion dwells far more on the issue than this section which doesn't frame exactly what is the fastest growing but instead as the name of the section actually states, trends in adherence. At least that what I see. Smkolins (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)