Talk:Major religious groups/Archive 2

Errors in the numbers
This most massive error: The numbers are completely wrong. As of February 2006 the world population was 6.5 billion. Yet if you add the total number of religious people you get 6.917 billion ± .1 billion. In other words there seems to be more religious people in this world than there are people.... This entire page needs to be rewritten.

The numbers do not match. For example the number of Buddhists in this article is shown as 378 million. But in the article that is suggested alonside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_by_country the total is over 415 million. I suspect the same happens with other religions. Those writting articles should check for sources in Wikipedia itself for the sake of consistency.--Anagnorisis


 * Keeping consistancy with articles is difficult, instead the goal is consistancy with outside sources. All of this information is from the Adherents.com website, which allows us to keep NPOV in this list. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not understand. Yes, it could be difficult, but it should be more difficult to keep consistancy with external sources than with internal ones. In any case it being difficult should not be an excuse for what obviously is an error. Besides, if a source is good for one article, why wouldn't it be also good for the other article? I mean, why not use the same source for both articles instead of using two different ones that give different numbers? Different numbers mean at least one has to be wrong be wrong. Difficult to even try trusting Wikipedia if you use that argument above as a valid excuse. It would have sounded better to say "Ooops somebody made a mistake somewhere which should be checked and corrected" rather than try justifying how different numbers can be used to give the same information. Sorry but I disagree.--Anagnorisis


 * It would not just be difficult, it would be extremely difficult and time consuming to get all the editors on all the articles to agree, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try it, if you want. It would be great if you wanted to go to each of the articles on each religion and make sure that they match the Adherents.com source used in this article.  The issue is that sources vary dramatically in their counts of the number of adherents to a particular faith, so there is rarely a "right" or "wrong" answer -- there are only estimates.  Adherents.com compiles the estimates to come up with a likely number, and, since they use the same methodology actoss all religions, their numbers can be used comparitively more easily than other numbers.  Each article has its own editors, of course, and some of them may object (for good or bad reasons) to using the Adherents.com estimates -- I don't want to fight those battles, I simply want to keep this page accurate.  If you have an issue with the numbers on this page, explain your sources and reasoning.  Otherwise, if you find other pages in error compared to this page, feel free to argue there, but WP does not have a single authority overseeing every article. Instead of arguing on this Talk page, read the Adherents.com methodology and then make your case on the  Buddhism by country page, or whatever. If you have a problem, fix it, and if you need help on how to do that, feel free to ask. Goodoldpolonius2 06:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow! Goodoldpolonius2 a bit testy aren't we? I do not see the point of you responding like this. If you are going to get all testy when someone points something that obviously doesn't make sense, fine. Up to you. Go ahead and defend the inconsistencies. I was just bringing atention to it. I am not going to bother trying to correct them. Lets keep giving out numbers that we know outright are wrong. BTW, that something is not easy should not be excuse for not trying harder and accepting low quality output. I think it is better when one doesn't know something to keep one's mouth shut rather than look foolish saying things that make no sense. What am I saying? I wasn't suppossed to write so much and argue. Sorry.


 * I was not trying to be harsh, and I apologize if I came off that way. What do you propose as a solution? --Goodoldpolonius2 14:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. And now that we are on a more friendly tone :) I admit that I agree with you that it is difficult to make numbers match accross all articles. However I think something can be done (at least tried). What do I propose? That Wikipedia guidelines ask (or suggest) that when linking and article to another one, at least some effort is made to check what both articles say don't contradict each other. I mean, yes it is extremely difficult to check that one article information matches everything said in other articles. But for example, if an article about something ... lets say about ... the Warsaw Ghetto says that in the 1943 uprising 7,000 partisans died during the fighting, and that section of the article has a link (and this is the key, having a link) to the main Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article, then whoever wrote that section and linked both articles should check for one being consistent with the other. This person may not be able to resolve all the inconsistencies, but the guidelines should say that he/she should try. That is all. Cheers. --Anagnorisis


 * Ah, I understand where you are coming from, but my issue is not the difficulty of bothering to check the articles to ensure accuracy, but the difficulty of getting editors on other pages to agree to a common number. Any sharpness of my tone came from frustrations over exactly this sort of fight over standards and sources on other pages, which usually end with a huge bruhaha.  Religion articles in particular tend to have the most POV associated with them of almost any articles on WP, and I hestitate to go into the Buddhism article to change it, for example, since the Buddhists on the page would likely view my lowering their number as an attack.  I would be happy to support your efforts, if you want to take this on, though.  Incidentally, I am glad the Warsaw Ghetto article seems consistant, I spent a lot of time editing that awhile ago. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, now we understand each other and agree. :-) As you noticed I was using the Buddhist case as an example to make the point and not for any particular interest. I would bet the same thing happens with some other numbers for other religions. As to the efforts to take this on, I think you know more about WP and how better to proceed with making this suggestion to have some comment of the sort added to the guidelines. I am very new to making contributions here.--Anagnorisis 19:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Satanism
What is the source of the 2.1 million number? This sympathetic page states that "All totaled, there are about 8,000 to 11,000 Satanists in North America." Religious tolerance states that there were never more than 20k-30k Satanists in North America during LeVay's peak, and there are less now. So, please provide a source to back up your claim. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. The main source of satanism worshippers is 'underground'. The w:orshippers are not open about their beleifs due to christians.When Anton LaVey was head of the Satanist church, there were over 5000 members in USA alone. Satanism has since spread and is becoming widely accepted in south america/canada and french colonies.


 * Wikiphreak, please excuse my correction of formatting, but this will make it easier to follow. You may also want to sign your comments.  In any case, you still need to provide some evidence for your figure.  If you read my comment again, you will see that I actually listed that LeVay may have had as many as 20k-30k followers, so I am not disputing your comment.  The question is how many Satanists are there today?  Previously, I cited sources that gave 8,000-11,000 in North America, this Satanist site says 3,000 in England (which may be too high), and the Pagan Protection Network says 8,500 Satanists worldwide in 1988.  You have yet to provide a source -- they may indeed by underground, but how are you coming up with that 2.1 million number?  The burden of proof is on you. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The figure of 3'000 in England is correct as I am one of them and have met well over 1000 alone in England.
 * /That last comment was posted by 82.34.57.87, who seems to like writing nonsense. --Gareth Hughes 21:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)/
 * This discussion seems to be about some content that is no longer found in the main article. Thus, this topic appears to be closed. &mdash;Wookipedian 01:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism issue
This is concerning the number of followers of Hinduism. For further information, look at the talk page of the article on it.--GatesPlusPlus 14:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * For the sake of consistency and because it is well-sourced, this article uses the Adherents.com population. Adherents has this info as well as the other references on their page supporting the 900 million number, they state that a range of 850 million to 1 billion is common in estimates.  Again, having a single source for these numbers in that chart seems worthwhile.  --Goodoldpolonius2 20:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Confucianism
Confucianism is actually not a religion, but a set of philosophy. Confucious himself, like most of the Chinese in his time, had Chinese folk religion, but it doesn't mean his whole philosophy is a religion. Most Chinese don't consider it as a religion.

It's somewhat like the confusion between 道家(the philosophy of Tao) and 道教(the religion of Tao). Lauzi's philosophy(the philosophy of Tao) is quite close to pantheism or atheism, while "the religion of Tao" was founded by 張道陵 as a polytheism religion. Although the founder of Tao religion claimed and worshipped Lauzi as the ultimate pioneer of Tao religion, the philosophy of Tao is very distinct from the religion of Tao, and Lauzi himself never intended to be worshipped. (both are listed as "Taoism" in Wikipedia however)

Confucianism and worshipping Confucious are distinct. Confucianism is the philosophy of Confucious, like the philosophy of Plato or the philosophy of Socrates, while worshipping Confucious is a part of Chinese folk religion, just like worshipping ancestors.

Falun Gong
On wikipedia itself, it says Falun Gong claims 70 million, and the Chinese officials claim 10 million. How about mentioning this?
 * The article now mentions a Falun Gong estimate of 100 million (from a Falun Gong web site, and also found on the Wiki article). &mdash;Wookipedian 07:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Juche
Juche is said to have 19 million adherents. I guess this is the population of North Korea? --Palnatoke 06:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This entry is preposterous. There is virtually no basis for considering a national ideology to be a religious system. It should simply be removed. Hans Joseph Solbrig


 * There's actually been a good bit of writing which considers national ideologies of this sort as religious systems. However, I would certainly take issue with putting the number as equal to that of the population of North Korea. Osgoodelawyer 00:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

are there any reputable sources, besides adherents.com & that one evangelist writer mentioned, that consider juche a "major religion"? i'd have to also question the assumption that the entire population of the country are adherents of juche as a religion. Appleby 22:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the various notes on this discussion page in this section and elsewhere, it appears to me that there is a consensus to revise the estimate from Adherents.com downwards. I suggest that we cut it approximately in half (to 10 million) and add a note at the bottom about why. We already deviate from Adherents.com on purpose in the case of the Falun Gong, so I suggest that we not "make a religion" out of devotion to its estimates. &mdash;Wookipedian 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A further thought: Juche is considered secular by its followers and seems to have no gods or attainments of ultimate enlightnement or such doctrines. It seems to be more of a political ideology than a religion (although one must admit that it may be inherently difficult to disentangle such concepts from each other in a really disciplined fashion).  So perhaps Juche should just be lumped into the catch-all non-religious category along with atheism, agnosticism, humanism, etc.? &mdash;Wookipedian 06:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. (There was no objection to the suggestion after waiting several days.) &mdash;Wookipedian 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work
This page is really a cool page. I was like 'woah' when I read it. I do question some of the numbers though. Just because there are x million people in N Korea doesnt mean they all follow the state religion. And I wonder how you got the numbers for 1 billion Atheism vs 300 milion Traditional Chinese religion? Do the 1 billion in China really eschew all religion and adopt the communist atheism as their own true feelings? A difficult question im sure but one worthy of mention in my opinion.

Thank you for this page, keep up the good work.


 * Thanks for your support!
 * To answer your question, follow this link given in the article from Adherents.com that explains methodology. For example, on China: "Estimates for atheism alone (as a primary religious preference) range from 200 to 240 million. But these come primarily from China and former Soviet Union nations (especially Russia). Prior to Communist takeovers of these regions and government attempts to eradicate religion, both places had very high levels of affiliation with organized religions (especially Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Taoism), as well as high levels of participation in and belief in traditional local traditions such as shamanism, ancestor ceremonies, spiritism, etc. Since the fall of Communism in former Soviet nations and the relaxation of anti-religious policies in China, observed religious affiliation and activity has increased dramatically, especially in Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam. "  You can find the rest of the data on the stats from that link too...
 * --Goodoldpolonius2 14:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrians' number
See(everywhere about 150,000):
 * http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm
 * http://gilbreth.ecn.purdue.edu/~bulsara/ZOROASTRIAN/wawz.html
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/onassignment/iran/
 * http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0005460.html
 * http://www.the-south-asian.com/April2001/Parsis-the%20Zoroastrians%20of%20India.htm
 * http://www.parsijourney.com/
 * http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/zoroaster_zoroastrians_in_iran.php

And I found no information about so big number (over 2 milions). Vuvar1 22:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Vuvar, the issue is that there is tremendous controversy over the numbers of affiliates of various religions, so we have to go with a source to make this list. Adherents seems to be acknowledged as the best independent database, and offers defenses of their numbers, so that is what we have based the list on.  In previous years, they agreed with your figure of 150-250 thousand.  This year, they substantially updated the number, claiming that previous figures were actually undercounts, because Zoroastrianism has been officially suppressed in many countries, most especially Iran, its spiritual center.  Other evidence suggests that there is a substantial Zoroastrian community that either hides its beliefs, or is suppressed, see for example, this article in the National Review.  Here is what Adherents says:
 * "Zoroastrianism: This religion is in every major comparative religion text book, yet during the 1990s and for a few years thereafter it was actually listed in the Guiness Book of World Records as the "major religion nearest extinction." The Zoroastrians (or "Parsis") are sometimes credited with being the first monotheists and having had significant influence in the formation of current, larger world religions. To whatever degree that is true, some observers believed Zoroastrianism was in a precarious state and its position as a "major" contemporary world religion was tenuous. Prior to some increased reforms, most Zoroastrians did not believe in allowing conversion. They had even stricter rules than Jews about whether or not children of mixed marriages would be considered Zoroastrians. Until about 2002, most published estimates for the world total of Zoroastrians were 100 to 125 thousand. More recent publications of many major encyclopedias an world alamanacs include population estimates of 2 to 3.5 million. The government of India has actively encouraged the growth of its Zoroastrian population. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and subsequent U.S.-led intervention in the Middle East, the Parsees of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been receiving less persecution than before, and have been less reticent about identifying themselves, and there seems to be an increased respect for and interest in this classical Persian religion which was once one of the largest in the world. The current estimate posted on this page of millions of Zoroastrians in the world (rather than 100,000 to 150,000) is still under evaluation. The number does not represent an exponential explosion the number of actual Zoroastrians (although there has been some growth in numbers), but is a result of re-evaluation of the existing population. The majority of the world's Zoroastrians are Parsees who now thought to live in the Middle East. Years of suppression under Muslim-dominated cultures and governments has doubtless led to erosion in some aspects of their community, relative to their co-religionists in India and even among expatriate populations in places such as the United States and the United Kingdom - places with far greater levels of continuous religious freedom. "
 * We have to decide whether to use the new number or not, in light of this information. I would suggest with stick with Adherents, which does far deeper research than I think wer are likely to do on the subject.  --Goodoldpolonius2 23:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I myself am a Zoroastrian enthusiast and don't know what to make of these new numbers. Can a relaxing of strict clerical rule increase the number this much? In any case, relying on census numbers from Iran or Pakistan is laughable - they are going to pad the Islamic numbers - each according to the ruling sect in the respective country to boot. For future referance though, Iranian Zoroastrians call themselves many things - but not Parsi. Zartushti is a better term, or Irani (Zoroastrian) in the scholarly context [in contradistinction to Indian: Parsis]. I also doubt that things will improve any more under the rule of Ahmadinejad; whereas Khatami met with Zoroastrian Mobeds (priests) and leaders. But in summation, the world-wide Zoroastrian community has proved very resilient - a common comparison often used is with the Jews, whom have also overcome dehumanizing persecution. I sincerely do hope in a very POV sentiment that these numbers are true, but can't help but be a little cynical as I, also, have never seen numbers anywhere near this estimate. Khirad 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Abrahamanisim?
Christianity, Islam, Judaisim, and Bahi'ism are all just sects of Abrahamanisim. Also, Buddisim, Shintoism, Taoisim, and Confucianism are often worshipped together (shinto + buddah = Japanese religion) (buddah + tao + confucuian = many easern Asians).

Superstud

===>What? "Abrahamanisim" is not a definable religion, but a vague (almost to the point of meaningless) category for several clearly distinct religions that are incompatible with one another. The variety of Eastern religions are certainly syncretized, particularly in China and Japan, but that doesn't mean they are somehow not distinct. They all have different histories, worldviews, adherents, and make specific, mutually exclusive claims about the world. For that matter, since Buddhism is a religious offspring of Hinduism (as are Jainism and Sikhism), by your reasoning, they are all one large religion also. Furthermore, Sikhism was founded as a syncretistic faith between Hinduism and Islam, so are both of those huge religious traditions really the same mega-religion? Of course not. Justin (koavf) July 9, 2005 17:37 (UTC)

The article now mentions such high-level families of religion (Abrahamic religion and Dharmic religion) in two places &mdash; the 2nd paragraph of the introduction, and one of the maps of world religious prevalence. I think that is sufficient to deal with this issue. &mdash;Wookipedian 21:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Judaism
I know it's hard to get accurate numbers for the followers of an particlaur religion, but the figure given for Judaism looks high. The Jewish population article estimated 12-14 million Jewish people in the world, not all of whom will actually follow the faith. Hard to see how Judaism can have 15 million adherents at the current time. What is this figure based on? Indisciplined 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The cited source actually estimated only 14 million, and I have therefore adjusted the number. But really, these estimates should be considered rough.  I would imagine that the tolerance range on most of the numbers is at least about 25%.  &mdash;Wookipedian 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mormons
I have added Mormonism under major branches of Christianity. My reasons follow: they are a major American (United States) contribution to Christianity, have somewhat distinct theology from the rest of Christianity but share the basic characteristics of that religion (i.e. a belief in Jesus as the Messiah), but aren't Protestant. These reasons qualify Mormonism as a seperate branch of Christianity distinct enough to merit inclusion without being under the "others" section. Please, if you have any problems with this at all, contact me here or on my talk page and I'm sure we can work through our disagreements. --Pahoran513 23:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Mormons are necessarily outside of the "other evangelical faiths" description included with Protestantism. To have Mormons be seperate under Christianity, we surely must include a long list of other religions, including Quaker, Amish, Pentecostal Snake Handeling, Geeche Baptist, 7th Day Adventists, on and on. I suggest that we include it in under the Protestant category. --furidoman 12:20, 27 August 2006


 * I think Mormons are sufficiently distinct, notably in having their own additional books of scripture, to qualify as distinct from Protestantism in a way that the others do not. Mormonism's origins, also, do not permit any easy identification of a parent among the Protestant churches, in the way that one can more easily for the Amish, or the 7th Day Adventists. Better comparisons would be to Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science. john k 12:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with john k. Not only do Mormons not consider ourselves Protestant, Protestants don't consider ourselves Protestant. And honestly, I would have no major objections to adding Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Science to the list--my only reservation is their smaller number of members (which is not to say Mormons are huge--just distinct), and that they are not as famously American. But hey, adding them would not hurt anything. But I do object to Mormons being Protestant--one of our major beliefs is that Protestant faiths, not just the Catholic, have lost God's authority, and a Restoration of that authority was needed. That alone (the beliefs in the errors of Protestantism) should disqualify Mormonism from that classification. --Pahoran513 16:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it starts to get problematic when you do it based on self-definition, alone. Then you start to get issues with fundamentalist christians who think of themselves only as "Christian," and so forth, despite having orthodox protestant views on theology.  Mormonism does seem sufficiently distinct, to me, to not count as within Protestantism, though. john k 18:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

John, you are right--self-definition alone isn't enough. But there is ample theological evidence and non-Mormon claims to promote Mormonism as a seperate branch of Christianity. In fact, sometimes on Wiki it is hard to even be included as Chritians at all. But we are, and we aren't Protestant. Therefore, unless someone has another opinion or something to say, let us consider this discussion over. --Pahoran513 05:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Technologysism
listen Im a Technologysist and I feel the new religion of Technolgysism is being left out. we propably have like not even 0.10% but we are a religion from henderson, colorado. - DV


 * Then write wiki articles about it, find some verifiable/citable research on numbers, and post it here. :) You are an editor too, DV. --Christian Edward Gruber 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Humanism
Humanism is mentioned twice: under Non-religious and then later again.--Ortho 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not any more. I just fixed that.  (Of course the next edit might "unfix" it.) &mdash;Wookipedian 06:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

China
The assertion that nearly one third of Chinese people are religious is, frankly, bizarre. The adherents.com figure comes from the World Christian Encyclopedia. I don't know how what their methods (or their biases) are, but if nothing else the number seems to depend on a very loose definition of religiousness. I could keep talking, but would have nothing verifiable to say. If the World Christian Encyclopedia is our only source, then I suppose we are stuck with their definition, but it seems very misleading. Pissant 01:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal
Let all the religions on the page be listed as major religions and keep the classical talk as a historical discussion about what people used to think of as major religions (and add the views of others besides Christians, if possible). Population does not always relate to significance - Singapore has a little over 4 million people, yet it is considered a major economic and military power. Similarly, Sikhism, with 22 million people, is a major religion in India (and has a major influence in the country even with 1 billion non-Sikhs, see Indira Gahndi if you want to know more) and, increasingly, the West; while Zorastrianism, with just 150,000 adherents, is considered "major" because of the role it played in theology and the history of the Middle East. The splitting hairs game is silly and arbitrary. --Goodoldpolonius2 07:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am taking a little break because I have some disagreements but I don't want that an edit war should start here. I took a day off and now thinking of taking some more days off probably even a week or two. This I am doing in as shown in Staying cool when the editing gets hot Although i don't agree with the current state of the Page but I don't thing that there is any factual problem with it. but rather problem is of 'opinion' that where to draw the line we both agree that any line will be 'arbirtary' but if we want to distinguish between two we have to draw it some where. and its locatoin will be always contoversial. Although I have some ideas in mind that how to make it more acceptable to all (Yes I have some ideas which can make even this possible!) and when I'll return I'll let u know and till then I hope you won't change it a lot further in disputeable areas.
 * thanks in advance
 * With regards
 * Zain 14:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Zain, I won't touch anything we have been debating, though I main clean up the grammer a little. While you are gone, think if any line is really necessary, of it we just can't keep a list of all these religions as "major" religions.  In any case, I am sorry if you felt upset.  --Goodoldpolonius2 15:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Also - I think you are puttting too much faith in these numbers. Even the best studies have much larger margins of error than expected.  That makes any line very arbitrary. Numbers from Adherents.com:


 * Spreads can be as great as 100%: World estimates for Buddhism vary between 230 and 500 million, with most around 350 million
 * Definitions of religions are difficult (especially unorganized religions): According to the 1997 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year, there were 10,292,500 adherents of "Spiritism" in the world. But a recent census from Brazil indicates 15 million professed spiritists (practitioners of Umbanda, for instance), as well as a fringe following (not officially professed, but possibly quite avid) of up to 50 million.
 * Shinto numbers could be as high as 100 million or as low as 4: Shinto is one of the "classic" eleven or twelve "major world religions." But adherent counts for this religion are problematic and often misunderstood. In a nutshell, Shinto is simply the indigenous ethnic practice of Japan and its importance is almost entirely historical and cultural, not contemporary. The number of adherents of Shinto are often reported as being around 100 million, or around 75 to 90% of the Japanese population. These figures come from the Shukyo Nenkan (Religions Yearbook), put out by the Ministry of Education & Bureau of Statistics, and they obtain their figures by asking religious bodies for statistics
 * Even large religions have error rates of 400 million people: Contemporary figures for Islam are usually between 900 million and 1.3 billion, with 1 billion being a figure frequently given in comparative religion texts, probably because it's such a nice, round number. Goodoldpolonius2 16:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

new on the scene == ==javascript:insertTags('--Goodoldpolonius2 00:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)',,); Your signature with timestamp

seems to me there's a lot of debate about which religions are major and which are minor. seems to me that's an inherently pov issue that we can never resolve. seems to me that even if we did resolve it, it wouldn't help anything. seems to me if we renamed the page "World religions" this wouldn't be a problem. thoughts? Ungtss 19:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Ungtss, welcome. Yes, it is inherently POV to define major and minor religions by ourselves (see my argument with Zain above, where I make that point.)  Other people, however, have defined major religions in a number of ways, mostly to distinguish religions that should be studied from the near-infinite number of cults and sects, but sometimes for ideological purposes.  That fact is encyclopedic, and the importance of the term is seen in that there are 70,000+ Google hits on the quoted phrase "Major world religions."  In this article, we should discuss how others define major world religions, in context.  I think that the intro does this. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * works for me:). i hadn't thought of the "cults" problem -- i suppose if this were just "world religions," we'd have an endless list including "Tomism" and "JoeSmithism," wouldn't we:)?  Thanks:).  Ungtss 21:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consistency
On what basis is Sikhism the 5th largest religion? Using the link behind the "5th largest number" link Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Budism, Chinese traditional are the biggest 5 with Primal Indigenous also larger. I would concede that Primal Indigenous is a catch all and so 6th largest might stand. I understand that consistency and interpretation of numbers is difficult but the credibilty of this article (especially on the front page) is badly undermined when the number on the front page is at odds with the page it links to and claims as its source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio Alastair (talk • contribs)


 * I don't understand your question. Eliminating the vague non-organized religion categories of Chinese traditional, primal indigenous, and African traditional/diasporic (and the non-religious/atheist/agnostic/secular/whatever) leaves us with four that are bigger than Sikhism (specifically, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism), making Sikhism the 5th largest reasonably-coherent/organized religion. So what is the problem? &mdash;Wookipedian 04:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Speculative "Secular/Nonreligious/etc" categorization
Goodoldpolonius2: "The good thing about Adherents.com is that they give sources for each number, and they have a rather large database, they don't survey themselves, so the methodology shouldn't be an issue"

Adherants.com: "This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious)."

my bolding

Adherants.com:"The "Secular/Nonreligious/etc." category is probably the most speculative estimate in this list, as this segment of society is difficult to count. The vast majority in this grouping are not aligned with any kind of membership organization. Most figures come from census and survey data, which most countries conduct only infrequently. "

I think the issue here is one of interpretation. Adherants.com are clearly biased against atheism.

How many atheists? It appears to be a matter of opinion:

See also Atheism

I would have hoped that national censuses were up to the task of accurately capturing such statistics accurately, but as noted by adherants.com "Most figures come from census and survey data, which most countries conduct only infrequently". So their other figures do not come from census data? Or, the data is speculative because we don't have annual censuses? I'm not sure that I follow their point.

I think the problem is one of marginalisation of "other" beliefs by governments. For example, in Australia there are 120+ sub-categories for "religious affiliation" recognised by the national census taker, the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Over 80 of these are Christian, the two most popular being Anglican and Catholic. The other 78+ sub-categories of "Christianity" represent the beliefs of 22% of the population. The other major world religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc) only get one sub-category each. That doesn't sound representative to me.

For the 15.5% of Australia's whose religious affiliation is "No Religion", there are just 4 named sub-categories - atheism, agnoticism, rationalism and Humanism (belief system). The 5th sub-category is No Religion nfd (nfd = no further definiton). The ABS do not provide a break-down of these figures, so Australian society cannot rely on its own government to tell them how many Australians are atheist, rationalist etc. All we get is one grand total for the nonreligous. That doesn't sound fair to me.

I'm curious to hear what the experience of people is around the world. What explicit choices do you get on your census form. There's usually an "Other" category, so how many religious affiliations does your government census taker recognise (they usually have something called a census dictionary)? Once they have the figures, does your government treat the nonreligious and religious figures equitably? That is, do you know how many people fit in each of the nonreligous sub-categories?

--Couttsie 23:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - you can't use a poll about religion to determine the number of atheists, as few atheists consider it to be their religion. Whilst it's true that not all of the "non-religious" people will be atheists, the figure is higher (often much higher) than 0.5% (and indeed, it should also be pointed out that atheists will be included in some of the other categories, eg, Buddhism).


 * Whilst I'm here - what is the source for "the great majority of which are agnostics who believe in a higher power, without specifically adhering to a religion"? Firstly, I'm not convinced that the majority of non-religious people are people who believe in God (or "higher power") - I believe we need a source if we're going to make that claim. Even the supplied adherents.com link says "Of the people in this grouping, it is estimated that 40 to 50% have a stated traditionally "theistic" belief in God, deities or a Higher Power", so I don't see where this claim comes from.


 * Secondly, the claim that these people are also agnostics seems very unlikely to me - in my experience, few people who identify as agnostic also say that they believe in God or a higher power. The link says " Most are agnostics.", but that doesn't mean agnostic theists! And quibbling between atheism and agnosticism just gets us into the word definitions game - the point is that both are usually those who "don't believe in God", it's just a question of which label is used.


 * I'd suggest changing the category to "Secular/Irreligious". I think it's safe to assume that anyone who answers "Agnostic" or "Atheism" can be counted as "Secular/Irreligious". Including Atheism and Agnosticism just confuses the issue, as these are terms are not mutually exclusive either to religion, or each other. It's also misleading, as atheists and agnostics may be included in some of the other listed religions.


 * The question of how many people are atheists is a separate issue to religion, and off topic here - it's better dealt with in the Atheism article. Mdwh 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I only raise the question of atheist numbers here to draw attention to the lack of credibility of adherants.com as an unbiased source of information relating to statistics for the nonreligous. Thanks for your comments, which I agree with. --Couttsie 00:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Other Belief Systems
Humanism is an organised belief system (the wider meaning of religion), with the IHEU as the world body, the Amsterdam Declaration as its official statement of principles, and the Happy Human as a world recognised symbol of Humanism.

Thus, the second half of the article is unduly biased towards the theistic religions, especially when one considers that the non-theistic believers (including Humanists) rank 3rd in the world by numbers - as per the first half of the article (which is not so biased). --Couttsie 04:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * True that Humanism is a belief system which is followed by a lot of people, but this page is about what is generally viewed as religion. My understanding is that if you can find a reference that states that Humanism fits under the term "Major World Religion" then you can bring about the POV tag and argue that Humanism should be included, but as the page currently stands it reflects the generally accepted view of the term "Major World Religion". -- Jeff3000 04:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is Major World Religions, and the second half of the article provides a list of classic views of major world religions, all of which are sourced and cited. Please provide a source giving humanism as a "classical" major world religion, otherwise the POV tag is not justified. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Atheism
would atheism be considered a religion, a belief, or something else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.221.168.245 (talk • contribs).
 * Atheism is not a religion or belief&mdash;it's an absence of belief, and it falls under the category "Non-Religious", as would agnostics and humanists. &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 22:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.221.168.245 (talk • contribs).

Atheism shouldn't be in this list
Personally, I don't think "atheism" should be part of the list because it is&mdash;simply put&mdash; the absence of any belief or religion. That's like listing the kind of computer/operating system used by people around the world in order of adherence, and including non-Computer users, i.e.: - - Even though an overwhelming number of people are atheist/humanist/whatever (over 1 billion), this is no case to include them. As per the above example, just because there are an overwhelming amount of "non-computer users" doesn't mean we list them. To genericize even further, it's like listing how many people have 12 toes and putting "Twelve toed people &mdash; 1" and then "non-twelve toed people &mdash; 6.49999 billion"... it just makes no sense to include irrelevent adherences &mdash; OLP 1999 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Microsoft Windows 1.2 billion (Began: ca. 1985)
 * 2) *Windows XP 999 million (Began: 2001)
 * 3) *Windows Vista 990,000 (Began: 2006)
 * 4) *Windows 98 1 million (Began: 1998)
 * 5) Apple Computer 900 million (Began: ca. 19??)
 * 6) *Macintosh? 20 million (Began: ca. 19??)
 * 7) non-existent operating system/non-computer users/etc. 3 billion (Began: ca. 10,000 BC)


 * Hmmm you raise some valid points, but i don't know dude, i remember looking at this article a couple months ago and found the information quite useful, maybe wait for some other feedback..Rorrenig 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the information should remain. It gives context to the other information. -- Jeff3000 14:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bottom line is that being religious and being theistic are not objectively conflatable. There are religions that do not believe in, or have no particular stance on the existance of God or of gods or even the supernatural.  This does not make them non-religions per-se.  Though if there are identifiable groups that are atheist or non-theistic, they should be separated out of the mass of non-religious.


 * Further, I think it is a false analogy to compare non-religious people with non-computer users, insofar as computers are a concrete tool, whereas while religion may also be a tool, it is one that has been with us through all recorded history, and people are defined in religious terms. Even those who are not religious have cultural roots deeply steeped in religion.  Unless you count Buddhism as atheist (which may not strictly be true), the 1 Billion non-theist count is only a very recent phenomenon and is primarily the result of atheist philosophies taking hold in very populous centres such as China.  Even then, the atheism isn't non-religious, it is very religious.  It is, however, a civil religion complete with state symbolism, ritual, deference to sacred principles/objects/people.  It is merely dressed in other terms.  Juche is a great example of this, since it is mentioned on this talk page.


 * Computer use, by contrast, is compared with other computer use because it hasn't been around since the dawn of recorded history, so comparing against those who do not use them has a different sort of meaning. In the case of religion, it is relevant and interesting, both in historical and numerical breakdown, as well as qualitative analysis of those beliefs that are non-theistic or atheistic. --Christian Edward Gruber 02:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course atheism should be on the list. While it may not be a religion, it does represent the way many millions of people believe (or don't). They should completely remain on the list. --Pahoran513 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but allow me to add further. It is incorrect to say that athesim is the absence of belief. They do believe - in the non-existence of God. --  S iva1979 Talk to me  04:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. Read the Atheism page.  There are lots of ways of thinking that are sometimes called atheism, including the sort of thinking that most people would probably call agnosticism rather than atheism.  For example, read about strong atheism and weak atheism. Furthermore, I suspect that very few atheists would be likely to describe their way of thinking as a "belief".  &mdash;Wookipedian 05:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Relationships between World Religions
I've added a reference to Religious_pluralism because I think relationships between the world religions are a subject that many people who come to this page are looking for. By the way, the article currently named "Religious pluralism" needs a lot of improvement, so hey guys, you who know about religions, come on over and write what you know about the relationships between them.--Robin.rueth 15:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I have created Interreligious relations (see comments on talk page), and Women as theological figures - additions welcome. Jackiespeel 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I just went and took a look at the religious pluralism article. It seems approximately totally irrelevant to the topic of this one. I see no justification for referencing it here, and certainly no justification for referencing it in the introduction section. &mdash;Wookipedian 16:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

adherents.com as a source.
Quite a few people seem to have problems with the data from adherents.com, and i don't feel right using a website as a primary source. Would it be possible to get a second, more-trusted source for the population data? -&#8472;yrop (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, but it might help by first stating what these problems are. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the rest of this talk page. -&#8472;yrop (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually don't see a lot of debate over the value of Adherents on this page - I see some people objecting to a number or two, and then not following up with other data. The good thing about Adherents.com is that they give sources for each number, and they have a rather large database, they don't survey themselves, so the methodology shouldn't be an issue. No information source is perfect, of course, perhaps you could suggest other sources, then? --Goodoldpolonius2 23:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As not everyone is happy with adherents.com as a primary source I almost hestitate to mention this, but I prepared my own version of their 2005 pie chart of world religions. Their original is a bit untidy and in my opinion it is cluttered with too much text on the chart itself. I don't know whether creating a new pie chart from the figures means the copyright would still belong to adherents.com. Probably there are Wikipedians who would know the answer straight off. If the derived Major World Religions pie chart is of interest, please let me know and I'll upload it somewhere for a preview. -- Bookish 22:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, upload away. As long as you did the pie chart yourself, and credit the data to adherents, it shouldn't be an issue. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I waited to see if anyone else wanted to comment and then created two image pages -- one for a small version to go into the Major_world_religions page - [], and a larger version which it can link to - []. Goodoldpolonius2, please feel free to insert it into Major_world_religions page. I'll wait a day or two before I do it myself. As this is the first time I've created Image pages I made lots of syntax errors. Perhaps an administrator can delete the edits from the revision history pages. -- Bookish 15:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Primal indigenous religion, Nature religion
Can someone please explain to me what are the characteristics of this category? Is this what they call themselves? Or if someone else groups them thusly, who does so, and what are the diagnostic traits? Otherwise, why should these not be counted as "other"? Timothy Usher 07:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is relying on the adherents.com source for establishing this category, its characteristics, and its estimated number of adherents. Some explanation of the category can be found on the adherents.com site. See the introduction section on the various difficulties of determining what categorizations to consider.  Relying primarily on a few external sources prevents a lot of controversy and agonizing here, as determining exactly how to categorize things and how many people to estimate belonging in each category would be very difficult in the absence of some such method.  &mdash;Wookipedian 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Era notation
From the looks of the history of this article, I'm probably jumping right into an on-going edit war, but this article really needs consistency in its era notations. All religions listed are currently followed by BCE/CE terminology except for Christianity and Islam, which both say AD. I also noticed that they have been going back and forth between AD and CE through constant reverts. Have editors of this page ever come to any sort of agreement on these terms? Although there is not officially a policy favoring one era notation over another, the guidelines do call for consistency within articles. As the majority currently being used in this article is BCE/CE, it seems as though the others should be changed (and kept) to reflect this. rom a rin [talk to her ] 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * According to this edit comparison, editor 68.39.193.157 was the sole editor to contribute any dating references. In his edit he used "AD" for years after 1 and "BCE" for dates prior to 1. In a case like this I suggest we either vote among users as to what era notation is to be used to continue consistency, or we simply eradicate any reference to the years of the religion's formation. It may also be possible to keep the inconsistent era notations as is, due to the fact that it was only one editor who initiated the conflicting notations. In either case, it is malappropriate to either convert "AD" to "CE" or convert "BCE" to "BC" without further community discussion &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest getting rid of the dates completely, I don't think they quite fit in the list. They have been added relatively recently. If we stay with the dates, I think we should stay with BC/AD, the CE/BCE notation is not understood by everyone.  -- Jeff3000 00:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there is nothing complicated about BCE/CE; I'm sure people understand them just fine. But I agree that the dates are pretty much unnecessary. Anyway, I'm sure they are already part of each religion's main article. Shall we remove them then? Any opposition? rom a rin[[image:Rosemary white bg.jpg|15 px]] [talk to her ] 01:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When it comes to which era notation should be used I agree with Jeff3000, however I also agree with both he and Romarin in the assertion that the dates should simply be eradicated, and that's what we should immediately accomplish. It is already obvious that a consensus will probably not be reached anytime soon, therefore removing these dates (that were added by an anonymous IP in the first place) would be an easier option. If someone re-adds the dates with a consistent era sometime in the future, they can stay unless there is disagreement. &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 01:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well hey, if we're going to remove them we should at least be consistent and not let them back in (unless there is magically a new-found consensus as to which ones should be used, which I don't think any of us see happening any time soon). Setting the stage for someone to re-add them in the future (even consistently) might be dangerous. rom a rin[[image:Rosemary white bg.jpg|15 px]] [talk to her ] 02:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't dates be there? It's informative, and useful to see them alongside each other for comparison rather than having to go to individual articles. I mean, I don't really care either way, but I'm curious as to the reason why potentially useful information should be removed (that we can't decide on date format is not a very good reason!) Mdwh 02:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * &mdash;(In response to Romarin's latest comment, also addresses Mdwh's concerns)&mdash;Well this is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, therefore we should always encourage users and IPs alike to make any and all edits they find productive. Since the user who originally implanted these dates was contradictive in his notations, we are probably justified in simply removing the dates altogether. If someone (not involved in this discussion) re-adds dates that are consistent (i.e. AD and BC), we aren't justified in simply removing the dates but we would certainly have a vote on which notation is appropriate, since the original anonymous user responsible for first introducing dates into this article never asserted that. &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 02:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Good compromise, for now, to put them both. I know some people are against writing BC/BCE and AD/CE, but I think that in this particular context, it's better to do so than to fight over which one should go in the article. rom a rin [talk to her ] 17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm content with the current AD/BC/BCE/CE compilation, and until someone rejects the compromise I don't think there's any need for a vote toward, or usage of, any one notation. &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 21:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)