Talk:Buddhism by country/Archive 1

Brazil

There were 214,873 Buddhists in Brazil in 2000, according to our last census. Source: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2000/primeiros_resultados_amostra/brasil/pdf/tabela_1_1_2.pdf (Budismo = Buddhism). PMLF 02:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That list looks bad :)) I wrote a program to do all the math, sort, and generate the table. I will help you out here OneGuy 07:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since so many countries don't have the percentage of Buddhists available, I am not sure if it's the right idea to list all of the countries in this case. Anyway, if you have percentage of a missing country available, post it on talk page (with your source) and I will recreate the table with the new percentage added. OneGuy 08:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My calculations are wrong? I got the percentages from adherents.com. Please provide the source if you have a different number. OneGuy 08:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Go to the CIA factbook, this adherents.com link, and information about religions about countries in wikipedia and calculate. Also, the Malaysia info comes from the Philips World Gazetter. Population of Chinese is 25%. How can only 11% of the population is Buddhist?Mr TanMr Tan, 08:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect about China. According to State Deprtment, for China (including Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35396.htm

Approximately 8 percent of the population is Buddhist

I don't know how you can claim 78% or 25% is Buddhist OneGuy 08:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most of Latvians are Christians!!!!!!! Correct your facts at CIA world factbook. Mr TanMr Tan, 08:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that was a typo then. I will check it and fix it. In any case, stop editing the page and discuss each case OneGuy 08:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Population of Chinese is 25%. How can only 11% of the population is Buddhist?" Because many Chinese are Muslims, Christians, Taoists, Confucians and non-religious, and many Chinese in Malaysia convert to Islam. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

China

In any way the author need to make clear the source of the number 77% formally in the article. OneGuy 04/23/07

No way China has 78% of Buddhists! Here is a list of largest Buddhists countries on adherents.com

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_buddhist.html

China is not listed! OneGuy 08:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, adherents.com has a very old list (3 or 4 years old). The population list that you are using is from 2005! Instead of plugging the exact old Buddhist population number from adherents.com, use the percentage and calculate the new population for 2005 OneGuy 08:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The source for this is something like: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35396.htm

"Buddhists make up the largest body of organized religious believers. The Government estimates that there are more than 100 million Buddhists, most of whom are from the dominant Han ethnic group. However, it is difficult to estimate accurately the number of Buddhists because they do not have congregational memberships and often do not participate in public ceremonies. The Government reports that there are 16,000 Buddhist temples and monasteries and more than 200,000 nuns and monks."

This makes it clear that the source is a government which deliberately lists only the highly committed. This is fair enough but should not be included in lists which give nominal figures for e.g. Christians. A comparable figure for actual practising Christians in the U.K. might be about 15% rather than the 60% actually given for Protestants.

The only fair way to give a figure for Mainland China is to assume that the percentage of Buddhists is the same as for Taiwan i.e. 25% or for Singapore i.e. 42.5%. Although Buddhism might have grown in popularity in Taiwan more than it has on the Mainland, this is counter-balanced by a number of largely Buddhist minority areas (Tibetans, Mongolians, Manchu, Sipsong panna) included as part of China.

What is at all events clear is that the largest body of 'organized religious believers' will have a further large number of sympathizers. 78% is possible, allowing that many would also consider themselves Confucianists, Taoists or just Chinese traditionalists. Compare the Census figures for Japan. 30% seems a reasonable compromise. (SelwynC 20:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)) I am amending the figures for China on this basis. SelwynC 21:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

HOW many Buddhists are there in China? According to the article, Buddhism in China, and the US Department of State website linked above, "estimates of the number of Buddhists in China range from 70 million to 150 million."

Taiwan

Since 8% of Buddhists in China includes Taiwan (according to State Department), I am going to remove Taiwan from the list since that is counted twice OneGuy 09:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

opps, it was Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau, not Taiwan OneGuy 09:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revert Changes

I reverted the changes. I think that we should do these slowly. I explain why.

• I agree with Brazil, there is nothing wrong. I'm sorry, it has to be removed for the time being as it clashes with the wrong results of others. My main point goes here.

Why Lesotho is not accepted:

• Lesotho is 80% Christians, not Buddhists!

• Using calculations from my calculator, by dividing 1,020,000/1,300,000 X 100%, you get 78%. Different sources state differently. I'm terribly sorry, but 8% is ridiculous. Neve fully trust websites. Calculate on your own.

• Go to Chinese Malaysian. Can it be only 11% of the population is Buddhist? The majorty of the Chinese are Buddhist! Of the 25% Chinese, the Philips Gazetter states 17.5% is Buddhist.

• • Evidence:[1].

• Thirdly, I think I have to recorrect the facts accurately. You did not add Brunei, where 13% is Buddhist, nor South Korea. Cambodia is 95% Buddhist, not 89%. Go to Demographics of Cambodia or the CIA factbook once again.

Once again, I hope we can build an interesting WP.

Mr Tan, 19:00 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I will fix Lesotho. China has 102 million Buddhist, not 1.02 billion! Fix your caculator :)

North Korea doesn't have 26% of Buddhist population!. Here are two sources

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35402.htm

The number of religious believers is unknown but has been estimated by the Government at 10,000 Protestants, 10,000 Buddhists, and 4,000 Catholics.

Another source

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_86.html

Korea, North 1.67%

These figures are ridiculous. See: http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/Wh_177.html#434

There, two figures are given 400,000 (1999?) and 2,253, 200 (1998?). Neither is reliable but the true figure certainly lies between the two. Official government figures must be ignored. Alternatively, Communist era figures for Christianity in the former Soviet bloc would have to be adopted in order to obtain comparability. (SelwynC 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

I am altering it on the basis that the percentage for North Korea will be around the same as for South Korea. Obviously this cannot be exactly correct, but it will give an approximate figure of th eright order of magnitude. SelwynC 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As for Japan,

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35400.htm

According to statistics published by the Agency for Cultural Affairs in December 2002, approximately 49.9 percent of citizens adhered to Shintoism, 44.2 percent to Buddhism, 5.0 percent to "other" religions, and 0.9 percent to Christianity. However, Shintoism and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive religions, and the figures do not represent the ratio of actual practitioners; most members claim to observe both.

For Mongolia,

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35419.htm

Buddhism and the country's traditions are tied closely, and it appears likely that almost all ethnic Mongolians (93 percent of the population) practice some form of Buddhism. Lamaist Buddhism of the Tibetan variety is the traditional and dominant religion.

Malasyia

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5604.htm

According to government census figures, in 1991 59 percent of the population were Muslim; 18 percent practiced Buddhism;

I will fix Malasyia

Anyway, don't revert to a mess version of the article. I will fix a percentage and recreate the list if you point some factual error OneGuy 11:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see what's wrong with your China calculation. China's population is not 1,300,000. It's 1,306,313,812 i.e 1,300,000,000 OneGuy 11:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are missing zeros everywhere from your China calculations. Try this 102,000,000/1,300,000,000 * 100 = 7.8 is the answer. Much closer to 8% I had from State Department. Also, keep in mind that China population was not 1.3 billion 3 or 4 years ago when adherents.com posted this. So 8% is the right answer OneGuy 11:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Singapore

The total population figures for Singapore cannot be right. See http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/c2000/topline13.pdf That gives 3,263,000 in the year 2,000. Dec 2005 (SelwynC)

General

I have added a reference to a Buddhist site which gives much higher figures. Given the success of Buddhism in surviving the severest possible persecution in e.g. Mongolia or Cambodia, these figures must be taken seriously. They are probably too high, but then the generally cited figures are clearly too low. SelwynC 21:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

changed percentages

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 adherents.com. I also found them more accurate. If anyone finds an error (in most cases a typo with percentage), let me know OneGuy 04:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

East Africa

I told you, Mr Tan, you cannot directly change the region table. The table region are simple produced by country table. To change East Africa in table region, you have to fix Tanzania. Is your claim that there are no Buddhist in Tanzania? That's refuted by

http://www.buddhanet.net/africame/africadir.htm

Buddhist Temple and Meditation Center Plot no 606,P.O.Box 6665, Mindu Street, West Upanga Dar es Salaam 255 Tanzania Tel: + 255 22 2150422 Mobile: 255 741 451745 Fax: + 255 22 2150422 Email: Pannasekara@hotmail.com Web site: www.geocities.com/pannasekara Tradition: Theravada Spiritual Director: Rev. Ilukpitiye Pannasekara Chief Buddhist monk for the African continent

OneGuy 10:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a web site of a Buddhist in Tanzania, so obviousl.y there are Buddhists in East Africa http://www.geocities.com/pannasekara/ OneGuy 10:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proving that there is one temple and at least one Buddhist there doesn't mean that Buddhists are higher than 0.01% of the population. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Percentages Chart

I don't think the percentages chart is correct. If you look at recorded number of Buddhists in a given country, the United States for example, it's just the estimated percentage (1%) multiplied by the population (295,734,134). So the column shows 2,957,341. There's no way that exactly 1.00000% of the population is Buddhist in the United States, so the number is incorrect and perhaps that last column should be removed.

- Dave

Table is not useful

Any protest to removing the "n/a" entries with redlinks from the table? If there are nearly 0 Buddhists in a country (i.e., Iraq) then it does not seem helpful to have an entry and redlink for them. Ashibaka tock 21:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the main problem is that rather many of them do in fact contain significant (but not large) numbers of Buddhists. That is obviously true for countries such as Poland, Greece, Ukraine, Belarus in Europe. And probably also for countries in South America which do not list Buddhists. The CIA in particular is not much interested in seeking out Buddhists ! And Buddhists are not as organizationally or mission- orientated as some. It might be best to given a minimal figure of 0.1 for all the European countries which have N/A at present. Perhaps not for the Balkans ? But certainly also for the Americas. At present, the absence of figures for many countries (i.e. those whose governments do not provide figures) distorts the overall regional percentages. SelwynC 21:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

why not use "not available"?! 0.1% is misleading!--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

China

I am revising the entry for China, which is totally out of wack with any other estimate. User:SelwynC made this change a year ago, jumping up the percentage of Buddhists from 8% to 30%, with no source. The US Dept of State's International Religious Freedom Report 2005 here gives the percentage as 8%, and that estimate is consistent with adherents.com's estimate here. I am reporting the result to only four significant figures; it is downright silly to be more accurate here.

Neither of the above two sources are reliable for figures on Buddhism. An alternative is: here. SelwynC 19:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, for N Korea, SelwynC used the S Korea percentages. This is clearly original research. I replaced it with 400,000 in round figures, the latest figure available at [3].

The rest of this table is a mess, but China alone had the numbers off by a few hundred million; the rest I don't have time to deal with now. Let us be careful to avoid violating WP:OR on this page! bikeable (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also took out rows not used in the country table (really, they don't help a bit, and clutter the page terribly). The "top 20" table at bottom is pretty useless since the figures are so uncertain, but I at least made it internally consistent.

Someone should go through this, clean and prune, and round everything to a reasonable number of significant digits. But that's too much effort for tonight...! bikeable (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates have some interestingly high number of buddhists, this doesnt sound plausable that theyd be on the top 20 list.. And, croats dislike being put into the balkans, and preffer central or at least south eastern europe. And I doubt the number anyways--83.131.159.9 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's only 50,000 people we're talking about. They're presumably immigrant laborers from some East Asian country. Depending on which country it is (for instance, China), it might be questionable whether 50,000 of them are actually Buddhists, though.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There are large numbers of Sri Lankan migrant workers in the UAE. SelwynC 19:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada

The 2001 Census gives the number of Buddhists as 300,345, which is significantly greater than the number quoted in the table.

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/rel/canada.cfm

Statistics Canada estimated the 2005 population as 32,623,500

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060927/d060927a.htm

The percentage thus increases to 0.9%. If we were using the actual 2001 population as the numerator, the percentage would be 1.0%.

Klima 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) klima

The percentage of Buddhist in China mainland,South East Asia,East Asia.

Hi everyone!I am a mixed race of many Asian descents (Chinese/Cantonese,Vietnamese) with Filipino-Hispanic and I am a Buddhist and a religious researcher!Buddhism is the special religion which is very hard to know who is Buddhist in the secular society.As in Turkey,over 97% population is Muslims but they look like secular Westerns!I will discussion some wrong or not exact percentage of Buddhist in some countries!I will edit the list of religious population as soon as July 2007 with newest census and more exact!And Buddhism is the second largest religion with over 1.465 billion wasn't the liar or ridiculous behind Christianity (over 2.100 billion) and it followed by Islam and Hinduism.I think the recent census is too exact but not perfect!

• SOUTH EAST ASIA:

1/Vietnam: I am living in Vietnam now,Buddhism in Vietnam is very strong influence from about 2000 years ago to now;but I am decisive to say the percentage of Buddhist in Vietnam is around from over 85% to maximum 88%,not 92% is very high and unbelievable (remember Hoa Hao Buddhism is a Vietnamese sect of Mahayana Buddhism not a separate religion;about Caodaism is NOT a sect of Buddhism'it is a separate Vietnamese religion which is the mixture of Buddhism-Taoism-Confucianism with Christianity mainly and included Hinduism or even Islam too).

Here is percentage of religion in Vietnam: Buddhism (all sects):88%; Christianity:8% (Roman Catholic is over 6.5%,Protestant is around 1% to 1.5%); Cao Dai (nearly 3%) and 1% is other religions (Muslim 0.08%;Hindu;Bahá'í)

2/Laos: The Buddhist must be over 90% at least to 95%;91% is too less.It is too funny when the percentage of Buddhist in Laos is less than Vietnam.Although,the influence of Buddhism in both these countries is heavy but in Laos,it is more important as a state religion!

3/Thailand: The percentage of Buddhist population is only could be 95% is the maximum,not 97% is quite high!

4/Myanmar: The percentage of Buddhist in Myanmar is around from 88-90% is the most possible.93% is couldn't true!

5/Malaysia: 44% Malaysian people is Buddhist===>It is very unbelievable.The real percentage of Buddhist in Malaysia is 19.2% (Buddhist only) to 21.8% (plus 2.6% of Confucianism and Taoism which is called East Asian Buddhism or "Triple religion").I will edit it soon with the latest census of 2007 soon!

6/Singapore: The Buddhist population in Singapore is from minimum (42.5%) could to be 51% (Buddhism+Taoism 8.5%) and maybe high as 60% acceptably!(plus more 2/3 of 14.8% No religion)

7/Philippines: The Buddhist population is only from 2 to 2.5% not 3% is a liitle bit high!

• CHINA MAINLAND:

I have stayed in China in nearly a month (total time of 2 visits) and over 1.5 million Chinese live in Vietnam (half is concentrated in ChinaTown or Cho Lon in Vietnamese;which is the area of District 5,6 and a part of some neighbour districts in Ho Chi Minh city with predominant Chinese people).

And Chinese is more "Buddhist" than Vietnamese.8-9 or even 100% in every 10 Chinese people are Buddhists and they are worship common Buddha,Bodhisattvas,Arhats (Buddhism) with Taoist God,Goddess,Saints and heavy influence by Confucian philosophy in family-society-nation with respect teachings of Buddhism in private spiritual or religious life as a spiritual treatments,the philosophy which could make the life more peaceful,relaxed,easier,merciful and healthier body and bright mind with fresh life!And Vietnamese is same like that!

I've travelled to China 2 times and I've just watched a travel series of the Buddhist culture in East Asia.And it said the Buddhist population in China mainland is OVER 1 BILLION PEOPLE at least;Buddhism,Taoism and Confucianism "all in one" but Buddhism could the balance of each others!Buddhism and Taoism is the true religions with common philosophy but Confucianism is the philosophy than a religion!I am confident to say the percentage of Buddhist in China mainland is must be over 80% at least or maybe over 85% probably!77-78% is under the minimum (80%).Example for percentage of religion in China mainland: Buddhism (80%-85%,common with Taoist and Confucianist),all sects of Christianity (6.5 to 7%),Muslim (1.5 to under 2%),others as shamanism,animist (1%) and Atheist (5-10%,almost is members of China's Communist Party)

And if you've ever watched the TV series or famous Chinese novel of "Journey to the West".You can see the Monkey King- Sun Wukong have made trouble in Heaven and defeated an army of 100,000 celestial soldiers, led by the Four Heavenly Kings, Erlang Shen, and Nezha.Eventually, the Jade Emperor (the highest God of Taoism) appealed to Buddha, who subdued and trapped Wukong under a mountain.The Monkey King could do impudent activities with Jade Emperor and his Heaven Palace but he daren't do it with Great Buddha and Guan Yin Bodhisattva because they are more powerful and more merciful who could punish and teach him only!

• EAST ASIA:

1/North Korea: 60% population of North Korea is Buddhist maybe certain but I think it is too less.The neutral estimate of Buddhist population here is should be over 65% certainly.

2/South Korea: Nowadays,South Korea is very particular country in East Asia where Christians is 49% and Buddhists is only 47% by the CIA's sources.But however,Buddhist population in Korea could be equal or 50% of South Korean population definitely;50.7% now is not really right!

3/Mongolia: Buddhist 98%, Muslim 2%, 20,000 Christians.No more no less!(Source:[4])

• SOUTH ASIA:

1/India: Over 1.1% of India' population is Buddhist could be certain!

2/Sri lanka: Over 90% Sinhalese people is Buddhist but the religious popualtion of Sri Lanka is Buddhism 76.7% (not high as 81%),Islam 8.5%, Hinduism 7.9%,Christianity 6.9%

3/Nepal: Hinduism 80.2%, Buddhism 21%, Islam 2.8%, other 1.2% The Buddhist population in Nepal is only 21%,not 33% is very liar!

4/Other countries in South Asia:

-Bhutan: Lamaistic Buddhist 97%, Indian- and Nepalese-influenced Hinduism 2%, Muslims 1%

-Pakistan: about 0.5% is Buddhist

-Bangladesh: 89.7% of the population was Muslim; 9.2% was Hindu; 0.7% were Buddhists; 0.3% was Christian and 0.1% was Animist. (Source:[5])

Portugal

The Portuguese numbers are not correct. The "União Budista Portuguesa" estimates that there are 3.000 buddhits in Portugal. That number is very far from the 60.000 this article suggests.

According to the 2001 census data, availabe at the Instituto Nacional de Estatística , there were 13.882 "other non-christhians" in Portugal, i.e., apart from the jewish and muslim communities. In this wikipedia article hinduism_in_Portugal the numbers of hindus is estimated as 7.000, leaving aproximatly 6.000 for all other religions, including Buddhism. it seems that the UBP estimate, of 3.000, is problaby the most accurate.

User:Ruipedro.sousa|Ruipedro.sousa]] 11:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not fair for Buddhist population!Other religions are not fair-play with Buddhist population!

I am a Chinese Mandarin and I know the culture of my nation!I am so agree with a person in this discussion who is mixed of many Asian descents with Hispanic.He was say right 90% about the Buddhist population!In China mainland and some our neighbor countries in Far East where is very mysterious,interesting just like "Forbidden palace" in Beijing or anywhere in Far East Asia.

I think 78% Chinese people are Buddhist is very very modest.It is the contradiction when in "mini Chinese nations" as Hong Kong,Taiwan (over 90% is Buddhist);Macau (85%) and Singapore (3/4 is Chinese and 60% total population of whole island is Buddhist).That showed in every 10 Chinese people,at least 8 is Buddhist and the highest is 9 per 10.And someone has explained what is the Buddhism in Chinese culture!I think Buddhism is the most fantastic religion and the true religion of Peace and the Concord!

Mostly Christianity's churches must build as Western and European style.And all Muslim mosques must build as Arab style.

But in Buddhism,you can see the pagodas,temples could build with any traditional style and keep the value of national heritages as Chinese style (common property with Taoism and Confucianism) , Korean style, Japanese style (common property with Shinto), Vietnamese style; those are in Mahayana Buddhism.

In Theravada,the architecture is different completely.You can see it in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia,...with Buddhist padodas are made of gold,silver,marble,v.v...

When you travel to Tibet or Himalaya,you can see more different style of Buddhism from architecture,costumes,buildings,v.v...

And so much more.That is the special and the lissomness of Buddhism;Buddhism is not boring,dry,rigid and monotonous as other religion as Christianity,Islam,Hinduism or Judaism!

I am swear to say Buddhist percentage in China mainland must more than Vietnam at least (86-87%) and even highest as 90% possibly!I will take the neutral figure (from 86% to 90%) is 88%

In China mainland;who is "non-religious" when he or she died,all their funerals would celebrate in Buddhist rituals mainly and Taoist rituals (burning of hell money;clothes,house,car,facilitiesfor life after death and wait for the new reincarnation in next life) and Confucianist (ancestor worship) with many (not all) ancestral altar under statues or pictures of Great Buddha,Guan Yin Bodhisattva or Dizang Bodhisattva!

I think Buddhist population must plus more 105 million minimum (86%) and 158 million people maximum (90%-only China mainland).And total Buddhist population must be from 1.588 billion and 1.639 billion (23.8% and 24.5% of World's population) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chow zhang qui (talk • contribs)

Sources please. You haven't done anything other than offer your opinion. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism in Canada.

Only 1.1% Canadians are Buddhists?===>Very small and also not exactly because Buddhim is the biggest religion in Asian-Canadian communities ([6]).Because in many Chinese descent families,they worship Buddha or Guan Yin or Budai/"Laughing Buddha",v.v...(Mahayana Buddhism) with Jade Emperor,Xi Wangmu/Queen Mother of the West,v.v...(Taoism which is always called "other" in almost Western countries and even in PR of China,but it is always combine with Buddhism and Confucianism) together without any reasons!They believe on both of all and they love it!

If total main East Asian-Canadian communities (there are China,Taiwan,Vietnam,Korea,Japan,Sri Lanka and Laos where is the highest Buddhist percentage) is 6.2% of Canada's population.The Buddhist percentage of all Canada is 3.6% (2.5% "Triple religion",source of [7] with 1.1% original Buddhism included Mahayana,Theravada or Tibetian,Canadian government census) and it could make Canada to be the Western country with the highest Buddhist percentage,followed by USA and Australia (around 2% per each)!

You have to remember that a huge number of Westerners of Asian descent are Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Christians or irreligious. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistics Canada puts the number at 1.0% [8] based on self-identification.

Klima (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Laughable

1.5 BILLION Buddhists in the world? That's laughable given every other source puts the number some where around 500 million. The obvious contradiction is due to China that this article claims is 80% Buddhist! That's pure nonsense! According to the US State Department, "Approximately 8 percent of the population was Buddhist, approximately 1.5 percent was Muslim, an estimated 0.4 percent belonged to the official Catholic Church, an estimated 0.4 to 0.6 percent belonged to the unofficial Vatican-affiliated Catholic Church, an estimated 1.2 to 1.5 percent was registered as Protestant, and perhaps 2.5 percent worshipped in Protestant house churches that were independent of government control." [9]

This article has turned 8% to 80% !!! .. 24.166.188.29 05:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article's numbers are highly suspect. 58.186.233.71 reverted your changed, but I am reverting theirs back to you; at least 8% has a source. People have been editing this page and changing the numbers for months, but there are so many that it's hard to audit, and I haven't bothered. unfortunately I think we need a different way of organizing this article to keep it reasonable.

58.186.233.71, if you think that 80% is the correct number for Chinese Buddhists, please provide a citation. bikeable (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the some latest discussions near yours.And this is the article of not only mine!You can see the Buddhist percentage in taiwan,Hong Kong,Macau,Singapore (mini Chinese countries) with easten and southern neighbors of China (as Korea peninsula,Japan,Mongolia,Vietnam,v.v...from 80% to over 90% were Buddhists)!

Best regards!God bless you!

The census of CIA is biased-Christian (they said 33% is Christians but in fact only from 26-29%) and very very hard to know who is a Buddhist (in 1.5 billion Buddhists,only 1/4 have taken the Refuge of "Buddha,Dharma and Sangha" and remainders are natural Buddhist without any religious ceremonies because Buddhism is the special religion and Buddhism has been influencing in Far East Asian culture heavily with Taoism and Confucianism!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.186.225.71 (talk • contribs)

Sabotage? I changed a number that did not have a reference to one that did. Of course it is very very hard to know who is a Buddhist in China, but 80% appears to be a wild overestimate. What are you basing that on? Please provide a reference. You seem to argue that Buddhism is "special" and "natural" and so it is the default religion of China, but that is your own belief and is not supported by the research. For a start, the table here gives varying numbers from 3 to 13%. The kind of arguments you present are original research if they are not backed up with a source. Counting 80% of the Chinese population as Buddhist gives an estimate of the world Buddhist population that is about 1 billion people higher than any other estimate I have seen. Finally, please assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of sabotage. It is also not a good idea to make assumptions about the religious backgrounds of others. bikeable (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, comparing mainland China to Taiwan and Singapore is not a good basis for an estimate of the Buddhist population, since mainland China has had a very different (and extremely anti-religious) history. Estimates for Taiwan on adherents.com range from about 20 to 70%, and for Singapore 28-40%. All the numbers in this article seem inflated to me by comparison. bikeable (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,Bikeable!First of all,I think you were anti-Buddhism and a religious extremist!And I don't know who are you?This article is the result of mine,Vexorg,58.186.233.68 and many people who are non-Buddhist.

And I am confident to swear all things in this article is the TRUTH! In many years ago,Buddhist population is the hardest unknow census but we have made this article in a really long period hardly.

Wow, that was unexpected. I will ask you again to assume good faith and be civil. Do not accuse me again. (And I think you are reading the wrong user page, since I am not a Disney fan.)

I am changing this number back to 8%. Please provide a citation for your number before you change it again. The US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2006 is a pretty good start, and it says 8%. If you do not have a source, do not change the number. As for your personal attacks, I promise you am not anti-Buddhist, nor am I a Vietnamese Christian you met on a religious forum. Be civil. ok? bikeable (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I see we're still reverting back to the 80% figure for China, eh? Angelo, are you going to add a reference, please? bikeable (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New format proposal

This article is a disaster of unsourced numbers, as we have seen above in the case of China.

I would like to suggest a new format for the country table.

Buddhism by country

Country	Population	% Buddhist	Buddhist total	References
China	1,300,000,000	8%	100,000,000	[10]

I've added a new column with references -- that way we can immediately see what's sourced and what's not. Note also that numbers should be rounded to the appropriate number of significant figures, i.e., the lowest number of sig figs in the data; thus 1.3 billion * 8% = 100 million.

Finally, I see no point in the "by region" tables or even the Top 20 table. Those just add a lot of work whenever a number changes. I would suggest scrapping them. (I removed the region in the example above, but it could be added back if people really care.)

Thoughts? bikeable (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

personally I don't necesasrily think an extra column for references is necessary. Putting the reference right next to the figure is probably better. It works cool on teh Christianity by Country page. Especially when you haev a range of figures Vexorg 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

ROUNDING NUMBERS? - You shouldn't round the numbers for indiviual countries. As this will introduce too uch innacuracy into the total figures. Good maths practise is to keep accuracy until the final result and then round off. Vexorg 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, having the references next to each estimate would be fine. It seems we should also include a range of estimates (with references) in most cases.

As for rounding, you are correct as far as calculating the total. But since this article is "Buddhism by country", and obviously intended to be a reference by country, each country total should also be rounded correctly. The proper way would be to report the rounded number for each country, and calculate the grand total with full accuracy and then round that. That's more work, but it's the only way that makes sense. bikeable (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New references

Thanks to Angelo for adding references for many countries.

However, I don't find the references for China appropriate. The paragraphs in the article under The explanations,notes are an argument for why there are a lot of Buddhists in China. This looks like original research. Obviously it is hard to know how many Buddhists there are, but we cannot make a guess based on an argument that sounds plausible. We need reliable sources. Note that the sources given for China are, 1) vipassanafoundation.com, which actually cites wikipedia's numbers (!), 2) ghettodriveby.com, which looks like a free web page, and 3) various other wikipedia sources. These are not reliable sources.

Angelo, note that you are using religiousintelligence.co.uk as a source for many figures, but you neglect to mention that they give an estimate of 8% Buddhists in China [11].

Again, these numbers give an estimate of total world Buddhists that is about a million higher than that given anywhere else.

Angelo, please find better sources. I will at least change this to a range (e.g. 8-80% for China) which is more consistent with other figures.

Finally, the The explanations,notes paragraphs desperately need editing; unfortunately I don't have any free time for the next few weeks. bikeable (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I found a useful reference for China's religious populations: a study from East China Normal University, published on chinadaily.com.cn here. The authors find that 31.4% of Chinese adults identify as religious, of which 66.1% follow Buddhism, Taoism or traditional Chinese religious. This makes about 21% who identify as followers of one or more of those three religious. As Angelo has pointed out, they may follow all three.

Thus 21% seems a good upper-bound estimate for percentage of Buddhists. I'm going to change this now and make it a range. I would suggest we start using ranges in all cases where it's not clear-cut.

Angelo, do not revert me without providing a better reference. Arguments are original research and are not allowed. bikeable (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK!Or we can do it as Christianity_by_country with the lowest to highest estimates in the "By country" table!I think that will good!How do you think?With mostly Buddhists,the article of "Buddhism by country" is not important because that is dried estimate or lifeless numbers===> "Budddha in our heart" (Phật tại tâm)

Having a range sounds like a very good idea. I don't feel comfortable having the vipassana foundation as a source, they seem to be too biased. The China Daily article on the other hand seems good. Pax:Vobiscum 22:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

China in the top 20

Are you sure there are a billion Buddhists in China? I thought Buddhism was the religion of only 8% there.

Hola!I know many Westerners like you don't know about Far east Asia exactly (Asia is really a mysterious land).

I am a mixed-race of Asian (75%) and Hispanic (25%) and I was born and rising in Vietnam,I've just moved to USA only last 12 years (when I was 15) and I've traveled to many countries in Asia at least 1 or 2 times in my annual vacations!And I've learned in the University of the West in California about Orientalism,Buddhism and I like to research all religions,culture,geography,history and demography.

So you can look at some Chinese communities all around the World.In Malaysia (1/3 of total population) and they made up total 22% is Buddhist ("Triple religion" exact) or in Singapore,77% is Chinese and 61% is Buddhist in total population.Or in Vietnam,over 90% in Chinese community is believers of "Triple religion" but Buddhism is the most popular!

How about China mainland,Han Chinese is 92% total population and their predominant religion is "Triple religion" as Vietnam (85%) but only 8% is Buddhist??????????===>That is the huge contradiction!

Unreliable sources

Just to make things clear, please state your opinion on the use of vipassanafoundation.com as a source. I believe it should not be used since it is obviously biased and pushing an agenda. Pax:Vobiscum 07:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think in China 80%is atheists (8% Buddhist,6% Christian, 1.5% Muslims) so that it mean over 1.5 billion people are ATHEISTS!===>The Westerners never know about Asian culture if they aren't living in Asia or don't learn about Orientalism,Buddhism and Asian culture.Remember Buddhism is the special religion which is ATHEISTIC RELIGION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo_De_La_Paz (talk • contribs)

Angelo, once again you are making an argument based on your own knowledge and belief. That is not how wikipedia works. You need to supply concrete and reliable sources to back up your claims. Several editors have now said that they don't think vipassanafoundation.com is a reliable source. Since that is the only source you have suggested for the use of your 80% number for China, I am reverting back again. In the current version there is a range given, 8% (US State Dept) to 21% (China Daily). The China Daily article is a excellent description of a research project which specifically sought to answer this question. If you do not have a source of similar quality, please do not revert again.

Arguments about how many people you think are Buddhist or atheist are entirely irrelevant. If Bodhidharma himself edited this page to claim that 80% of China is Buddhist, we would respectfully ask him for a source. Wikipedia does not rely on your claims or mine, but only on sources. bikeable (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To Bikeable.In China mainland or Hong Kong and Macau,in mostly families people worship Guan Yin Bodhisattva or Guan Yu or Great Buddha (Buddhism,it could statues or pictures simply) with their ancestor altar together but they also worship another Gods or Goddesses of Taoism in another altar without their ancestor altar.In China,Vietnam,Japan,Korea;in natural Buddhist families (who haven't taken the Refuge) they are always burning incenses for their ancestors,their faiths (Buddhism or non-Buddhism as Taoism,Confucianism or Shinto) every day in any time they could!But in the end of all their prayers (100%) is "Glory to Buddha Amitabha" (Nam mô A di Đà Phật)! Hey!You are not answer my questions yet!Aren't you respect me? I will fight to protect for the truths about Buddhism but by peaceful ways!And I am confident to swear on my honour with all of you: I only said the truths and the truths forever.If I am a liar I will be punish in hell! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo_De_La_Paz (talk • contribs)

Once again, Angelo, it doesn't matter at all to me what you believe, or whether you are a liar or not. If you can't supply reliable sources for your numbers, you can't put them in the article. bikeable (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I give you sources but you remove it because you think it is biased but it wasn't,it is true!It shows 91% China's population is Buddhists but I only take 80% is the average result but in fact,it could higher than Vietnam (85%)! You are always deleting my things but you see,I respect all of you and I keep yours and make the mixture (parts of yours,parts of mine).Did you know a proverb: " the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence"???That is why the IQ of East Asians highest!Angelo De La Paz 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not just me; other editors have reverted your changes because vipassanafoundation.com does not appear to be a reputable source, but only speculation. For example, that page lists a few references without any detail, including buddhistchannel.tv April 2007. After looking around for a while on buddhistchannel.tv I found this article, which cites exactly the same study I have cited from China Daily, reporting up to 21% of the population as Buddhist. And the estimate given in the article is "100 million", which is less than 8%.

Perhaps you could get in touch with vipassanafoundation.com and get more detail on where those numbers come from? Until then, I'm reverting again. I notice that every time you revert my change you go back to a version with the 80% estimate in the "by region" and "top 20" tables, which doesn't seem quite appropriate. bikeable (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Donald/Angelo has reverted, and I give him credit for at least now including the sourced estimates (21%) along with the high estimate in the "top 20" tables. However, there's still no reliable source for the 80% estimate, so I'll revert again. Similarly, we desperately need a source for a statement like over 1.1 billion people who are natural Buddhist. Finally, I don't see any reason to change the name of the article, and it's grammatically awkward, so I am going all the way back. Donald, note that having multiple accounts is allowable for some reasons but is prohibited if the intention is to violate wikipedia policies; people who use multiple accounts in violation of rules are blocked. See WP:SOCK. bikeable (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to hear people say the reality???

I've found some "society sources" on Answer Yahoo website.You can read some proofs and see how foreign people've lived in China said about culture and religions in China exactly!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArjPftgl5.aGjGkXYPyu.XojzKIX?qid=20070329080100AAfBDsA

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aireq82Aop6aL.xCqXE0g3sjzKIX?qid=20070204071436AARHLFC

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqB0ksDe_.onqef0L4Dv9CIjzKIX?qid=20070105171540AApJDZ3

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aou0QsnqmFpl2Q1ZBOI9DBsjzKIX?qid=20060811072136AAWxUhM

When I was lived in Vietnam,I've learned in my primary and secondary schools under Communist regime.They taught Communism is the best party and the best model for any societies!And in Vietnam,Communism taught we must consider Ho Chi Minh (the first leader of Vietnam Communist party) as GOD or NATIONAL FATHER and Karl Marx with Vlardimir Lenin are the greatest heroes of all people!(Maybe Communists seem Karl Marx is as similar as Abraham or Jehovah or Allah;Vladirmir Lenin,Mao Zhedong,Ho Chi Minh,etc...are the greatest messengers or Messiahs as Mohammed or Jesus or Moses!) and THEY TAUGHT WE MUST LOVE COMMUNISM AND AGAINST CAPITALISM,BOURGEOIS PEOPLE AND MONOTHEISM (especially Roman Catholics) when I was only 10 or 11 years-old!

It is just like you live in an Islamic country where Sharia law is the best,Allah is the greatest only with Mohammed and Qu'ran is never wrong but in fact those are very contrary!You have no choice!

That is why in some countries,the "boring" and "ill-considered" sources as from CIA,BBC or whatever couldn't better than the reality which is things you must hear,must see and must learn from the origin!

I hope you know and listen!

Best wishes!Angelo De La Paz 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The collection of links that you have provided are a selection of anecdotes. Wikipedia is not in the business of doing research to decide what is the "reality"; that would be original research, and belongs in a journal or other scholarly publication. This is an encyclopedia, and according to its policies should base its facts on published, reliable sources- like the "boring" CIA World Factbook and other previously published studies. Collecting anecdotes from the Internet is just not an adequate source of information- it's impossible to know how representative these anecdotes are, particularly in a country of over a billion people. There certainly should be (and is) an explanatory note in the article pointing out that the numbers for certain countries (like China) are difficult to know accurately because of official policies that discourage counting religious adherence. Likewise, the prevalence of subscription to multiple religious traditions in East Asia makes it very difficult to compare statistics across cultures- the Triple Religion phenomena that is already mentioned. Rather than picking one of China's religions and asserting without basis in research that it is the "primary" one, we should instead stick to reliable, published statistics and note that the ambiguity exists in the source material, rather than trying to pick a single unambiguous answer that over simplifies the issue. --Clay Collier

Some suggestions!

Hi everyone!

I am managing the articles of Buddhism by country (with User:Bikeable);List of religious populations and a little of Christianity by country (with User:Vexorg) and maybe I hope in near future,I can contribute for projects of another religions as soon as possible!

The first;I think we need to update new census of July 2007 from source from http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl which is I think is the most exact!And total population of the World as July 1,2007 is 6,671,226,000.I made it for Buddhism first!

The second;I think we should make the new style for all article of any religious populations by country (Buddhism by country; Islam by country; Hinduism by country) just like Christianity by country did with minimum percentage and maximum percentage from many sources (government,CIA,etc...).But in my mind and mostly people we all know the populations of Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Hinduism could estimate nearly right but with Buddhism,it is very HARD!Some sxample:

1. Christianity in France (51%-85%), Belgium (38-84%),etc...
2. Buddhism in China (21.3%-80%), South Korea (27-48%),etc...

How do you think about my suggestions?

And I want to invite User:Vexorg (Christianity), User:Opticals and User:OsamaKBOT (Islam), I with Clay Collier and User:Bikeable (Buddhism);etc...to found "The Union of Wiki Project Religions".So I want to hear your opinions and replies about that!

Contact me about that on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#Some_suggestions.21

Thank so much!God bless all of you! Angelo De La Paz 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. Pax:Vobiscum 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Approx for Afghanistan

99% of total population is Muslim.Only 1% for other religions (0.3%-0.4% Hindu,0.1% Christian,0.1% Baha'i,0.1%-0.2% Zoroastrian)you can see more in article of Demographics of Afghanistan or any religious populations by country.Remains 0.2%-0.4% could be divide for Buddhism,Sikhism and I know is only 1 Jew in Afghanistan named Zablon Simintov.

Any disagree here? Angelo De La Paz 10:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Approx for PR China

So many people ask why the percentage of China is 80%,not as 8% or 21% or 91%.Here is the reason (from mixture of sources and Adherents,Vipassana Foundation,etc...)

The number of Buddhists ("Triple religion" exactly with Buddhism,Taoism,Confucianism,Ancestor Worship and Shamanism but Buddhism is always the most popular) in China is the remainder after 100% minus:

• Atheists/Agnostics: 8-14% but I take the average is (8+14):2=11% [12] and that number has declined in recent years!
• Christians: 3% (low) - 5.7% (nearly right) but nowadays,the percentage of Christians in PR China could higher as 6% certainly.
• Muslim: 1.5% No more no less.
• Others as Tribal religions,Baha'i,etc...could around 1% as maximum

• • Total: 100-(11+6+1.5+1)=80.5%

That is the real number but with me and many East Asian people will surprise because that numberis lower than Vietnam,Hong Kong and Macau where have influenced by "Westernization","Christianization" stronger than PR China so much!But we must think again,remember PR China is the strongest and most influenced by Communism from nearly past 60 years!Angelo De La Paz 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's going to be very, very difficult to get good data on Chinese religions as long as the CCP remains in power, as it's in their interest to downplay the role religion plays in Chinese life, and individuals are unlikely to publicly talk about their religious beliefs. But readers may recall that through the 1980s, Mongolia was recorded by many statisticians as a dominantly atheist society -- because that's what the government wanted people to think. Now half the country is said to be Buddhist. The Soviet Union was supposed to have abandoned religion, except for a few churches that were basically living museums. Now most Russians count themselves as Russian Orthodox. As long as it's in the government's interest to fudge the statistics, the truth can't be known. RandomCritic 01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to way out on a limb here and say that Vipanassa is operating in a galaxy far far away on sheer conjectural fantasy. Their estimates for China vary wildly between 600M and "the entire population of China". The thing that makes me scoff at the reliability of using their numbers for Wikipedia purposes, however, is their 6M+ figure for Buddhists in the US. If they're seriously quoting this completely unsupportable figure for Buddhists in the US, their numbers for everywhere else are equally suspect. Tomer^talk 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Singapore - Strange Data

Article includes in lot of places very strange data, inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles'. For example it states that 51 percent of TOTAL population of Singapore is Buddhist (that gives an 2,3 millions as an low estimation), while articles devoted to Singapore demographics and religion clearly state that Buddhist are 51 percent of 1) RESIDENT population, that 2) declares itself beliving. Fraction of Buddhist in TOTAL RESIDENT population is 42,5 percent according to Religion in Singapore article. And taking into the accout fact that resident population is only 80,5 percent of total population it gives us (0,785*0,425) 34,2 percent of Buddhist in TOTAL population - that is 1,53 millions. Simmilar errors (in fact overestimations) may be found in data for other countries (I just generally checked Taiwan, Hong Kong and Makau). Such way of presenting data dramaticly reduces realiability of this article and data that are included in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.37.2 (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll see I called into question the numbers for the US above. I don't know what drives this "adherent-countitis" (although it strikes me as a disturbing parallel to the outrageous Muslim over-estimates continually promulgated by various Islamic folks, leading me to question whether this isn't intentional POV insertion by pro-Buddhist editors), but I'm seriously beginning to suspect that Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda vehicle (in both cases). Tomer^talk 07:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, note, for example, that the map declares that 60-69% of the population of N. Korea is Buddhist, although anyone who knows the history of Christianity in Korea knows that prior to the Communist takeover Christianity was far more prevalent in what is now N. Korea than it was in what is now S. Korea... at the same time, Adherents.com declares that Juche has 19M adherents, paradoxically the vast majority of the supposèdly non-religious population of N. Korea, and a number obviously based on the flights of fancy embraced by the N. Korean administration...but still... the relevant fact here remains that the 60-69% number for N. Korea is completely without substantiation...and that's only for ONE country defined here as "majority Buddhist". Tomer^talk 07:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WOW!!! I decided to follow that Singapore data issue and now I find that precentage of Buddhist in that country has increased to 61% (as high estimation). Two sources are given: one doesn't provide any details about the number or precentage of Buddhist in Singapore at all, and the second source clearly states that thera are ..... 14,5 % of Buddhist in Singapore!!!

I know, the numbers for Buddhists on Wikipedia is highly exaggerated, I'll try to change it to more reasonable (sourced) numbers. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.

The heading above was quoted from Wikipedia's verifiability policy. This article violates that policy. -- Boracay Bill 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

According to this article, there are over 700,000 Buddhists in the UK. According to the UK census, there are about 150,000. Peter jackson (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article, like too many list of articles, and especially like too many articles dealing with the topic of religion, is badly sourced. You could make a career out of trying to keep that under control, but you would really need to be devoted to public service to do so. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Spain

The actual 10.000 is wrong. In Spain actually there are are from 200.000 to 300.000 not including asiatic people, according last statement of official organization Federacion de Comunidades Budistas. Read: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/232754/1/

Vipanassa foundation

I have now removed every reference to the vipanassa foundation. I, Nat Krause, bikeable and Tomer all agree that it cannot be considered a reliable source. Since only person disagrees the current consensus is clear: references to the vipanassa foundation should not be used. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I note, tho', that some figures are still taken from there, but not cited, eg UK figure. I'm pleased to see the article is now giving some alternative viewpoints. Perhaps it'll reach the stage where the tag can be removed. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The map

1. I liked the old map's color scheme better, it was easier on the eyes. 2. There are some inaccurate numbers. 3. I think its important to make a distinction between >1% and 1-9%. I'll upload a new version now.Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Angelo, the map you replaced mine with was original research, since you have absolutely no sources for it. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Angelo, wtf?

Uh... Angelo, have you gone insane? What "National Censuses"? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• The least ones. Look again and you can see.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Where? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• According to the least estimates (example: China over 8%, Vietnam over 10%, etc). And the second reason, that is your created map is very unprofessional.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Where exactly can I find these estimates? In what way is it unprofessional? Thanks for catching that India mistake, as well (in the history). Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• If mine is unprofessional, why isn't Moshin's? The only difference in yours is "Buddhism & East Asian" title (which isn't what the article is about), inaccurate numbers, a lack of a "below 1%" color and blindingly bright colors. Your "Triple Gem" is even more similar, using the same colors, just not the <1% color.Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should wearing your glasses now. And once again, it according to the least estimates [13]. And I don't think that your "less than 1%" is needed and it makes that map looks weird, you should respect the original format of any religious population maps, young dude.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Angelo, none of those sources mention the Triple Gem. Give me a link to one source that has percentages for people who have taken Refuge rather than just "these people are Buddhist". "And I don't think that your "less than 1%" is needed and it makes that map looks weird, you should respect the original format of any religious population maps, young dude." That's why its unprofessional? Because you don't think less than 1% is needed? Besides, there's a huge difference between the 1% Buddhists in China and the less than 0.01% Buddhists in a place like Tanzania. Respect the original format? What does that mean? I added something to it, and it made the map more accurate. And please don't call me "young dude".Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In the history you said "why you focus on East Asian countries only?" Can you please clarify? Do you mean:

A) That I am obsessed with East Asian religions, in which case thats just what I'm intrested in, and I also haven't been editing Buddhism pages much recently.

B) That my map lowers the numbers for East Asian Buddhists, in which case thats because you exaggerate the numbers for East Asian Buddhists, but not as much for Southeast Asian Buddhists. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and can you respond before reverting, please? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Angelo, now my map is unsourced? Talk about projection! Can you please go into the talk page and respond to my edits before reverting my edits in the article? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you want? Your "less than 1%" map. I think I could accept it if you are a sensible guy.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I also want to find some evidence for this "taking refuge" stuff. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure but only in Vietnamese (from Vietnam Embassy in the US) but you could ask some Vietnamese users as Blnguyen and ask him about the different between "formal Buddhist" (who have taken the Refuge in the Three Jewels officically) and "cultural Buddhist". And I want to emphasis this again, that you know nothing about the East Asian culture:

"Ước tính, hiện nay ở Việt Nam có khoảng 80% dân số có đời sống tín ngưỡng, tôn giáo, trong đó có khoảng gần 20 triệu tín đồ của 6 tôn giáo đang hoạt động bình thường, ổn định, chiếm 25% dân số. Cụ thể:

- Phật giáo: Gần 10 triệu tín đồ (những người quy y Tam Bảo), có mặt hầu hết ở các tỉnh, thành phố trong cả nước, trong đó tập trung đông nhất ở Hà Nội, Bắc Ninh, Nam Định, Hải Phòng, Hải Dương, Thừa Thiên-Huế, Đà Nẵng, Quảng Ngãi, Bình Định, Khánh Hoà, TP Hồ Chí Minh, Đồng Nai, Lâm Đồng, Sóc Trăng, Trà Vinh, thành phố Cần Thơ..." (its evidence)

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So... one source on Vietnam justifies information for every country? Great logic. Is there anywhere on that page that says specific numbers about the Buddhists that have taken refuge in every country that you mentioned? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, little boy! I know you are a quarrelsome guy. Another example: look at Taiwan, how many percent of the total pop. have taken the Refuge (Buddhism), that is 35% but in fact, the numbers of cultural Buddhists could high as over 90% as many sources have cited before. Or in Mongolia where offcial Buddhist percentage is only 50% if according to the census of Government but according to the latest estimates by CIA, there is about 94% of the total Mongolian pop. are nominal/cultural Buddhists. And remember that in Theravada Buddhism, the Refuge in Three Jewels is an important obligement in anyone life butin Mahayana Buddhism, that is very easy and voluntary. And I don't want to answer any more questions from you about these cases again because it was enough.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Angelo, please don't call me "little boy", for one. With Mongolia where exactly do those sources mention original research. And actually, the CIA estimated 50%, while the Department of State estimated 90-something%. In Taiwan, you still haven't given me a source that says "90% of the Taiwanese population is culturally Buddhist, while 35% have taken the Refuge". Well, If you wont answer any questions, then I guess I'll just revert your edits again, because you are not willing to engage in discussion. 124.186.57.197 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Goes to the main table of this article and you will see it (CIA Factbook, U.S. Department of States)...93% (mixture of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism). I suggest that you should ask User:Blnguyen (a Vietnamese admin) or User:Esimal (a Chinese and a Sinologist) for more details and I remind you that Buddhist numbers were not easy to count it exactly. And I will also revert your un-constructive edits again, because you are not willing to listen and you are always attacking on Buddhist related articles with your anti-Buddhist mind. Have you finished your homework and are you using your secondary school's computer? Angelo De La Paz (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Angelo the numbers are there, but they do not mention the Refuge. At all. 124.186.57.197 (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Now, there are some old documentaries of an anti-Communist organization, from South Vietnam (before 1975):

"...But prior to 1962, there had been no outright discrimination against Buddhists. However, among South Vietnam's 3-4 million practicing Buddhists and the 80% of the population who were nominal Buddhists, the regime's favoritism, authoritarianism, and discrimination created a smoldering resentment...." [14]

And now the Communist Government is also recognized it, there are only over 10 million formal Buddhists who have taken the Refuge in Three Jewels (Mahayana, Theravada and new Vietnamese Buddhist sects as Hoa Hao, Tu An Hieu Nghia, etc) but about over 80% of Vietnamese people are cultural/nominal adherents of Tam Giao (Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism).[15]. In Vietnamese:

"Ước tính, hiện nay ở Việt Nam có khoảng 80% dân số có đời sống tín ngưỡng, tôn giáo, trong đó có khoảng gần 20 triệu tín đồ của 6 tôn giáo đang hoạt động bình thường, ổn định, chiếm 25% dân số. Cụ thể:

Phật giáo: Gần 10 triệu tín đồ (những người quy y Tam Bảo), có mặt hầu hết ở các tỉnh, thành phố trong cả nước, trong đó tập trung đông nhất ở Hà Nội, Bắc Ninh, Nam Định, Hải Phòng, Hải Dương, Thừa Thiên-Huế, Đà Nẵng, Quảng Ngãi, Bình Định, Khánh Hoà, TP Hồ Chí Minh, Đồng Nai, Lâm Đồng, Sóc Trăng, Trà Vinh, thành phố Cần Thơ..."

And look at Hong Kong (another mini China) where the offical census has found 700 thousand people are organized/registered Buddhists (formal Buddhist), only over 10% of the total population. But on the other hand, Hong Kong Government don't forget to noted that mostly people (90%) are cultural/nominal adherents of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism (as "eclectic mixture of local religions") [16][17][18][19][20][21]

I will not happy if you don't understand my explanation about the various estimates again because I was presented many countries as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam and Mongolia. I think I could change the summary of my second map as "Percentage of formal/organized Buddhists (according to the least estimates)." if it's possible.

Little Saim, have you ever lived or travelled to any East Asian countries? Was you born and raised in an East Asian country? Have you learned about the East Asian culture, history or the cultural different between Eastern and Western countries? If you didn't so you must listen and learn it now! Now, I am praying for the victims of Cyclone Nargis and Sichuan earthquake! There is a good Vietnamese proverb for you:

"Đi một ngày đàng học một sàng khôn". It means that you will know or learn many things if you travel here and there. Or if you go out side(may be abroad) to learn u will learn more quickly.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Angelo, what is your problem? Two sources, one on Hong Kong, one on Vietnam do not justify the entire article. I need a source for every single country that you say you have numbers on. You can't just say "Well, these two sources contradict each other. Well, one must be the refuge numbers, one must be cultural/nominal adherents!" that's WP:OR.

I don't appreciate being called "Little Saim", and I really don't see what the Sichuan earthquake and Cyclone Nargis have to do with Buddhism. At all. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Saimsudan stop your insistence. You're incompetent at all in Buddhism-related topics, so, please, avoid damaging this article. Thanks! --87.9.194.72 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

May I direct you to WP:CIVIL, sir or ma'am? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion dispute resolution requested

An editor has requested a Third opinion intervention here. Who are the parties in disagreement and what are the pertinent issues? Please give me a brief description and related diffs. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the dispute is on the number of Buddhists in each country. Angelo De La Paz is arguing that the lower numbers for each country are the amount of Buddhists taking the Refuge, while the higher sources are for general Buddhists. However, his sources don't mention the Refuge at all, except for two of them, which I can't read because they aren't in English (but that doesn't really matter, I'm fine with them. it's just that he only has sources for Vietnam and Hong Kong). That is WP:OR. He's also repeatedly called me "young dude" and "little boy" due to my age, and repeatedly accusing me of "damaging" Buddhism and Chinese religions, of being a fundamentalist Christian, etc. which goes against WP:CIVIL. He's frequently used his own experience as "evidence", saying "Have you ever been to East Asian countries? I have!" which is not evidence, it is personal experience. He also reverted my edit [22] accidentally an IP, saying that it was vandalism. Now, I know that not all of that is from this page, so I'm sorry if I went off-topic a bit.

Anyway, my opinion is that he's totally exaggerating the numbers, adding his own estimates for countries that don't have sources (such as French Polynesia, Bosnia, Cyprus and Bulgaria). North Korea is definitely not 64.5% Buddhist, China is definitely not 21-80% Buddhist, there is no way that Taiwan is 75-92% Buddhist, and no way that Singapore is 61.1% Buddhist. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from other than Third opinion discussion

I have skim through the information presenting here, so I not quite sure what is this argument is about. Anyone who read my writing please do understand that I am not taking side in the name of religion. I just want to share my viewpoint regarding this religion issues. I am a Buddhist, who follows the teaching of Buddha in a sense, but truly, every religion is only the pathway for all the sentient beings to discover who they are while they journeying through this wonderful earth.

In a sense, normally, the world happens through our projection. We view the world through our belief system. Therefore, that view can be very distorting base on our emotion and thinking. However, we have the right to be skeptical. Question everything is the right attitude. If we constantly question without bias, it will help us to discover ourselves, and others around us and finally arrive to the ultimate truth. However, in order to discover the truth, we have to go beyond the name of religion, beyond the Duality of the entire physical world phenomenon around us. We tend to project the world through our minds, include religion based on our upbringing and our environment, and that projection is change through time, nothing is static. Everything in this world is moving constantly; include our thinking, feeling and our projection based on things.

Therefore, based on that projection, we tend to label, "I am a Buddhist. Other is Catholic. I am a Muslim. I am Atheist. Etc..." Labeling have causes such a major suffering, killing, hatred, chaos etc...in this world. Are we that really different? We do look alike in many ways. We do carry the same feeling. We cry when we sad, and laugh when we are happy. We also carry the same physical body, the same blood system, don't we? So, are we really that difference under the classification of religion, I am belong to this religion/this group and I am belong to that religion/this group? :)

When the Astronaut on the spaceship looking down to the earth what does he see? If he seeing people all over all the continents, could he distinguish who is Buddhist, who is Catholic, who is Atheist? No, I don't think so. He will see only people on the same earth. So, are we really that different under the name of religion? :)

There are two level of truth: One of it is the Conventional or Surface Level of Truth and the Ultimate Truth. Conventional or Surface Level of Truth is truth for an ordinary awareness. In other word, all the things that are true for ordinary minds like our own that are taken as real by them-are conventional truths, therefore, truth for an ordinary covering mind. We see every phenomenon happen around us, and it influences on our perception and we believe that is the reality, include that we are an Atheist, we are Buddhist, we are Muslim, etc..., another word for Labeling, Classification, etc..Therefore, true and lie going together on this kind of truth because we are living in the world of Duality. The Ultimate Truth, on the other hand, the Ultimate Level of Reality is "mirrored in the mind of awareness that knows it, in a way that is not lying. This necessarily brings out the situation that all conventional truths are lying to the awareness that knows them, about the way they appear. That Ultimate, appearing to an awareness that knows it is not lying to that awareness, is the Suchness of things-the Ultimate reality of things."

What I am saying is...When we base on some sources of statistic in order to conclude our argument and believe those sources is valid; I think again we have distorted the truth. Where are sources of statistics derive from? Still, it came from the work of statistician, base on the surface truth, base on certain belief, ok; this individual is live in the Buddhist family tradition so he must be a Buddhist, etc...or I am an Atheist etc...because this is what I see, and that is how I feel, how I believe, and since I believe that way, I have to project that way, etc... However, those statistical data to me, cannot be consider valid base upon the quizzical mind. If it valid, it valid only to some degree on the conventional truth, but still is not enough to shed light on this religion issue and have not truly a valid statement while labeling myself and others that he/she is belong to the certain group of religion, etc... and it's certainly be true, likewise with other labeling/classification.

In order to arrive to the Ultimate Truth, one has to constantly question not only the information that they are representing, but also on the questioners themselves. Why I came up with certain belief? Why I am think I am an Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, etc...and why I am behaving the way I am now? Why I am project such an antagonistic statement against someone? Is the root of problem lying within my inner state of mind? In order to find out why, again, we have to exam ourselves deeply in order to understand why we have these kinds of behaviors and actions. We have to exam deeply to the core of things. :)

I would like to share these inspiring words of the Buddha Gotama because I believe this is a guideline to any seeker who want to discover the suchness of thing without distort the valid truth, and who attempt to argument aggressively base on the labeling in the name of religion. These inspiring world of Buddha Gotama is my favorite. :)

"Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).

"But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to ruin and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them.

"When you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly."

I only want to share my viewpoint regarding this religion issue. Please believe me, I have no intention to offense anyone. If I do, I would like to apology because, in reality, this is not my intention. :)

May you all, always live in peace and happiness.

Best Regards,

Third Party. :)

PS. Zen story for fun. :)

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

contributed  18:05, 21 May 2008 By user:71.5.45.34

Um.... excuse me? This is really... um... basically you're suggesting... to remove this article, and replace it with "We Are All One"? No thanks. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

well, the problem also is in your claim of "taking refuge" when this is a personal matter and many times without official registration. In the same way, many countries count their catholics using baptism although this is mainly applied to new borns and baptized adults are not christians. CIA book is not the truth (CIA = truth!! ha-ha) but one need to look modern statistics and opinion surveys. It is a crazy thing saying Taiwan is not 70% buddhists. 1 billion buddhists in China is a quite normal number when they are 1.4 billion people. Arguments of heterogeneous belief has not many sense, or we must apply the same to America and Africa because they are mixing santeria, candomble, etc... with christians beliefs. 53% of Chinese people who had confidence in Buddha according last statistics (cited in article) become an enough data to point at least 800.000 continental Chinese Buddhists. In Taiwan it can reach 80% without difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.77.42 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Taiwan has a Buddhist plurality. But it is closer to 35-40% than 70-80%, due to the large number of Taoists, irreligious, Xiantians, Christians and followers of new religious movements. Buddhism in China is more like 8% up to 20% max. Yes, a large number of people are culturally Buddhist. But one could also argue that irreligious Westerners are "cultural Christians" (even Richard Dawkins, a well known proponent of secularity considers himself to be a cultural Anglican). Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Biases of Editors

Saimdusan is saying that Angelo De La Paz is a Buddhist and is exaggerating the numbers of Buddhists. It may be true that Buddhists might have a bias toward exaggerating some numbers, but we should also look at the biases of those who are arguing for less numbers to be shown. The User Page for Saimdusan shows that he is an atheist and leftist. There is nothing wrong with those views, of course, but that is his bias for wanting less Buddhists to be counted in communist countries so that those numbers will be counted as non-religious / atheist.

Much has been made of my bias (I am author of http://thedhamma.com/buddhists_in_the_world.htm) but my only "agenda" is for correct and accurate counting. Yes, I am a Buddhist, but I can also accept constructive criticism, so if you look at that page, I have now added links to show the studies that I quoted. The average of the figures shown on that webpage is around 42% which would still be at least 500 million Buddhists in China. Theravada1 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a Buddhist, but in the past I have also argued that the number of Muslims shown on the List of Religious Populations page was too low and someone did increase the numbers. I have traveled the world and have noticed a tremendous rise in Islam, especially in Africa. I am not a Muslim, but mention this to show that I am interested in accurate counting, even if it is for increasing the numbers of non-Buddhists. Theravada1 (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, I have no wish to change the facts. What would I have to gain from pretending that certain East Asians are non-religious? My ideology would gain nothing and I would gain nothing. I do not believe that having more irreligious skeptics on the planet makes my position more correct.

The thing is, the fact that China is common knowledge. Regarding Japan, it's not really common knowledge, but most people do not identify with a religion, although they do practice a kind of cultural syncretism between Buddhism and Shinto with a bit of Christianity thrown in. North Korea is even more ridiculous - it's almost completely Juche, and the largest religion isn't even Buddhism, it's Chondogyo (at tens of thousands, but still).

I am not accusing you of any bias. I just think that it's completely false to say that China is anywhere near 80% Buddhist. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of Buddhists in U.S.

The counting of Buddhists in America is also a little problematic since the U.S. Census Bureau does not ask religious affiliation. There are studies that suggest the percentage of Buddhists in America is as low as 0.5% and others that suggest over 3%. Some of the lower estimates claimed that about half of all Buddhists in America are white, European ancestry, which shows that the study was flawed. Any personal observation survey of Buddhism in America by attending meditation groups and temples will demonstrate that the vast majority of Buddhists in the U.S. are still predominantly Asian or Asian ancestry. As a Buddhist I would love to be able to say that Buddhism is so popular that many European and African ancestry Americans are converting, but the reality is still that the vast majority are Asian. Immigration to the U.S. from Asia has been very high due to favorable economic opportunities and more open immigration for those with technical skills, such as in the medical fields. Immigration from Asia ranges from about 1 million to 7 million per year and certainly a sizeable percentage of these immigrants are Buddhist. See: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/immigration1.html Some other reports at the low end are going by official statistics from Buddhist organizations that count and in many of these estimates it is based on counting only one group, The Buddhist Churches of America (which is one of the few that counts their members). The BCA is just one sect inside the Pure Land school of Buddhism, which is a further sub-set of Mahayana, which is a sub-set of Buddhism in general. As far back as 1995 a study showed that 1.6% of the U.S. is Buddhist. Only a few years later the number of Buddhist centers doubled, which suggests that the actual percent of Americans who are Buddhist is from 2% to 3%. See: http://www.pluralism.org/resources/statistics/ I suggest using a conservative figure of 2% for percentage of the U.S. that is Buddhist and certainly not the current percentage showing, which is less than one percent. Theravada1 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Faulty references

I looked at all 4 of the references for the 1.5 billion figure, and here is what I found:

1. Is exactly the same as number 2 2. Is the "Idiot's Guide to Understanding Buddhism", and I found no "1.5 billion" stat in it 3. Was written by the Vipassana foundation, which has been found to be an unreliable source in above discussions 4. Is in Vietnamese, and I can't understand it, but since the other 3 sources were fault, I think it might be as well.

Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition:

• Hong Kong: Neither of the Hong Kong numbers are for Buddhism as a whole. The 10% number is for practicing Buddhists and Taoists, whereas the 90% number is "an electic mix of local religions". They're both somewhat generalizing, but they also say different things.
• Japan: One of the Japan sources is the same page written by Vipassana Foundation. The other two are accurate. I think we should, however, use the academic reference used on the Japan page, as well as add a note that "Higher estimates are for both Buddhism and Shinto. x source argues that these numbers are for the number of people registered at a temple, rather than self-identifying Buddhists or Taoists".
• North Korea: Neither state.gov nor the CIA World Factbook give a 60+% number for North Korean Buddhists. The everyculture.com references does not give any statistics, either. For some strange reason, both the CIA World Factbook and state.gov are sourced twice for the same statistic(s).
• South Korea: State.gov does give around 20% (10 million out of almost 50 million). State.gov is sourced a second time, for the 50% number, but this version of the state.gov data has no statistics on religion, just a list of major religions present in S Korea. Everyculture.com is sourced twice, but neither source gives any actual statistics. Then Korea.net is sourced, but it does not give 50%. It says that half of the population practice any religion, and 43% of those who practice religion are Buddhists.
• Laos: There is only one source given, state.gov, and it does not give a 90+% number. In fact, it gives more of a 50-60+% number. It says that most ethnic Lao are Theravadin Buddhists, but only 40-50% of Laotians are ethnic Lao. The rest are from a large number of ethnic groups, most of which practice animism.
• Macau: State.gov is sourced three times this time. The first state.gov source does indeed say "17%". The second source gives no where near 80+%, as the source says that only 43% of the population practice any religion. The third state.gov source does give a high number, but it is 79.3%, not 85%. The CIA World Factbook does indeed give a 50% number for Macanese Buddhists.
• Malaysia: The state.gov source referenced gives a 19% statistic, not 22%.
• Mongolia: The CIA source does indeed say "50% Lamaist", but the other two sources say "93% of ethnic Mongolians" and "90%", not 94%.
• Singapore': The CIA source does say "42.5%" for Buddhists. However, the state.gov source gives 51% for "Buddhism, Taoism, ancestor worship or other faiths traditionally associated with the ethnic Chinese population", not Buddhism as a whole. The virginia.edu source gives a 14.5% statistic, not anywhere near 60%.
• Taiwan: The 35% figure is legitimate, but the 75% figure from state.gov says "Budhists OR Taoists". The 93% number also says "mixture of Buddhist and Taoist".
• Vietnam: The VN embassy does give a low number (10 million), the state.gov source is correct (50% of pop). However, the second state.gov source says 14.3%, not anywhere near 90%, and the last source does not give any statistics.

Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Saimdusan, your bias is showing again. You place communist countries as atheistic, non-religious or other state-mandated philosophies. That is the communist government skewing those numbers, not any unbiased study.

There are studies showing China with 8% Buddhists, 16% Buddhist, 23% Buddhist, 40% Buddhist, 80% Buddhist, and 91% Buddhist. A higher percentage of about 60% to 80% of 1.3 billion Chinese, puts the total population of Buddhists to at least 1.5 billion.

The "Idiot's Guide to Buddhism" does amount to at least 1.5 billion Buddhists in the world, because if 91% of the Chinese are Buddhist (according to that source), then that would be 1.2 billion just in China! Add at least another 400 million from the rest of the world and you get 1.6 billion Buddhists. That percentage is probably a little high, but even if you use a smaller percentage of about 60% to 80%, then that would still amount to about 1.2 to 1.5 billion Buddhists.

Theravada1 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources please? What page of the Idiot's Guide? My "bias" isn't "showing". I simply checked the sources used in this article, and found that they do not say what the article says that they do. Actually, it's not "at least 400 million" in the rest of the world. It's 400 million altogether, including 100 million Chinese - so that's actually 300 million outside of China.

Honestly, EVERYONE is biased. I'm biased, and you're biased. I just have the decency to admit it - look, your account is named after a Buddhist school!Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Saimdusan, Of course my username is a Buddhist school; I have never denied that I am Buddhist. In the years that I have been on wikipedia, I have made it clear that I am Buddhist. There was discussion about my site and the lack of sources, so I improved it and added sources for all information. I do not just rely on one source, nor do I rely on biased sources. I certainly do not use communist governments as sources because they are known for skewing the information, insisting that everyone in their countries follows the State-mandated philosophies, which is not true.

The Idiot's Guide to Understanding Buddhism is a known source for one of the higher percentage amounts (91%). I don't have the book with me right now, but it is somewhere near the beginning, around chapter 2 or 3. I can get you the exact page number in a couple of weeks.

Most almanacs and references that state there are about 400 to 500 million Buddhists do not count any Chinese as Buddhist. If you take a conservative percentage of about 50% for the Chinese, you have about 650 million Buddhists just in China + the 400 million from the rest of the world and you have 1 billion total. Or even if you count only 350 million for the rest of the world, it still comes to 1 billion. But I admit, the counting is difficult to get an exact number, so a range is best. I am Buddhist, but I have said that the number of Muslims is under-counted too. There have been some improvements there, but the numbers are still a little low (for the numbers of Muslims).

Theravada1 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"I have never denied that I am Buddhist", well then perhaps you should WP:Assume good faith and stop accusing other users of bias? Conservative percentage of 50? Where did you get this number from? Those 400 million and 350 million numbers are all for the world as a whole, they take into account 100 million Chinese.

Also, are you denying what I have shown above, ie that they don't say what the article says that they do? Because all; you seem to be upset about is the China numbers, rather than the fact that many of the other numbers are pulled out of nowhere. The Idiot's Guide was sourced twice for the same data in the same sentence; the Vipassana sources are unreliable according to discussions above; and the final source is in Vietnamese. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not upset about the China numbers. I think the range is a good idea and that is what is used here at Wikipedia. Perhaps you should use the WP:Assume good faith which you quote. I have said more than once that I admit my site did not have all of the sources at first and I took the suggestions here over a year ago and added all of the sources, yet you continue to call it "unreliable." The numbers are not pulled out of nowhere and now there are reliable sources and studies quoted here and at the sites in the footnotes.

Theravada1 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The number of Buddhists in China is currently showing as a range from 105 million to 277 million to a little over 1 billion. I don't have a problem with that. The range is a good thing. That way people can make their own judgments based on the numerous studies.

Theravada1 (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Theravada, you're not listening to a word I'm saying! Read the above, check the sources yourself; whoever added these sources massaged the numbers and even pulled some out of nowhere! Many of the sources do not mention any statistics, and others mention statistics but say "Buddhism and Taoism" or give numbers far lower or slightly lower than what the article shows. I have assumed good faith, it is you who have called me "biased". Of course, I'm biased, and you are too. All we can do is make the best article we can based on the available sources, and yet this article does not say what the sources say. It really should only be 105-277 million, because the only source that there is for the ridiculous 1 bil figure is Vipassana foundation and some Christian evangelical site. All reliable sources put the figure far lower. Also, Theravada1, do you agree with the article's claim that North Korea is 64.5% Buddhist? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not listening to your own words. Your own words talk of WP:Assume good faith and then you reject any sources that place the number of Buddhists at 1 billion or more. Alpha Books places it well over 1 billion by the mere fact that they say 91% of China is Buddhist. That would make about 1.2 billion Buddhists just in China, not even counting the number of Buddhists in other countries. You also reject Vipassana Foundation, simply because it is a Buddhist site. There were some lack of references showing several years ago, but those have all been fixed. You also reject another source and site simply because it is Christian. So the only sources you want to accept are from totalitarian communist regimes who make up numbers to suit their communist idelogies. Follow your own WP:Assume good faith words and leave the numbers alone. Right now there is a range, and that is probably the most fair way to show the numbers for some countries.

Yes, North Korea is probably at least 64.5% Buddhist. No need to blindly accept what the communist government states. 64.5% is still much lower percentage than the percentage of Buddhists in neighboring countries (such as Burma, Thailand, etc.). Theravada1 (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, one of the sources cited in the Religion in China article, Counting the Buddhist World Fairly (2004) by Dr. Alex Smith, concludes that the 2004 figure for the world buddhist population was "almost one billion.", Alex Smith (2005). "Counting the Buddhist World Fairly". In David Lim (ed.). Sharing Jesus Holistically with the Buddhist World (illustrated ed.). William Carey Library. ISBN 9780878085088. gives more detail, concluding that the 1998 figure was 680.44–953.18 million. There, Dr. Smith put the 1998 figure for North Korea at 0.38–6.93 million (1.7–31.2 percent). This WP article provides three cites of two sources in support of the 64.5% figure for North Korea (one source is cited twice). AFAICT, neither of the cited supporting sources do support that figure. I have run into similar disconnects in the past looking at supporting sources cited in this article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Theravada, you don't understand. I'm not saying "remove all the higher numbers". I'm saying "make the article reflect what its sources say". Right now, the article pulls numbers out of its own arse, and gives references for these numbers that DON'T ACTUALLY GIVE THOSE NUMBERS.

There is absolutely NO reliable source that would put North Korea's number of Buddhists and 65%. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Angelo De La Paz's images at the top of the article are also WP:OR. They cite no references that actually say what the images are saying. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my points regarding Dr. Alex Smith's estimates below.UkFaith (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

1.5 billion estimated Buddhists wild and unsubstantiated.

Unsubstantiated References-

Ref 23 & 24 main article refer to page 35 of the [Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Buddhism] (Link to actual page )

The highly suspect 91% quoted is a "Rough Estimate" for China and does not seem to draw a distinction between Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Confucianism or Ancestor Worship. A footnote states "Census conducted around 1990", but is unreferenced.

Ref 25 main article. Vipassana Foundation

There are a number of reports on this page which are intended to support a claim of over 1.5 billion buddhists worldwide, with between 670 million to 1 billion Buddhists in China alone. I read through each of these reports on this site which I found do not substantiate this claim in anyway.

[U.S. State Dept.] report - esitmated around 104 million Buddhists in China ( 8% of the population ).

[BBC News] report & the [China Daily] report both refer to the findings of Tong Shijun and Liu Zhongyu of Shanghai-based East China Normal University who findings are similar to that of the US state reporting about 200 million believers (in China) "are Buddhists, Taoists or worshippers of legendary figures such as the Dragon King and God of Fortune"

The report by [Seanetwork.org article by Dr. A. Smith] 2004 has been removed however similar claims regarding Buddhist populations are made by Dr. Alex Smith in the book Sharing Jesus holistically with the Buddhist world and is actually intended as a guide for Christians to convert Buddhists.

Chapter one estimates a world Buddhist population range between 680 million and 953 million and is largely dependent on guessing China at a range of between 372 million and 621 million.

Other scholars question the validity of these figures which treat Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism mixture as one in China, Korea, and Japan. The book argues that the mixture of these elements even together with Ancestor worship and Shamanism are "syncretized into one Buddhistic whole" and "galvanized into one whole system in the Buddhist's mind".

These estimates do not really concentrate on Buddhists. If China's esimate is replaced with that of cited estimates which do then the world total Buddhist poulation becomes much closer to the majority of other referenced material and world estimates.

[Global Center for the Study of Contemporary China] report was unreachable without a password but the site owner admits the report actually only stated 23% which he interpreted as 98%.

[Buddhist Channel article, July 7, 2009] is the most current report and states that recent press reports' estimate there are 300 million "religious believers" (in China). This report gives a slightly higher estimate than previous reports which is natural since its the most up to date but does not go on to say what percentage are Buddhists or Taoists etc.

The same claim is also made here refering to the Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Buddhism.

Ref 26 main article is quote from a [BBC news article] written in vietnamese which I translated using this [online trasnlator] and shows the article itself refers to a Newsweek article by Christian Caryl [Armies of the Enlightened] and is completely misquoted. The Newsweek article actually estimates a worldwide Buddhist population of 350 million not 1.5 billion.

Other references...

Ref 22 main article [The CIA World Factbook] estimates Buddhism worldwide total of just under 400 million.

Ref 27 main article [adherents.com] estimates Buddhism worldwide total of 376 million.

350 - 500 million Buddhists worldwide seems to be the most consistent and substantiated estimate.

Please can we remove this estimated 1.5 billion figure as being wild and unsubstantitated which I found was only made by one person who admits to guessing at this figure and who's references do not backup his claims.UkFaith (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are some mistakes above (by UKfaith). The State Dept. report is not just 8% for China, but rather the fact is that the report lists 8% but then states that there are "hundreds of millions" of Chinese who practice various religions together, which certainly includes Buddhism. 23% from the other study was not interpreted as 98% by the site owner as claimed above. But rather the site quite specifically mentions "23% and as many as 98% follow more than one religion, which includes Buddhism." For there to be 1 billion or more Buddhists in the world, there only needs to be about 35% Buddhist in China, simply because China is so large, the most populous nation on Earth right now.

Theravada1 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats complete rubbish.

The State Dept. report does state 8%...thats a fact.

The Vipassana Foundation does interprete the estimate of "Buddhists" wrongly as high as 98% for the very reasons you have mentioned and then goes on to completely guess the number of buddhists in China. This site has also been discredited by other Wikipedians.

The majority of informed scholars treat Buddhism and Chinese Traditional religions separately and its wrong to keep trying to mix these two for the sake of bolstering world estimates.UkFaith (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Also China would need to be around 55% ..not 35%....do the math.UkFaith (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"complete rubbhish"? How profound. That's just an ad hominem, not contributing to the discussion.

When a report uses a range, you simply accept the lowest number in the range and ignore the rest.

"Do the math"? Okay. 55% of the population of China (1,339,304,423) equals 736,617,433. To make it one billion, that would :::::mean that there are only 263,382,567 Buddhists in the world, not counting China. I don't know any reference that places the :::::number of Buddhists that low, since nearly all references have previously incorrectly counted China with zero to come to the :::::estimate of 400 to 500 million Buddhists. Theravada1 (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it was complete rubbish..

Maybe you should get that calculator of yours out again....current estimates including those of Chinese press put the number of Buddhists in China between 100 million and 200 million...what bit dont you understand? UkFaith (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Another ad hominem again. When are you going to learn? Those logical fallacies do not add to a discussion and weaken your position seriously. You have a tendency to write with numerous logical fallacies, including, but not limited to: ad hominem, bare assertion fallacy, base rate fallacy, red herring, straw man, and especially suppressed correlative, where you only look at one set of statistics and ignore all others or take the lowest number in a range and ignore the others. It is no wonder that you are repeatedly being blocked from editing by the Administrators of Wikipedia. Theravada1 (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Theravada, please learn what those terms mean before you accuse someone of them. 'Ad hominem' means 'against the person' in Latin. He was saying that your ideas are complete rubbish. Therefore, it is not ad hominem, as those are the ideas that he's critiquing anyway.

How on Earth is he using a bare assertion fallacy? What, you think that any article that uses reliable references is using this? If so, all of Wikipedia is based on it. You think that every article that references the CIA World Factbook or US Department of State is using bare assertion?

Straw man? Has he reduced your arguments to something that is easier to argue against? No, he hasn't. All he's done is pointed out that your ideas are not supported by most of your references and the references that do support them are unreliable.

I really don't see the [[red herring]. Where has he changed the conversation to derail an argument that he was losing? I honestly don't see it - probably because it isn't there.

Regarding suppressed correlative, so I guess all of Wikipedia has committed this fallacy by having a policy on WP:RS. If I made a website, and said that there are five sextillion to the power of googol Buddhists in China, would you be forced to include it in the article simply because it's there? Why not? Let me answer that question for you - it's because I did exactly what Vipassana Foundation did - pull it out of my arse. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Saimdusan, there you go again. More accusations with no basis. You need to read the list of logical fallacies articles right here on Wikipedia and stop misrepresenting my positions and making up things to suit your atheist agenda. You have admitted your bias -- good for you, now stop making up things about others. UKfaith has been banned for behavior similar to what you are doing, with those accusations. Suppressed correlatives and bare assertions are doing something like looking at a statistic from a study that reports that 8% to 40% of a population is Buddhist and stating that the report is 8% and any reference to any range within the range shown is false. It is picking and choosing to find the statistic and using the bottom number in a range and ignoring the rest. Wikipedia is NOT based on base assertions and if there are, I am sure some editors will be quick to correct them.

Theravada1 (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually did read the list of logical fallacies here on Wikipedia. The reason I am not accepting these 'highest estimates' is because either 1) the sources don't say what the article says they do or 2) the sources are unreliable. If you feel that I'm being uncivil and personally attacking you, quote a particular personal attack that I've made (preferably with a link to where I made it) and I'll try to avoid doing it again in the future. I don't feel that I've made any personal attacks, all I think that I've done is point out that your sources are faulty. I don't think the ban on UKfaith is particularly relevant to me, I can't know personally what he did to deserve it so I'll simply stay out of that issue. If anything, to me it seems that he was unwilling to compromise as there was an appeal against his ban and he refused it. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I produced multiple sources used in the article that didn't say what the article said they did. I feel that after this you completely ignored me, and personally attacked me by saying that I have an 'atheist agenda'. Unfortunately, I've been having trouble finding where I posted this list of problems with sources. Strange. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

How to get accurate estimates?

Another problem is how to source, interpret, and present information collected about adherents of China's "Three Religions" -

"A mixture of Confucian ethics, the Daoist system of merits, and the Buddhist concept of reincarnation" combined as one.

Can someone who is an adherent to this also be considered seperately as a Buddhist and there for be counted as such? Personally I am against that because I believe it is inaccurate and undermines the a validity of these articles and figures.

Also in Japan, it has been reported by adherents.com that, birth records are registered with local Buddhist temples out of tradition. Temple records and then used in official estimates. If thats true then the amount of actual practicing Buddhists or believers could vary greatly from official estimates.

I think these are two important areas that need to be looked into especially if we are to reconcile the figures for cited worldwide Buddhist total population with the figures we have per country.UkFaith (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that someone who identifies as Buddhist, Taoist and/or Confucian can be added to all three categories. The only problem is that we have no reliable sources for the number of 'Triple Religion' adherents, and I think most of these people are just people who are influenced by Chinese mythology and religious tradition rather than actually claiming these religions. As far as I know, all of this article's sources claim "Buddhism", "Taoism" or "Confucianism". Whoever made this wreck added numbers for Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism together, and even made up numbers where there weren't any. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think step one in fixing this article is just to identify where there is bad information; I've been spot-checking some of the references that are in the giant table, and two out of three have failed verification- the source doesn't actually provide the number given. For facts and figures like this (which are prone to being screwed around with by vandals anyway), we should make certain that the only figures that are listed in the table are ones that have an actual source. I would flag anything in the table where the exact number given does not appear in the source, and then remove entries that don't have verifiable information if a new source can be provided. We need to do away with these figures where someone has looked at a "4.6% Other" population and arbitrarily subdivided that to give a false exact figure for the number of Buddhists.

The multiple affiliation counting I think is not as much of a problem. The idea of multiple religious affiliation rankles with people used to the Western model of conversion and unique affiliation, but is normal in Asian culture. The current article does provide some disclaimers (or it did) that it is difficult to know exactly what adherent figures mean because of different definitions used for who is an adherent; I think it's enough to provide the cited figures and note in the introduction to the article that what those figures mean is subject to interpretation. There is no single, correct standard that WP could adopt for interpreting these figures, so its better to just note the ambiguity and leave it up to the reader to decide what that means. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont see how these figures can be accurate and reliable if estimates that make no destinction between the "Three Religions", or even Shintoism, Shamanism or Ancestor Worship, which is often the case with China, are included? Surely the point of this page is to offer some useful, clear, accurate information. I just think maybe some more thought could be put into this area?UkFaith (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, what would you propose? I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' here- what do you think the 'correct' numbers would look like? Would they not count as a Buddhist anyone who engaged in non-Buddhist religious activities? Who would decide what a non-Buddhist religious activity was? There are already disclaimers in the intro that state that ideas about what constitutes religious membership in Asia may be different from Western norms. Other than that, I don't think we can really report anything other than the sourced statistics. I don't know of any interpretive framework for 'normalizing' these statistics to something else that we could apply, certainly not one that is accepted by people who study this sort of demographic issue. The distinction you are talking about is not drawn because it simply is not operative in the societies that are being considered- it is not the case that someone who makes offerings at a Buddhist temple but also has a shrine to local ancestral deities is "not really" Buddhist- Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, Taoism, etc. simply don't really possess a notion of religious exclusivity. It's also the case in many Buddhist cultures that activities that sociologists call 'non-Buddhist' (such as spirit and ancestor worship) are considered to be part of Buddhism by local laypeople. Temples in Thailand, for instance, may include shrines or images dedicated to Brahmanist deities or local spirits. Neither the people collecting these statistics nor we have the capacity to distinguish who is "really" Buddhist or Shinto from this data, nor is it really Wikipedia's role to decide which idea of religious belonging- the Eastern or Western one- is the "correct" way of judging Western adherence. How do you think this information could be presented differently in a way that would resolve your concern? --Clay Collier (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at adherents.com and buddhanet you will see both sites treat Buddhism and Chinese Traditional Religion seperately.

I believe other scholars do the same.UkFaith (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable for locations where we have figures for traditional Chinese religion and Buddhism from the same survey. We might provide both figures since there is some disagreement about whether or not they overlap- some surveys multi-count people (allow them to respond with multiple answers to the question of religion) and some force a single response. For the figure here we could give whatever the listed number for Buddhism is, and add as a note that their are an additional X people that adhere to traditional Chinese religion, which may overlap with Buddhist practices/practitioners. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This book is another source that talks specifically about counting adherents with multiple religious affiliation- and also about the issue of counting practicing vs. nominal or cultural adherents in Western and Eastern traditions. --Clay Collier (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) I just updated the table entry for Brunei to split out the Chinese traditional adherents reported in the source- thoughts? --Clay Collier (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly the book...if look above topic 1.5 billion buddhists you will see this book has already been discredited and that fellow scholars reject the estimates in the book as being unreliable.

Secondly Brunei...I think what you are doing is all your own personal opinions and desires. This page is about Buddhists. Not about anyone and everyone that identifies in part or practices some small part of Buddhist tradition in part also. Apart from the intro explinations references to Chinese Traditional religions should be removed.UkFaith (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the folk religion info from Brunei. If you want to update the rest of the table with just the information on specifically identified Buddhists for all of the references where the two are mixed, go ahead. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is there now a range of estimates on the Brunei entry? There is only one figure for Buddhist adherents listed in the source. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The figures must have been added by you or someone else previously. I have corrected it.UkFaith (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Clay Collier, regarding 'multiple affiliation', yes this is true. However, we simply need to report on what reliable sources say. WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The reliable sources say "x amount of y people are Buddhists". When they talk about Chinese traditional religion, they're not saying how many Buddhists there are so it should be left out. It's as simple as that. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 20:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)