Talk:Growth of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Futures studies (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

Wikipedia:Copyright violations[edit]

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

I am not POV pushing. According to the study for "Regional Change", the forecastd change of regional distribution of Christians in 2050 is considerable and moderate decline in global Christian population in Latin America and the Caribbean and North America.The Future of World Religions; Regional Change p.60. Thus when the research explicitly mentions growth or decline, this should be mentioned with proper citation and I would prefer to quote from sources for researched data. If copyright is the issue, it can be re-written. Also, you wrote in your edit summary not to remove any source while you're doing that yourself in the subsequent edit[1] --Bolialia (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Improve other religious information[edit]

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

The User:Juliandas51 edit[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


  • Your edit: The study also suggests that by 2050 Europe will lose its status of the plurality of the World's Christian population. In different parts of the Christian world, there also will be a modest decline of the Christian population., You sound you do not understand the difference between the distribution of Christian and between the number of Christians, the Paragraph, which cited that christianity, is becoming less concentrated in Europe and more evenly distributed throughout the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia Pacifi region and the majority of Christians are no longer living in Europe is already contained, This does not mean that Europe is no longer with Christian majority as you trying to suggest (in fact according to the study 65% of Europe's population will be Christians by 2050), or there also will be a modest decline of the Christian population as your trying to suggest in fact the study cited in p.60 - the page you took it as source-: In all other regions, the absolute number of Christians is expected to grow in the coming decades. So the study do not mention there also will be a modest decline of the Christian population.
I will try to exmplain this point, in 2010 12.3% of the world’s Christians population lived in North America, By 2050 10% of the world’s Christians population is expected to be living in North America, This decline is not in popultion numbers as you try to suggest, since the Christian number will grow from 266 million to 287 million, The decline is the shares of the global Christian population residing in North America, Other example; in 2010 24.5% of the world’s Christians population lived in Latin America, by 2050 22.8% of the world’s Christians population is expected to be living in Latin America, the decline is not in popultion numbers since christian number will grow and from 531 million to 665 million in Latin America, the decline is in shares of the global Christian population residing in Latin America. There is a big differece between these two cliams right?.
  • There is no such a claim in the study that total Christian population in the world will considerably be a decline due to conversion to the other religion and atheism.
  • Now, the source states that, "Europe is the only region where the absolute number of Christians is expected to decline by 2050. Europe’s Christian population is projected to fall from 553 million in 2010 to 454 million in 2050. In addition, the shares of the global Christian population residing in Latin America and the Caribbean (23%) and North America (10%) are projected to decline modestly."

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

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

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

  • your edit: Christian population will experience the greatest loss than other religions. It will decline 27.7 million in North America, 23.8 million in Europe, 9 million in Latin America and Caribbean, 2.7 million in Sub-Saharan Africa and about 2 million in Asia Pacific region. The source do not mention that the decline is with absolute numbers as you trying to suggest, in fact the number of Christians in absolute number is expected to grow to more than double in the next few decades, from 517 million to 1.1 billion in Sub Saharan Africa, and from 531 million to 665 million in Latin America and Caribbean, and from 287 million to 381 million in Asia, and from 266 million to 287 million in North America. (The decline is the net movement or the cumulative Change or net loss in switching which not necessarily in the overall absolute numbers like you are trying to suggest), beside that that inforamted been already coverd. It POV you trying to push it.
  • In fact between 2010-2050 the Buddhists will experience the greatest total population loss than other religions, since their numbers will decline from 487,760,000 as in 2010 to 486,270,000 as in 2050 (net loss -1,490,000), while christianity is in the second place in experience the greatest gain. according to the study the christian numbers will increase from 2,168,330,000 as in 2010 to 2,918,070,000 as in 2050 (the net gain is + 749,740,000), So Christian population will experience the greatest loss than other religions is from you.
  • Your edits has problems, you the twisting of information and claims thing that do not mentioned in study, or change the context of the information.--Jobas (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you clearly misunderstood here! p.67 clearly mention that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Growth of religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to be polished per WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOCRYSTAL[edit]

I think that this article needs to be deeply cleansed from unsubstantiated claims from news organizations, blogs, biased agencies promoting any given religious ideology, and other similar unreliable sources, and also redundant repetitions and wrong language, per the policy discouraging the use news organizations, the policy discouraging journalistic style, the policy discouraging acritical lists of statistics and the policy discouraging forecasts. Currently the article is an acritical list of "claims to be the fastest growing religion" as it was once titled. The quality since then has not improved, possibly it has worsened. Actually the article is so bad that I would suggest to merge it into "major religious groups" which treats similar games of statistics more accurately and from historical and cultural perspectives.

I don't want to attack him personally, but I note that most of the recent edits, which have contributed to worsen the state of the article, come from Jobas, who is not new to biased editing (to this and other Wikipedia projects) as it was detected in the past by other users. Another article directly affiliated to this one, "Christian population growth", has very similar problems (I would suggest an immediate merging into this article or into "Christianity by country").--151.36.36.57 (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of the sources of these articles are from Pew Research Center, several national Census, Eurobarometer and Encyclopædia Britannica then are some supported by The Guardian, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, BBC News, UNHCR, World Christian Encyclopedia, Arena - Atlas of Religions and Nationalities in Russia, reuters, (many of thes source are took studies form the Pew Research Center) Without addressing the references from books as Hillerbrand, Hans J., "Encyclopedia of Protestantism: 4-volume Set" etc. You deleted entire paragraphs backed with "the Pew Research Center" references.
Interesting that the supposedly new IP, claims that i'm not new to biased editing (to this and other Wikipedia projects: which one excally? please bring somee vidence ), and tellig false claims as my edit was detected in the past by other users - where and when ??-, Oh maybe you mean The user who has long history of sockpuppets (at least 100) and disruptive edit'.
There is alson a article called Muslim population growth is it also should be merging into this article or into "Islam by country"?.--Jobas (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have been reading Wikipedia and following editors for a long time. I am not Anatha Gulati, and this could be easily proved. Incidentally we both noticed your unfair editing; this is the only thing that relates us. However, if you want to discuss about your unfair editing: the Pew Research Center, national censuses and ARENA, Eurobarometer and EB, are the only solidly reliable sources in your list (I have some doubts about the Pew Research Center, but I won't discuss it here); the problem is that you interpret them (making them say what they actually do not say, but you want them to say) and interpolate them with other, bad quality sources (tabloids and blogs), with the latter actually being the vast majority.--151.36.36.57 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding "Muslim population growth": yes, it could (and maybe should) be merged.--151.36.36.57 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Still you didn't bring evidence for your false cliams, in many places The Guardian, and BBC News reference are addressed to the Pew study, and if you want to consider Pew Research Center as controversial it should apply in all artciles not just here. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and UNHCR, are widely used in wikipedia if is a bad sources then it should be apply in all artciles not just here.
You claim that i interpret them, that's also a false cliams. you removed the sentence: By 2050, the Christian population is expected to exceed 3 billion or By 2050 Christianity is expected to remain the majority of population and the largest religious group in Latin America and Caribbean (89%), North America (66%), Europe (65.2%) and Sub Saharan Africa (59%). even it provied by source from the pew study, can you show me where i interpret the sources here for example? (since you remove it).
You also remove the sources in selectively way, you only removed the sources from World Christian Encyclopedia from the christian paragraph, but it is been left in other paragraphs -the islam paragraphs for example-.
I'm not the only one who been edting in this articles, some of the sources that you removed, wasn't added by me.--Jobas (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (Uninvolved editor from WP:NPOVN) Jobas is correct that the original sources of information are reputable research organizations and, so, considered reliable.

However, the article has other NPOV issues.

  • The lead should be an overview of the entire content of the article as per MOS:LEAD. However, it is almost exclusively focused on Islam. This should be corrected by writing a proper overview.
  • The section on Islam is also much larger than other sections. I am not sure why. It is also excessively long to the point of being unreadable and uninteresting. In any case, as per WP:BALANCE, all the sections should be of roughly equal size unless there are good reasons to deviate from that norm.
  • The article title is misleading. The article is not really talking about growth of "religions", but rather growth of religious populations. All the populations are growing but some are growing faster than others. I think adding "populations" to the title will make it less threatening/alarmist. Or it could something even more neutral such as "religious demography" or "demography of religions."
  • The article can use some introductory discussion about the general issues of growth. For example, the 2015 PEW Report has an introductory section talking about factors affecting growth. Johnson and Grim also has a chapter on the factors. Some of that can be included.
  • It can also use some concluding discussion that talks about the consequences of the growth figures.

The article is currently rated B-class. If it is to go to GA level, these issues will need to be addressed. Since NPOV concerns are being raised, this may be a good opportunity to start thinking of revisions. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for giving your opinion, I do agree with most of your point:
  • the MOS:LEAD should focuse about other religions also. or just to talk generally without diving into the details.
  • Islam section been wrote by different users, many of it is part written also by the blocked user and his sockpuppets.
  • The artilce talk about both the growth of "religions", and the religious populations, but it could changed the article title to covert the content of the article.--Jobas (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The Pew Research Center's projects are backed by the John Templeton Foundation, an Evangelical Christian organization. It's seriously disturbing that its data (which is not based on surveys and in many cases decades old, as is the data for Russia or Belarus for example, and in many cases also exaggerates the number of Christians) has been adopted so acritically and extendedly in Wikipedia.
Kautilya3: this is not the only article that is infested by such problems of unreliability and acritical use of sources. Most of the other articles about religion statistics have similar problems. So, I think the best solution would be a concerted effort to rectify all such type of articles. An idea would be to set up a workgroup, maybe under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics, dedicated to check these articles.--151.82.40.213 (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows reliable sources to be WP:BIASED. Bias by itself doesn't make a source unreliable. You are welcome to mention the fact that the project was funded by the Templeton Foundation, and you can cover the issue in more detail on the Pew Research Center page.
A source becomes unreliable only if other reliable sources say that it is unreliable. In this case, such sources would have to be statisticians or demographers. Newspaper opinions won't be enough. Once you have such sources, you are welcome to take it to WP:RSN and ask if they are enough to declare the Pew results unreliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Pew Research Center is widely used in Wikipeida articles, and most of the articles about religion statistics use it. Till now is a reliable source here, so removing the source from the page is removing reliable sources.
The studies that was done by Pew Research Cente is backed by AmericasBarometer-Administered by the Latin American Public Opinion Project at Vanderbilt, European Values Study, European Social Survey (Administered by the European Values Study Foundation), Gallup World Poll, Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey. United Nations Children’s Fund, United Nations Demographic Yearbook, United Nations, World Religion Database: International Religious Demographic Statistics and Sources, World Values Survey. Values Survey Database, Generations and Gender Programme, French Institute of Public Opinion, Demographic and Health Surveys, Customized census data tabulations were provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Canada, Korea Statistics Promotion Institute (KSPI), Statistics New Zealand, Singapore Department of Statistics, Sri Lanka Department of Census and Statistics, and Office for National Statistics (United Kingdom). Estimates of the religious composition of European nations were made in collaboration with researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Kautilya3 All these are reliable sources that Pew Research Center use it in their studies.--Jobas (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like we have reached resolution. Please ping me if you need any more input because I am removing this page from my watch list. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Jobas: It is of no use that you keep listing institutions that apparently have given their approval to the Pew Research Center's projects. This doesn't make the Pew Research statistics updated. As I have already written, the problem is that in many cases they are not up to date, see for example the data for Belarus and Russia. The census 2011 for the former and the Arena Atlas for the latter, say that the Orthodox population is repsectively 48% and 41%... Yet the Pew Research Center's statistics say that they are around 70% Orthodox! Also, the problem with your edits is that you have been favoring the Pew data over the data from more accurate, or more recent, surveys and national censuses. I would like to known the opinion of Kautilya3 about this matter.--151.34.117.54 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Jobas is right again. Reliability is indeed decided based on what recognition they receive from other reliable sources. If they Pew results don't agree with national census results, then we have to mention both. That is what WP:NPOV tells us to do. If there is some other reliable source that discusses the disparity and gives us more information, then we can use that. We can't make up our own judgement as to who is right. We should not regard ourselves as experts here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Again false claims from you, I never favored one source - or Pew as you claims-, in the article Christianity by country as you can see both of the sources are mention for Russia (Arena Atlas for the latter and Pew) and Ukraine (Razumkov Centre from 2006 and Pew from 2010), since there the is no official census of religion in Russia and Ukraine while for Belarus there is only source mention which is the census 2011 (Pew is not even mentioned). But just to know; There is no official census of religion in Russia, and estimates are based on surveys only. In August 2012, ARENA determined that about 46.8% of Russians are Christians (including Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and non-denominational), which is slightly less than an absolute 50%+ majority. However, later that year the Levada Center determined that 76% of Russians are Christians, and in June 2013 the Public Opinion Foundation determined that 65% of Russians are Christians. These findings are in line with Pew's 2011 survey, which determined that 73.6% of Russians are Christians, with VTSIOM's 2010 survey (~77% Christian), and with Ipsos MORI's 2011 survey (69%). It is not our work to decided who is right and who is wrong.--Jobas (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Then you are interpreting according to your own view, when you say that "the findings are in line with Pew's 2011 survey". First of all the Pew data are not the result of a survey, but are a collection of data (sometimes from clearly defined sources, sometimes of obscure origin). (Second, its results refer to the year 2010, but this is an irrelevant issue.). Third issue: can you make clear what sampling methodology was used for the surveys you have cited? A survey is a direct analysis of a large sample of a population. How large is the sample of Pew, Ipsos Mori, VTSIOM, Levada, POF, etc? What type of populations have they interviewed? Where? Are their samples representative of all Russia like those of ARENA or they have surveyed random few people from western Russia (which is reportedly more Christian than the east)?
Since you continue to denigrate me claiming that I "lie" and say "false things", I'll demonstrate that you have been engaged in edit wars changing ARENA and census data with other, older and sometimes ungrounded, data according to your own preference. Just see the edit summaries of the maps on the right. And you also used dozens of sockpuppets on Wikimedia Commons for these edit wars trying to impose your views. You were also blocked there for 3 days in May 2014 and for 1 month in January 2016 for edit wars and vandalism. This demonstrates that here the liar and faker is not me.--151.36.49.214 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and I discovered just now that another user before me, Juliandas51, noticed your tendentious editing only two months ago and reported his concerns in a discussion right above. He was blocked as a sockpuppet of Anatha Gulati, but he was absolutely right and clear in his observations. I start to doubt that all these users were "Anatha Gulati" as my edits too were rollbacked by an acritical user who suspected I was one of them. There's something definitely wrong going on here, as evidently clear and neutral users who respect the sources are banned and deceitful users who manipulate sources and write in bad English are permitted to continue their work. I would report the entire situation at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but as an unregistered user I am unable to do so. Kautilya3, the issue is far from being solved.--151.36.49.214 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Here we go the IP that i I never finished from his harrasment. The sockpuppets you mention on commons don't have contributions, Since you aware of maps of the Wikimedia Commons (from 2014), Now you make it clear that you are Ich Pilot who been blocked form Commons, with having also so many Sockpuppets. The same language, the same personal attack. The fact that this IP and Juliandas51 even knew of that Wikimedia Commons old thing and used it to smear me is telling alot.--Jobas (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not, by no means, Ich Pilot. I have discovered your history on Wikimedia Commons just searching through the edit history of your accounts. What is certain is that Ich Pilot, Anatha Gulati, etc. with all their sockpuppets, have been totally counterproductive, as they have created the pretext for your victimization that you have been exploiting to defend your unfair editing.--151.18.105.221 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
So that is your usual strategy? now you going in personal attacks by calling me liar and faker, or to smear me by bringing up issues from Wikimedia Commons back to 2012 (Sockpuppets with no contributions) or from 2014 (edit warning with blocked user!), which is totally irrelevant here since this English Wikipeida project not Wikimedia Commons. And interesting that you stalking me now, i'm mean what you would call looking in my contributions that back to 2007 or 2012 or 2014!.
For the maps (which is belong to Wikimedia Commons, not here), see the discussion that was revolving (it was in 2014 by the way) around the statistics before throwing accusations, Again when i said false claims from you becouse since in the articles that expressed concern on them, as Christianity by country counties as Russia and Ukraine (that you mention before) are sourced by both, Pew results and ARENA (In Russia casa) and Razumkov Centre from 2006 (in Ukraine case), While in case of Belarus (that you mention before) there is only one source mention which is the census 2011 (Pew is not even mentioned), Other countries sourced by national census and in some cases by Pew. So you'r cliams that i been favoring the Pew data in these articles are false. So how excally i'm favoring the Pew data in that article.
You still throwing accusations, If you had issues with Pew Research Center studies, try to find a reliable source consider Pew Research Center studies as unreliable, so you can bring it in Wikipedia:RSN, But till now the source is consider reliable in this project and it is widely used here.--Jobas (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Then, if the Wikimedia Commons' maps issue is really a thing of the past and you're now a neutral contributor, please correct those maps according to the findings of ARENA, Razumkov and census data respectively for Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.--151.82.108.101 (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment 151.36.36.57 is edit warring against several Wikipedians on this article and removing reliable sources that are used to reference several statements in the article, including those not covering Christianity. This unregistered user is admonished to discuss specifically what he objects to on this talk page rather than tendentiously edit. Remember, just because you don't like what sources say doesn't mean that they won't be included in the article. AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 17:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)