Talk:Catholic Church by country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I mean, you are putting numbers which have nothing to do with reality. For example, here in Spain, hardly 1/5th of the population goes to mass. So this thing of neo-con believers in all religions feeding us the idea we 'are a religion' because in the past we were is bogus. Most WESTERN EUROPEANS ARE AGNOSTIC, even in Italy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Well just re-read, it is CIA factbook, LOL, Americans do believe in those primitive ideologies they call religion, but Europeans are in its immense majority in all nations, except south Italy atheists, agnostic and quite cynical about all of it, if the CIA has not yet understood that and puts 94% of 'catholics' in Spain and 87% in FRANCE!, ha, ha, less drones and pcs and more 'human intelligence' could improve the lot a long way (-; — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Ludwig Ott, a Catholic is he who has been baptized, has not publicly committed apostasy, heresy or schism, and has not suffered the vitandus excommunication (now in disuse).-- (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

94.17%! of Catholic in Spain: I was baptized because it was compulsory in Francoist Spain. Being deleting from that is list is refused by the Spanish Catholic church, but 34% of Spanish pay taxes to the Catholic church; this tax is mandadory is Spain so if you do not mention the Catholic Church, you have to pay anyway so clearly you do not feel catholic. Statistically this 34% is much acurate the the anti scientific 94.17%. It has also the adventage of not insulting people like me that do not like to be consider christian. An it not represent any religious or social reality

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC) 

Norway percentage[edit]

The percent amount of Catholics in Norway is wrong.
The official number of 98 000 Catholics equals that Catholics make 2 % of the Norwegian population - but the unofficial de facto number, wich is used here, tells that the Catholic population in Norway is 4,99 % (229 652 / 4 594 041 = 0,0049).

Ukraine map[edit]

The map of Europe has a mistake - in Ukraine, only Lviv oblast is highlighted in red as mostly Catholic, while in reality three more oblasts should be added: Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Transcarpathian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Name Change[edit]

WP has now changed the article name from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church, which now gives the possibility to change other article names where appropriate. I think this is such a page. In Spanish, no one say "La Iglesia Catolica Romana" for instance. It is always "La Iglesia Catolica." No one is a "Catolico Romano" but simply a "Catolico." So if we are going to write about Catholicism throughout the world, we should be referring to it by its most common name globally, the Catholic Church.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


I see that here are many fake numbers, for example, in Guatemala it is written that there are 75% of Catholics, this has nothing to do with reality, just protestants make more than one third....

I please editors of this page to make a reality check! Article here must show figures which are shown by wiki Guatemala page and reality, not some vatican fabricated numbers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Since the site where I got most of these percentages was Roman Catholic, [1], should the title be changed from Catholism to Roman Catholic? OneGuy 21:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the title should be changed to Roman Catholic. The current title is confusing, because it can refer to either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. PMLF 01:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually the current title [Roman Catholicism by country] is incorrect (as is the whole series of [Roman Catholicism in ...]) as this includes all Catholics, not only Latin Rite. For some countries like for example Armenia, Ukraine, Lebanon, various Middle Eastern countries the majority of the faithful belong to Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. -- 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


I think you should add this: <<Category:Roman Catholic Church>> to the end of the article. Obviously instead of the "<<" and "">>" you have to put "[ [" "] ]"" PMLF 06:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

on the first chart under Canada it says there are 32,805,041 roman catholics in Canada when the population of Canada is only 32,791,655 so how is that possible?

changed percentages[edit]

I changed many of the percentages to US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004 [2].

These reports are more up to date than both CIA factbook and, and I also found them more accurate. OneGuy 03:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could someone recheck the percentages and other numbers? There have been a lot of changes to the numbers without edit summaries, so I do not know if they are correct. See [3] for example. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 16:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Logic[edit]

OneGuy, you must use the official numbers for nominal adherence to each religion, not your own speculative numbers. For instance, the number of Catholics in France is 85-88% according to the CIA Factbook. Don't give speculations on your own. Another point, why are you trying to diminish numbers in a wicked manner across Wikipedia? User:

I am not using "speculative" numbers. The source for everything is cited. If you want to change something, you have to cite a more authoritative source and cite it on the talk page instead of randomly changing the numbers. For France, according to the State Department:

Asked about religious faith in a 2003 poll, 54 percent of those polled identified themselves as "faithful," 33 percent as atheist, 14 percent as agnostic, and 26 percent as "indifferent." The vast majority of the population is nominally Roman Catholic, but according to one member of the Catholic hierarchy, only 8 percent of the population are practicing Catholics. Muslims constitute the second largest religious group, with approximately 4 to 5 million adherents, or approximately 7 to 8 percent of the population. Protestants make up 2 percent of the population, and the Jewish and Buddhist faiths each represent 1 percent, with those of the Sikh faith less than 1 percent. According to various estimates, approximately 6 percent of the country's citizens are unaffiliated with any religion. [4]

Note 33% atheist and 14 percent agnostic. If you consider other religious groups, you are left (very charitable) with around 40% Catholics. The State Department (since it more uptodate and specifically related to religion) is the most authoritative source in this case (even more authoritative than CIA factbook). OneGuy 23:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The State report is a narrative commentary on religions and human rights that only quotes a poll and an unnamed hierarchical member. and is NOT used as a demographic analysis. That's third-hand "sourcing" at best. I've worked at embassies in Ukraine and Russian and have worked with the State Department for the last few years (I'm in another government agency). The CIA handbook is used regularly by State and other U.S. agencies as a guide for facts and figures. You've some sort of agenda to cherry pick with poorly sourced material. I am re-instating the 80-85% figure. Virgil61 14:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong !!![edit]

A person is considered Christian if baptized, regardless of self-identification. In your page about Islam by Country, you are using nominal numbers, regardless of self-identification. You use slightly exaggerated numbers for Muslims, which when combined give a strange result of 1.47 billion Muslims or so (as everyone knows that Muslims are between 1 and 1.3 billions if we're giving a generous estimate). You seem to use the lowest available estimates for Christians and the highest available ones for Muslims. Regardless of this fact, Christians are still terribly more numerous than Muslims. You didn't go too far with all that! Second, why does the CIA factbook give between 83 and 88 % to Catholics? Can the CIA be that wrong (42 becomes 83) ??!! Come on...User:pelikan

"A person is considered Christian if baptized", that is POV, and a definition used by canon law to determine who is to be considered one under the Catholic Church eyes. Religous freedom is an individual right and hence, under a NPOV perspective self-identification is most valid indication of faith denomination.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No, 1 to 1.3 billion is 5 year old estimate. I didn't "exaggerate" numbers for Muslims. Everything in Islam table was taken from either State Department, or some other source, like everything in this table. These are not my own numbers. The State Department quote is pretty clear on France. Atheists and agnostic are not "Catholics" OneGuy 19:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe so...think as you wish, but what's important is the final result. Christians are much more numerous than Muslims around the world (a minimum of 600 million in difference if you consider the highest estimate for Muslims!). User:pelikan

It doesn't matter what you believe. The numbers for this page, and for the other religion by country pages, were taken from the US State Department 2004 report. If you want to change something, you have to provide a more authoritative and recent source OneGuy 21:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who told you that the International Religious Freedom Report 2004 is more accurate than the CIA World Factbook? You seem to choose the sources that best fit your goals... . Wikiguru2000

This violates WP code of conduct and I have deleted the offensive content which was unnecessary. It is not signed properly either.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The State Department reports are more recent and up to date, and unlike CIA factbook, they cite the source for the information. Am I "propagating" Islamic numbers by using the State Department as a source? The Muslim numbers for many Islamic countries are lower in the State Department reports compared to CIA factbook. It's easy to check that by comparing the numbers of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Swaziland and many more with CIA factbook. You are the one who seems to have some kind of agenda here, given how you keep inserting your own deliberately false numbers in Lebanon article. OneGuy 18:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don’t be silly man. You know that the numbers given in Muslim countries are always pushed up. As for the article about Lebanon, the numbers 47 to 50 are not false at all. A recent study has been made about the percentages of different communities. The results were said on TV on several occasions and in the newspapers. I don’t have the sources on hand to cite them, but I will do so when I can get them. But note that these results are now well known by all Lebanese and were sent to the President of the Republic. You know, I think that the information given by the International Report counts Palestinian refuges and others; they are not giving the numbers of those who actually possess a Lebanese nationality. In addition they say “Most observers believe that….” they are not using accurate, statistical data all over Lebanon, using Lebanese citizens as a poll! That’s it man; the agenda is your agenda, as you insist on false information in the Lebanon article. By the way, are you Lebanese? Are you Christian or Muslim? user:Pelikan

Well, if you don't have the source for your numbers, you cannot replace your own number with the US State Department numbers. The numbers for Muslim countries was also taken from the US State Department. If your claim is that the US government is pushing up the Muslim numbers (for some strange reason), write and complain about that to the US government. You cannot expect Wikipedia to use your self made numbers. I am neither a Muslim, nor a Christian, nor Lebanese. What I do know is that the numbers you are trying to insert in Lebanon article are contradicted by the the US State Department. You won't be allowed to post your own numbers, regardless of whether you are a Lebanese or not OneGuy 22:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What’s wrong with you my friend! Are you expecting someone in a Muslim country to say that he's Muslim but not practicing or that he's indifferent about religion or maybe atheist?!! They will torture him and kill him for that! So the numbers you're using for Muslims are extremely idealistic and theoretical (in addition to being initially exaggerated too). And man I don’t need your permission for editing in Wikipedia! Remember that the nature of the information we’re talking about is subjective (there’s no official census made since the independence, when Christians were the majority in Lebanon. Also, the CIA Factbook is a source you have not favored, based on your own evaluation, in addition to an infinite number of other articles on the net who give different estimations…). Yet, as I have told you, it’s not important what you say or write in Wikipedia, you’re representing yourself only. I’m not just “trying to insert numbers” in Lebanon article. There's no self-made number and I don’t care about a number in itself. I wanted to correct what was written for the sake of justice, because justice is what matters. I see that you insist on keeping the wrong estimates, so good luck. It’s your own problem if you don’t want to correct your mistakes. I don’t have much time to lose here, God knows the truth. user:Pelikan

You are replacing the % as it appears on the US State Department site with your own numbers for which you have not given the source. That's not "correcting mistakes." That's "inserting mistakes" OneGuy 23:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I dont like the US State Department numbers either, but if you dont have any more reputable references you should not edit someone elses work. Let me point out that asking about religious believes in census is highly debated and most countries dont.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No mistakes were inserted as these are not my own numbers, but the result of a real study, which is well known by all Lebanese. I have requested a copy of this study so I will soon cite the source accurately. By the way, it seems clear to me now that what you’re trying to highlight is atheism, not Islam. I didn’t know before that you’re atheist… user:Pelikan

I didn't try to "highlight" anything. The source for all religious pages is the same US State Department. Your agenda makes you think that everyone, including the State Department, is trying to "highlight" something you don't like. As for your source, it will have to be easily available on the web like the US State Department report so we can check your claims OneGuy 18:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don’t invent things which I didn’t say. I’ve never said that the State Department is intentionally trying to highlight such facts. I understand that when wrong numbers occur, they are due to unintentional errors, as the State Department has no benefit in forging its estimates, and let me affirm here that I highly appreciate President Bush and many of his people like Condoleezza Rice because they are people of faith, committed to Christian values. However, what I’ve noticed is that you’re insisting on the numbers given by the International Report and have rejected those of the CIA Factbook, for example. Why? Because you think it’s more accurate. But I don’t think so, and each one has the right to adopt his opinion on the matter. Second, it’s clear that you consider as atheists people who are baptized but do not identify themselves as Christians. This is also a subjective interpretation of the numbers given by the State Department. A person who’s baptized is Christian; regardless of self-identification (self-identification doesn’t cancel baptism). That’s what might explain the difference about France, for instance, between the International Report and the CIA Factbook. Finally what’s the agenda you’re talking about? If you mean defending Christianity, well that’s a great honor, and I prefer to die than to loose my commitment to my religion. Yet, I am sure that Jesus Christ has saved the world and that he will lead his followers to victory because he decides everything and has the power over everything. In addition to all the Saints who are still, even after their death, healing people and performing miracles. So with Jesus Christ present, I tell you in all modesty that we don’t need an agenda in Wikipedia to promote Christianity (if you think that’s what my agenda is about). In reality, what I’m doing here is just correcting mistakes I began to notice after reading the illogical numbers in the Lebanon article (I’m not obliged to respect their source because whatever it is, it’s not from God, but I know that they are wrong because I live in the country and have read and “lived” the local estimates). Regards User:Pelikan

Well, your above sermon just further shows that you have some kind of a religious agenda. Please spare me though. If I wanted to hear sermons, I would go to church. The fact is that you replaced State Department % in Lebanon article with your % for which you didn't post the source. You have continued replacing the % by using several different sockpuppet accounts OneGuy 04:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree, this page is no place for bibble bashing or expresing personal political views, yahoo is very good for that. We are trying to be enciclopedists.It is alright to question the above mentioned report, but do so with better references. It is extremely unethical and childish to delete someone elses work without a corresponding effort.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Having "some kind" of religious agenda is something to be proud of. I would never reject such an honorable occasion. As for the sockpuppet accounts, as you have called them, I think they add some ironic side to the situation here in Wikipedia which often becomes too serious. After all, each one of us knows a part of the truth, which is in its totality in the hands of God. User: AlexKiddHelicopter

Truth about this issue can only be revealed by asking people which religion they practice. This is asked through censuses done by statistical research bureaus (for example United States Census Bureau for the US, Office for National Statistics in the United Kingdom, Australian Bureau of Statistics in Australia, etc.). God or other divine entities or other holinesses have nothing to do with statistical data, no matter whether you are religious (such as myself, I am a Roman Catholic) or not. The problem is that data from developing countries are often not reliable or hard to get (though data from developed countries are often reliable). Baptism registers aren't reliable either as these registers only confirm the child as being Catholic (or Orthodox) at baptism. The registers do not take conversion to another religion or premature death (of unbaptised infants) into account. The situation of a thirty year old person may be different from the situation at baptism. Neither are we sure that deceased persons are written out of the register (writing out might not happen when a baptised person chooses not to have a religious funeral). Even though data from baptism registers are constantly changed and updated you cannot be sure that these data are recent. Statistical surveys are conducted on a regular basis and are systematic, which is not true for baptism registers. The problem of insufficient or unreliable data in developing countries also happens with baptism registers (many poor people are not registered or written out, or the registers are being sold as churches are in desperate need of money). I prefer statistical data from the respective national statistical services over baptism registers and data from the US State Depatment and the CIA World Factbook. Though I do not doubt these organizations' statistical abilities I think that these organizations are too far away from other countries' sources to make their data outright reliable. -- 12:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If you read below you will see that baptism registars are just that, It should be not used as an indication of faith preferences.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The numbers of catholics in Western Europe are way off. Western Europe Spain 42,025,954 / Western Europe France 50,344,627 / Western Europe Italy 59,102,112 More than 40% of french are either atheists or agnostics. Less than 10% are practicing catholics. I do not know how the CIA got its 80-90% figures but they are completely wrong. Even if they count baptized people, you cant come up with 90%. We should find another source of information, I'm trying to find a reliable european study. --Squallgreg (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

regional split in Europe[edit]

Okay, someone will have to fill me in on why there's any need to divide European countries with regard to Catholicism into regions, and then at the same time omit the Northern Europe. --Joy [shallot] 10:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The graph is wrong[edit]

The colors on the two graphs are not consistent with the text. They should probably be removed or corrected.

San Marino?[edit]

I miss San Marino, where more than 90% are Catholic, in your Top 60. 11:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

and Malta

Top 60 Maps[edit]

Top 60 Catholic countries by number of people
Top 60 Catholic countries by percent

I noticed that the maps which are on alot of the other X-religion by country pages were removed from this page.. is there anything specific which needed fixing on them? -- Astrokey44|talk 05:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Image:Catholicism By Country Percent.png is wrong. Gugganij 20:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes I see that it doesnt show Ireland. I think these maps would be better if they had colours according to population or percentage, rather than a "top" list - that way theyre easier to fix if theres a mistake. One mistake or change in a top 60 list like this throws out all the colours. -- Astrokey44|talk 03:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The map is entirely wrong, since countries with a high percentage of catholics are coloured in the map as having a low percentage and vice versa. (e.g. Italy: about 90% catholics, but coloured purple at the map). Gugganij 12:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Its meant to be the top ten countries by percent, not the figures in percent. So Italy is shown correctly, as in the top 11-20 range of countries listed by percentage. Probably should add that to the image caption.. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, now I see. Well, obviously, the map seems to be much more reasonable to me now. Gugganij 17:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To me, no. It continues to seems wrong. It show that France, a country with a long catholic history is said to be in "50 to 60" last countries in terms of number of catholic... less than in USA or Germany !!... wich are majoritary protestant countries...

History doesn't make people believing in god.

I added a notice explaining that this concern the number of baptized people because saying that there is more than 80 % catholics in must be a joke :)wikiala

Church statistics and official polls cannot be used together[edit]

I am currently working on an edit to the Roman Catholic Church section regarding world wide distribution and I find that the current page here has a lot of work but with the wrong approach.

The fist issue is the definition of Catholic. The Roman Catholic church under canon law refers to the term Faithful (baptized Catholic) as essentially someone who is baptized. To the effect they keep an official registry, and though you may turn to any other faith or philosophy, as long as you do not formally request in writing to the church's corresponding national office that you no longer want to be include, you will still be counted as a Faithful (baptized Catholic).Hence it is no different than being a member of any association or club and you could be a Muslim and still be counted as a Faithful (baptized Catholic). This is the widest possible definition of Catholic, not even if you are excommunicated are you ceased to be considered a Catholic!.

An alternative definition is that a Catholic is anyone who claims to be one when asked. In which case you would use independent polls to obtain statistical estimates. However, in many countries, the census includes such question, and hence we have a statistical number and not an estimate.

Hence two sets of data are available. However it seems that the Catholic Church is cheating and that in countries were a question on faith is asked in the government census, they report this number, and not their own, to masquerade de issue. I have tried to find out details of this practice to no avail, so I can only speculate. One such country is New Zealand, and the census numbers and church figures do not significantly deviate even though 27% responded that they were atheists or agnostics (so there should approximately be a 25% difference between census and church reported number of Catholics).

A far more interesting and informative statistic is the extent of religious practise among Catholics, i.e. How often do you go attend church services? In my books, a practising catholic is that who attends mass at least on Sundays and special festivities. Recent official polls in Spain show that only 13.3% of the population claims to do so. Hence, from a church reported figure of 87%, to 79% who declare themselves as Catholics, I end up with a figure of 13.3% of practising Catholics (These numbers come from official sources referenced in Wikipedia).

It should be highlighted that in western societies the Catholic Church, as most of the other "majority" religions, are being watered down to their cultural role in the celebration of important social events. In the case of Spain, as in many other catholic countries, and contrary to laicism, government subsidies are negotiated in part based on church statistics, and hence there is additional bias to have the widest possible definition for Catholic.

- Conclusion -

We need to give more information on the differing definitions of "a catholic" and we cannot pick and mix between the two sets of data and present them as one as it is now being done.

An attempt should be made to provide data on attendance to religious services as an indication of religious practise and faith in each country. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


This page need Updating 14:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)}}

Incorrect figures shown - what should be the source of data[edit]

The Roman Catholic churches in the Netherlands, Germany and Austria have all recently published their 2005 church membership figures these differ (all are lower) from the figures listed on this WP page. Obviously, the roman catholic church should be the most reliable source for their own membership figures. So what source should be used the CIA "fact"-book or the roman catholic church. Ruud64 23:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not good practise to use figures from a biased source, so no it's not 'obviously' :) The CIA factbook isn't non biased either, but it's much more likely to be objective than figures from the Catholic Church itself. Vexorg 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the order of top 60 is incorrect[edit]

Can you explain me why e.g. Poland with 37,908,115 catholics is listed 10th behind Colombia, Argentina and Spain whose catholic populations are smaller. There are even more mistakes when it comes to percentage ranking. Italy and Poland with 96% Catholicity should be just behind Vatican. And they are 11th and 20th respectively.

How about merging both "Americas" templates?[edit]

I propose merging the two templates "Roman Catholicism in North America" and "Roman Catholicism in South America" to just a single one reading "Roman Catholicism in the Americas". I got the idea from this same page which already lists stats with them both merged. CaribDigita 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

top sixty is messed up[edit]

Either Poland (#10 on left) has the wrong number of Catholics or is listed wrong in the top sixty.

Yes the Top 60 is totally messed up and needs a complete re-write. I'll do it if and when I get time, but don't let me stop anyone else. I've just finsihed fixing the rest of the page so I ned a rest :) :) Vexorg 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Top Sixty[edit]

I have removed the Top Sixty. The reason for this is that not only is the current Top 60 out of date and innaccurate, the Main Table can be re-orded to provide a Top List for both Population of Catholics and Percentage of Catholics for ALL Countries. Vexorg 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

sorting by % not working[edit]

If I try to sort table by %, table is sorted by this column not as number, but as text. The result is, that for example 38% < 4% < 46%.

I'm sorry if this is not the right place to write bug reports.

Pista302 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone sorted the % issue but the same problem is still happening in the 'Catholic total' column i.e. 1,306,924 < 1,339 < 1,428,612 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this issue is still outstanding. Does anyone know how to fix this bug? Does it have to do with wikitable sortable? Nostril585129 (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Bolivia states a referenced 95% catholicism, yet the table was showing the same figure for population as for Catholics. I changed it to reflect the stated 95% figure. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Going through it, lots are "wrong" in that the figure given for total Catholics varies considerably from the stated percentage. Something is wrong somewhere. I am not sure if it's best to change them all, or try for better sourcing for the actual percentage figure given - perhaps both are needed. I will change the ones that are substantially wrong in the meantime. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately we get "figure rot" in demographic-type information due to people trying to update from a different source and failing to understand what a "better" source is, particularly for information of this sort which does not have strong underpinning. Then there is vandalism with kids changing a figure someplace which doesn't get noticed. Perhaps we should consider article for permanent semi-protect? That might help a little. But won't help today's problem!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

San Marino[edit]

It currently says: 29,251 with 95% catholics makes 29,230 catholics. That doesn't add up. -- Taketa (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Table Colors?[edit]

I've looked all over the page trying to make sense of the color coding system on this table. Maybe I'm just missing something, but is there a consistent methodology to the coloring? It does seem somewhat consistent with level of belief, but not quite right. And if there is, might that warrant a table legend being placed in there somewhere? (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Percentage Sorting Wrong[edit]

When I click to sort on "% Catholic", it sorts alphabetically, so that 3 is above 29 but below 31. Makes the sorting pretty useless here. If it matters, I'm using FF 4.0. RobI (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK it was a problem with Burkina Faso's entry of ">10%" - I did the math and put 17%, and it works now. RobI (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism from July 2010[edit]

Does anyone still watch this article? There have been various suspicious edits especially in July 2010, specifically from User: Can someone check the history and undo invalid edits? Manipulation of numbers is much more malicious and alarming than obvious vandalism, after all, even though discrepancies with the sources should be apparent. I suspect POV pushing at work. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Good eye. Within the last year or so, many of us have been automatically reverting any change in head counts or money from newbies with no edit summary and no citation. Why take a chance?
Having said that, we have had a few multiple entries from newbies who appeared to have a point and knew what they were doing. But head counts? I don't think so. Student7 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism in europe map[edit]

This map was reinserted without - once again - a source. A map like article text does not get a free pass on WP:V and WP:RS. So please add a reliable (NON WIKI) source or this map will have to be removed in order to comply with WIKIPEDIA quality standards. Furthermore this map is rather inaccurate - showing the Czech republic as catholic (% catholics on average is 10.3 % and in areas below 3 % as per the last census) and showing areas in Germany , UK , Switzerland as not catholic where catholics actually make up a much larger % of the population (in several areas a majority ) is misleading. So please comply with WIKIPEDIA quality standards and do not reinsert this map without a reliable source. Grsd (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

And again a map was inserted without a proper source, so again the remark that a map like article text does not get a free pass on WP:V and WP:RS, please comply with WIKIPEDIA quality standards and do not reinsert this map without a reliable source. (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Update with Jan 2013 Pew Study[edit]

I don't have time to do it now, but perhaps somebody else has time. Here is a new Pew study on the number of Catholics by country called "The Global Catholic Population". They have nice graphics too. Can we use them? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we use their graphics? I found this their policy on permission --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Vatican Data[edit]

Data from the Vatican should be used here, as it is the most accurate. --Daniel the duck (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ideally independent sources would be used. The CIA factbook bases its information off local census etc where possible, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The CIA estimates. The church has exact numbers, therefore it is more reliable. -- (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please not edit while logged out. The catholic church figures are also estimates. There is no catholic register, and the numbers are not based on attendance. The CIA figures are based off the census of the respective nations, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Church numbers are based on the people registered in their system. This is a mix of baptismal numbers and church attendence numbers. (Yes it is). Now it is true that the CIA uses census numbers, but those tend to misrepresent the number of Catholics in that country, as many people are not truthful on their census forms. --Daniel the duck (talk)

To pick an example, church attendance in the Republic of Ireland is 30%, yet the figure uses is much higher. Baptismal numbers are not the same as the number of people who self-identify as Catholic. Using census figures makes the most sense here. Census figures tend to over-estimate the number of practicing Catholics (many non-believers identify as Catholic), but they are independent, use a decent metric for measuring membership and the CIA fact book is continually updated. The number of people who believe in a personal God via survey is 70% according to a Eurobarometer Poll while 20% are spiritual. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What you say proves my point exactly. The CIA overestimates in many cases, and therefore, as an innaccurate source, it needs to be replaced. Stopinsisting on a source that has been discredited — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Vatican site overestimates the numbers (the figures are even older) also and is not independent. The problem is that we are not basing the numbers off polls which give the truest values. You can hardly claim what you said makes sense when the vatican source overestimates the numbers even more than the CIA. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"The Vatican numbers overestimate more than the CIA" Then why are their numbers lower? --Daniel the duck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It seem extremely doubtful to use these 7 year old vatican data. They are outdated and newer church data are available in many countries. Beyond that, many of this data can be doubted even in for 2006 since in most countries there is no official way to leave the church, hence data are systematically overrating the membership. Please Daniel the Duck keep at elast well referenced newer data! Please keep also in mind that Wikipedia country data have a lot of reliable up to date data. This list is creating a lot of contradicting info. Nillurcheier (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You said the same thing IRWolfe did. The Vatican numbers are lower and more accurate than the CIA. I'd rather have something thats 1-2% off than something that is 10-15% off. --Daniel the duck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a question for you: how are you determining that one dataset is "more accurate" than another? What reliable source do you have to prove your assertions? If you don't have one, then you are performing original research which is prohibited here. Elizium23 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Once again, Church data, which measures the actual amount of adherents, is more accurate than census data, because the censuses are known to be inaccurate. Church data changes over time, but remain relatively stable over a period time, as the source shows. No original research here. --Daniel the duck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You will need to prove those assertions by citing reliable sources. Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Daniel the duck, you continued to revert the Austria data, which is the best available church data. Please start to discuss this and explain which data beyond the outdated table you will accept Nillurcheier (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What we need is uniformity, not a bunch of random sources. The Vatican Data makes this page uniform (with the exceptions of the micro states which has other data, i.e. Monaco, San Marino, Martinique). What you are citing is not a reliable source, it is just another estimate, like the discredited CIA source --Daniel the duck (talk)

What I cited is the most reliable source of all, the homepage of the catholic church in Austria. And it is the most up to date data you can get compared to your 7 years old stuff. If you at least had the latest Annuario Pontificio data... Nillurcheier (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is just another estimate. --Daniel the duck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

The edit war continues. The next revert to this page will send me to WP:EWN with reports of all edit warriors involved. Please discuss and cease editing. Seek dispute resolution avenues. Elizium23 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


In the article, we recently changed something like "1.2 billion" to "1,214 million" and we introduced some confusion. Some editors have been changing it to "1,214 billion" thinking that is what we meant. The confusion probably stems from the use of "," in many localities as a decimal point. I think we should consider using "1.2 billion" or even "1.214 billion" instead. Elizium23 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Brazil data[edit]

Anonymous user continues to revert this article, changing data for Brazil coming from a national population census to data without any known reference (see here), significantly altering the results. As I've already reverted this article two times, I won't continue to do so, and I ask other editors to remove any unreferenced data. Thanks. Pristino (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)