Talk:Major religious groups/Archive 4

MAPS


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

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

I made this map as a combination between the two. However, there were several instances where the two maps contradicted eachother. I tended to follow the Pew Research Center one, but in some cases where the two were in complete disagreement, I looked towards other similarly placed countries and their adherents of religion. What do people think of it? 78.149.215.235 (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Issues around two minor religions (Druze and Rastafarianism)
The Druze article estimates the number of its adherents as being 0.45 to 2 million, so shouldn't there be more on them in this article? Also, should Rastafarianism be mentioned under the Abrahamic religions. The Abrahamic religions article includes some discussion on Rastafarianism. Bondegezou (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Druze is already listed in this article. I don't understand what more you would suggest to do about them here.  As a very small group, they should not be especially prominent here.  I suppose you're right that Rastafarians would probably be considered Abrahamic, but again I suggest that they are such a small group that they do not require being mentioned when discussing high-level categories.  Perhaps there should be some mention of them on the Abrahamic religions page. -Wookipedian (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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


 * And I've reverted it again. The removal *should* have tipped you off to begin with.
 * This has nothing to do with "censorship" as you choose to put it, but with the fact that a) Adherents com has that text as the source, so you are effectively suggesting that two sources substantiating the data when there is actually only one, and b) you have not bothered to check *who* wrote that. At least the name "adherents.com" at least doesn't scream "systemic bias" quite as loudly.
 * Further, this is at least the third time that you have dicked around with the Zoroastrianism data. Quit it already. They screwed up, ok? Enough already.
 * So please do everyone a favor and quit the tendentious reinsertions. This article is bad enough as it is. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

Accordingly, "the article shouldn't follow the opinions of a single source" doesn't hold because you are suggesting you have data from two sources when in fact you have only one. You can either use WCE, or you can use adherents.com's use of WCE data, but you cannot use both. You cannot pretend that you have two independent sources that substantiate each other. That WCE is not adherents.com's only source is irrelevant -- adherents.com may have data from multiple sources, but the data that *THIS* article is blanket citing adherents.com for is from WCE. But besides that removal contradicting your "shouldn't follow the opinions of a single source" mantra, the WCE numbers for Zoroastrianism are fscked. Period. Those WCE numbers are a mistake (to put it kindly) and fly in the face of everything else, common sense and adherents.com's other numbers included.
 * Please pay attention. RS/who-WCE-is-published-by is not relevant. The point is that the blanket adherents.com used by *THIS* article is WCE data.
 * You recall wrong. The statement did not "claim" to use those WCE numbers, nor did it link to them, but instead unambiguously said it did not follow those numbers. Moreover, there is a big difference between using adherents.com and using WCE data at adherents.com. And besides, the statement uses more than just adherents.com, but you simply obliterated all those sources as well, in preference to--and only to--the WCE number.
 * -- Fullstop (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:World religions pie chart.png
Hi Wikipedians, just created a new pie chart of religions by using the source from the CIA World Factbook, used all the statistics from the website in order to create it. If there are any problems, suggestions or comments of the pie chart then please do make one now so no problems are found, and I could make the changes if reasons provided. Thanks!!! Moshin (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * just one comment, either the pie chart should be religions, or it should be sub-divisions of religions, not a mixture of the two. In other words, re-combine all of Christianity, or sub-divide the other religions (I would suggest the former). IanCheesman (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I done the chart like that, because the CIA stated with figures of the sub divisions, so I used it when available. By the way if you view people or politicians who are Christians, they don't state they are Christians but state a church which they are joined to or divisions of Catholicism or Protestantism, such as Baptist or for example George W. Bush, not stated his religion as Christianity but, United Methodist which is a 'denomination' of Protestantism, and I that is why it questions me why not stated Protestant or Christian? Moshin (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Number of Baha'is
The first reference on the page says there are 6.1 million Baha'is, a little further down it says there are 5 million, and yet past that the figure 7 million is listed. Is there a source for all this? T0lk (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The numbers may have changed somewhat since that remark was made. Currently I see two estimates in the article, which makes sense because two difference sources (with different dates) are cited for the estimates in the sections where the estimates are provided.  There is a 1998 estimate of 6.1 million from the Christian Science Monitor and a more recent estimate of 7 million from Adherents.com. When attempting to estimate such figures, I suggest that those numbers are about as similar as can be expected.  —Wookipedian (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Judaism a Major Faith?
Why is Judaism ranked among the five major world religions? According to the pie chart near the top of the page, there are more Sikhs than Jews; shouldn't Sikhism rank ahead of Judaism in terms of 'major' or 'minor' world religions? If it has to do with being the basis for Christianity and Islam, that would mean that Judaism is a major historical faith, but not presently. I think this might betray a Western-centric perspective; for example, ask the Chinese or the people of India if Judaism is a major religion. If we're going off numbers and current world influence, I don't think Judaism belongs up there. Thoughts? 76.181.42.38 (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Above was me, sorry, logged out. Dfunk1967 (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anywhere in the article that lists Judaism as one of the top five religions. Every listing on the article that I could see has it as the 6th largest religion. - IanCheesman (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that Juche is not a religion
Here's arguing, and suggesting that it be removed from the list. What say you? elpincha (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

percentages
I love the pie. what's up w/ some scientology? anyone? thanks. Headlikeawhole (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * maybe I was unclear, so I'll rephrase my thought: the pie chart at the top of this article is a very interesting visual aid that presents the world religion break down real clearly. I've been wondering about scientology which calls itself "a church" + a thousand other related organizations & libraries. I'm not pushing for inclusion of something. just saying "hey, if not here- where on wikipedia can wee look at this subject?" I'm just seeing what people say. it might be "no, that's not a religion". or "that wasn't on the radar of the people who collected this data." maybe this has already been covered. just tell me. see also k thanks. Headlikeawhole (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

thank you,

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


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


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

Error/ false information
In the second pararaph, it says "Christians are criticized for believing in Christ as the Messiah and God incarnate" by Islam. However this is not true, as the Qur'an (the highest authority in Islam) explicitly calls Christ the Messiah several times (Al-Maseeh in Arabic). Thus, Islam's criticism is only due to the belief that he is God. (94.96.150.71 (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I just attempted to fix that. I changed it to "Christians are criticized for believing in Christ as God incarnate, rather than considering Christ as one prophet and/or messenger along with others (especially Muhammad in particular)." -Wookipedian (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "correction" is wrong and the original statement was more correct. Though Muslims do acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, they do not believe he was God incarnate. The oft-repeated "Muslims believe in Jesus as a Prophet" is misleading and incorrect as being a "Prophet" in a Biblical context is not even close to as significant a prestige as it is in the Qur'an. Christ is not just any "prophet" in Islam. He is the Messiah foretold to the Children of Israel. Also, contrary to common Christian misconception, "Messiah" is not any indication of divinity. It should say "Christians are criticized for believing in Jesus as God incarnate, rather than considering him the Messiah of Israel and a Prophet along with the other Prophets and Messengers shared between the Qur'an and the Bible." It appears this sentence was removed from the article anyway. Also, on a side note, Jesus should not be referred to as "Christ" as this is a title that the Jews do not accept. Wikipedia standards require Muhammad be referred to with his name only without any honorific titles such as "Prophet Muhammad" or followed by "Peace be upon him", etc since non-Muslims do not believe he is a Prophet. Therefore, since Jews and other non-Christians do not believe Jesus was a promised Messiah, the word "Christ" ("Christos" being Greek for "Messiah") should not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiblizaman (talk • contribs) 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

As such, anyone relying on 2 religions, actually isnt part of any at all. Still, in certain countries (eg countries in the sahel), eg islam and christianity is often combined. Also, islam and animism is combined frequently troughout the whole of africa
 * Not all religions claim to be the one true religion. Confucianism doesn't; and I think some Buddhists don't either.  And atheism, which you came back to add, is no more a religion than 'hunger' is a cooking style.  In my opinion, your suggested change would be adding your own personal opinion about religion to this article.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Marxism
...is a religion? Since when? Preobrazhenskiy (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Tsukamasa (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * According to this chart, 97 and more % of the world population are religious. That is not likely to be accurate, since irreligious and atheistic people take up more than 3%. 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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


 * What figure? Roman Catholicism has around 1.2 billion adherents on paper. CUSH 00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

Also, a pie chart could be made of this classification. See http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html or adherents.com webpage. Note that the abrahamic religions as above should be placed together in abrahamic religions, yet christianity, islam and judaism should be colored each in their own color (use green for islam))
 * Adherents.com is not a reliable source. Also, as a Buddhist I think it is strange to claim that Jainism is based in Hindu tradition but Buddhism is somehow not. Shii (tock) 18:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Modified text again, I ment indian religion in stead of hinduism; note that a alternative name should be used, see above. Hiduism should have its own section, as it is polytheistic; does anyone know whether natural elements (rain, floods, ...) are ever used to signify the gods(eg Brahma, Shiva, ...). I guessed so (eg shiva= fire, ...); perhaps the religion can be classified as animism then ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.135.162 (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was the term Dharmic Religions dropped for Indian Religions? And keeping Hinduism out of Indian Religions is pointless, since the etymology of these words is identical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cush (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism
To be fair, Mormonism must be classified as a major world religion. It can not merely be swept under Christianity, for it testifies to additional revelations, wholly rejected by Christianity. It is in all countries and it has exceeded Judaism in numbers and is one of the fastest growing in the world. 208.27.203.131 (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can try telling that to a Mormon, who will get very upset if you don't class them with Christianity. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So what does that matter? What if Muslims wanted to insist that they are Christians because they believe Jesus was a prophet? Still would not make them less than distict, and it should matter that all Christians reject the Book of Mormon. 208.27.203.131 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, aren't all Abrahamists under Judaism by the same reasoning? 208.27.203.131 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All other Christian denominations do reject the Book of Mormon, but I don't know how relevant that is. After all, Protestants and Catholics use different versions of the Bible, with some denominations rejecting books that are accepted by Catholics. Mormons are no more not Christians than Shi'as are not Muslims. 72.148.45.37 (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

adherents.com
It is correct that "compilation of many sources at adherents.com" is not a sufficient reference. This is a case of refimprove, and anybody can help, no expertise necessary. Just click on the adherents.com link and start copying the actual references cited there. We should not "cite by proxy", but it is easy enough to fix that. --dab (𒁳) 21:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is ridiculous to claim that adherents represents a compilation of reliable sources. It is often quoting encyclopedias or missionary books. Shii (tock) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is Christianity subdivided and Islam not subdivided in the discussion?
Is Christianity divided along denominational lines (Catholicism, Protestantism, etc) while Islam is just one monolithic bloc? They have their divisions too (Sunni, Shi'a, Sufi...) Either divided them both or don't divide either. 90.15.14.30 (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That must have been a temporary problem. I don't see such a difference in the article (currently). -Wookipedian (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Islam has only two divisions: Sunni and Shi`ah. The maps reflect this. Sufism is a set of ascetic principles and concepts and not a sect like Sunnism and Shi`ism. There are Sufis amongst the Sunnis and the Shi`ah (though it is rare in the latter).

The constitution of the christians`s just one (the bible).i`m convinced that what brings about diversity in christianity is the individual initiatives on how he or she run or manage the church to suit his personal interest.. jose udeme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.220.15.132 (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yech!
This is an icky article indeed! For example, why is the table in the section By world population using different sources for different religions? Isn't that Undue synthesis? And by carefully selecting sources here and there, one can prove anything. Secondly: presenting percentages for religion growth is absolutely ridiculous since it will be biased towards small religions. Counting the alleged fast growth of Islam (1.84% - sometimes said to be "fastest growing") in comparison to Christianity (1.38%) gives increases in number of adherents 23920000 for islam versus 30360000, using the numbers in the single source The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions. What religion is fastest growing really? And what does it matter when Earth is soon reaching population maximum? ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 13:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


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

the article used to be better. It has clearly fallen victim to the "largest religion" pissing contest, as already evident from the unspeakable lead section. This isn't the largest religion article. It is supposed to give a decent overview of the world's largest religious goups, without losing itself in childish bickering over statistics. It appears the article entered its downward spiral last June, so I am suggesting a deep revert. Sometimes things are too far gone to fix and the most efficient way forward is a step back.--dab (𒁳) 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think the older version was cleaner though there's been some work to more recent references. But on your point about not being the largest religion I agree - in fact even the older version you point to includes a section on too many subdivisions which could be on their own in separate articles if they're not already (and I'd bet they are.) 17:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is an Abrahamic Religion
The table appears to show that atheism is part of the Abrahamic tradition. Given that China is listed as an example of where atheism is located, I don't see how that makes any sense. Giford (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The religious population by cultural tradition added back in was a duplicate of the adherents table just formatted differently. I've therefore reduced the cultural tradition table to show what I would consider the relevant overview, with country references and enhanced detail broken down in the adherents. 90.5.72.194 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy between this article and the "Judaism" article
This article cites Judaism as starting in "13th century BC/BCE". The Judaism article cites it as starting "ca. 2000 BCE". It seems that this discrepancy should be fixed.
 * My understanding is that Wikipedia policy places more of an emphasis on having reliable sources than on consistency across different articles. I believe neither page cites a source for its date. Hopefully someone can dig up a decent citable source to justify one estimate or the other (or some other date). —Wookipedian 06:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Oh please. This is a Wikipedia article and not a bible platform. Judaism came into existence during and after the Babylonian Captivity. Referring to fictitious characters as Abraham and Moses is ahistorical. The Judaism article is wrong when it claims 2000 BCE as a starting time. CUSH 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Oh please" indeed. I responded in accordance with the way the question was posed—he asked about those dates, so I told him what they usually refer to (if he had asked when Captain Kirk was born, I would've said 2233). I'm also an atheist, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't make us all look like obsessive trolls by dredging up pointless discussions from several years ago (especially when the section in question no longer even exists). Smw543 (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

By using the word fictious to refer to Abraham is highly degrading to jews, christians and muslims due to the fact that he is a large part of all the abrahamic religons and i think you should choose your words more carefully before you may offend anyone161.76.197.22 (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Irreligion is not a religion. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  01:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * People who insist on adding it anyway are very easy to troll, this is a lot of fun :) Shii (tock) 03:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wording of introduction section
The introduction of the article currently says: "The world's principal religions and spiritual traditions may be classified into a small number of major groups, although this is by no means a uniform practice. This theory began in the 18th century with the goal of recognizing the relative levels of civility in non-European societies. However, it quickly transformed into a subset of the universalist belief that all religious figures teach of a single, cross-cultural truth." To me this seems like a poor introduction in several ways. The last sentence seems especially inappropriate. It appears to express someone's opinion about something called "universalist belief" and its relationship to the categorization of religions. I don't even know what "universalist belief" is, and I see no evidence that whatever this sentence is trying to say is true is actually true, and there is no reference provided for the statement. The second sentence also seems poorly worded, thinly justified, and unreferenced. What "theory" is being referred to here? The introduction should really focus on describing the subject of the article in summary form - not immediately divert into some vague discussion of the history of the subject. The phrase "this is my no means a uniform practice" also seems unclear. What exactly is it that trying to say? -Wookipedian (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Shii (tock) 03:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Nearly two weeks have gone by and no one has commented on the above comments, which were made in response to previous comments by me. I would like to make a few relevant remarks:
 * SadisticSuburbanite refers to the existing use of the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) in the article. It may be worth pointing out that the CSM list is freely accessible on the web, via secondary reporting of its content on the adherents.com site. The Brittanica information (if such information actually exists in the Brittanica) does not seem to be that easily accessible.  Also, as a minor point of clarification, the population estimates in the section of the article that refers to the CSM categorizations do not actually come from the CSM.  See the footnote in that section.  Only the categories came from the CSM. The numbers listed alongside them came from adherents.com.
 * Anyone who has watched this page for a while will know that people come here all the time and play around with the numbers and categories, usually without saying what they are attempting to achieve or why, and once in a while the page gets all confused with such edits and we have to go back and look at the cited adherents.com source again to make sense of the situation. If we use a source that some/most of us can't easily access, it will be even harder to keep the page sensible. Really only a couple of us are diligent about keeping the page from spinning out of control as it is.
 * Perfection in the estimation of such numbers and in the structuring of religions into categories is impossible to achieve. That should be obvious.  All of this should be understood as rough estimates and "best effort" categorizations about something that no one can really accurately know and about which there will be no universal agreement.  After a certain point, more effort becomes pointless.  Even small differences in how you ask a person what their religion is, or in the context of the question can make a significant difference in the outcome. (Is it the government that is doing the asking?  Is it a church?  Is the person doing the asking acting friendly?  Is the person answering the question feeling cranky or mischevious?  What penalties are associated with what answers in the neighborhood where the person answering the question lives?  Etc.)
 * –Wookipedian 03:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I corrected the number for Christianity according to the comment above. 1.3 B is obviously wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.92.120 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hinduism is still the oldest and largest religion on earth. When we count Islam or Christianity, we count all divisions together. When we count Hinduism we separate buddhism, jainism or Sikhism separately. They are just divisions of Hinduism. If we count according to division then christianity is divided into Catholics, protestants, Pentacostal, methodist and so on. If we divide Isalam then we find Shia, Sunny, Ahmadis and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.82.28 (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2010

Delete the table
I was looking to see how many Marxists there are in the world today, and I discovered that nobody has tried to compile such numbers. Similarly, it is impossible to determine how many people are party to "Chinese folk religion", "African folk religion", blah blah, etc. Basically this entire table is useless, most likely wildly inaccurate, and can only be cited to vague authorities like the CIA World Factbook. Shii (tock) 03:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As usual, people are revert warring over the figures for their religion (in this case, atheism) without bothering to supply a citation, much less discuss it on this page. I sit here all alone, twiddling me thumbs... Shii (tock) 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there doesn't seem to be any response to this, so I'll go ahead and remove the table. Shii (tock) 22:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop pushing your view and abide by the consensus. There have been many others who disagree with your analysis.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we have this policly WP:V here and we don't submit to a tyranny of the majority. At least, I don't. Shii (tock) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that so many people insist on re-adding unsourced content without discussing it at all? Shii (tock) 20:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is an Abrahamic Religion
At least, according to the table. This doesn't make much sense to me, especially given the percentage of atheists in, e.g. China. Giford (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Chinese people are Marxist, which is based on Judaism; see the Oxford Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion citation. Shii (tock) 17:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Too many non-validated variables to actually define.
This subject has too many non-validated premises, sect division types and confirmed facts even within each individual sub sect for even the sect themselves to agree with. This is the nature of Man and religions. To this end I suggest K.I.S. (keep it simple) as the basic starting point. It is agreed that the combined variations of Christianity (any sect that believes that Jesus was the son of God), Islam (sects that believe in a single God which originated in the middle east AND do not believe Jesus was a deity AND that we are all children of Abraham), Monotheistic (any religion that believes in a single God but is not previously mentioned), Polytheistic (belief in more than one God), Spiritual Non-Deity based religions (Buddhist, Hindi, Scientology, etc...) that believe in an all connected force/power/entity that ebbs and flows but is not sentient. Then Lastly Non-Religious (any person that believes there is not connecting and/or controlling force encompassing everything.)

This gives 6 major forms of belief to start with. Once that is done then use each religions published theory's as to how many persons are affiliated with them to compile your statistics. Each religion will dispute another. This is human nature. Governments are notorious for not being accurate and biased either for or against based one the majority of those running the body.

In the end without a non-biased research body going door-to-door counting people and conducting surveys you will never have accurate figures.

Perhaps, this topic should be removed and a statement of non-definable be placed here instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OldWolf99 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree; this table is unwieldy. It cites almanacs and encyclopedias, which are unreliable and may have made up the data for all we know. I'd like to hear any arguments against removing it. Shii (tock) 22:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do the math
If you add all the numbers of the religious groups it equals MORE THAN THE ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION! The top religions are wrong too. The top religions in order are, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsangha (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem? There can be double-count. Some people hold two religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.157.251 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad someone had already spotted this - I was about to post the same. According to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf (used to support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe) roughly half of Europe does not believe in a god. Even this figure is suspect. Many people in the UK, when asked to enter their religion on a hospital or institutional or census form, tend to put CofE (Church of England) rather than 'none' - especially if someone else is filling in the form for them. In some countries - and I have known this in the US too - it is hmmm politically correct to say you follow  a particular religion even when you don't. Stalinist Russia officially had no religion, yet a variety of religions re-arose remarkably quickly after its fall. Stonehenge and Glastonbury attract thousands of people who consider themselves pagans. Although the UK still has the infrastructure (stone circles etc), tree-huggers (a most ancient pagan tradition) exist in many countries. These people might not think to label themselves officially however. Religion statistics ought to reflect practising people, but even here there is an inflating element, because those wanting their religion to look the best will naturally tend to inflate the figures so they can fell better. As the Major Religious Groups page is self-evidently wrong at present, the data sources need to be verified so we can be assured we are comparing like with like. For credibility, a figure should be given for 'the rest' - which will include 'none' as well as religions where numbers are currently small or simply unorganised beyond a local or personal level.Furthering thought (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This would be wonderful. Any idea where to get such unpublished, unreported data? - IanCheesman (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Improper use of self-published text as citations
There are a number of self published sources used in the article, where the editor used their own, sometimes lengthy, commentary as a citation. This is obviously against policy and they should be removed.

There have also been a number of deletions of Adherents.com as a reliable source. However, the same editor has added Pewforum.org as a source for their own additions, but Pewforums itself lists Adherents.com as a source. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the way notes are added in this way you can turn them into another kind of hatnote, however that works. As for your second, foolish statement, I am not going to bother dignifying that with a response. Anyone who reads the Pew Forum's report will see what you are actually talking about. Shii (tock) 01:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you personally don't mind the violation of policy? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, just that it can be corrected by tweaking the software. Another article I edit, 2012 phenomenon, shows that feature at work Shii (tock) 01:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a "Go" to tweak away. That other article didn't clarify it for me. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. BTW, I didn't add the comments on Jains or Bahais although they seem accurate to me. Shii (tock) 02:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Graph relevance?
It seems that a graph such as a timeline like this one might help the article. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC) px150|center

Re: File:Religion timeline graph.jpg


 * Catholics would dispute your separation of Christianity from Catholicism. Muslims, further, would dispute your separation of Islam from Judaism (and argue instead that the Jews are a special group who rejected Muhammad's revelation). Hindus often claim their religion goes back to 3000 BCE, Buddhists could conceivably claim an infinite history, and modern scholars would argue Shinto was invented in the mid-1800s. The only indisputable items on your timeline are Judaism and Confucianism. As such I am hesitant to include it anywhere on Wikipedia. Sorry for not explaining myself fully earlier. Shii (tock) 05:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. That was part of the rationale for using the fair use image from Webster's. Can you refer your issues to the admin (I forgot their name) who suggested, on the original file's talk page (Image:Religion timeline.jpg - now deleted) that this graph would be OK. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shii, were you the editor in question who said the graph would be OK? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the chart. It implies that Orthodoxy began at the Great Schism but Catholicism is ancient.  Surely the truth is closer to the opposite that the Roman Catholic Church split from the Orthodox world.  certainly it would be fairer to date them both from the Great Schism.  As it is it has a Catholic bias of analysis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.157.251 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are multiple problems with this graph, not the least of which that it disagrees with Wikipedia's article on Hinduism: "Hinduism is often called the "oldest living religion"[5] or the "oldest living major tradition".[6][7][8][9]" [5] ^ Morgan, Sarma 1953; [6] ^ a b Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, Merriam-Webster, 2000, p. 751; [7] ^ Laderman, Gary (2003), Religion and American Cultures: An Encyclopedia of Traditions, Diversity, and Popular Expressions, Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, pp. 119, ISBN 1-57607-238-X, "world's oldest living civilization and religion"; [8] ^ Turner, Jeffrey S. (1996), Encyclopedia of relationships across the lifespan, Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, pp. 359, ISBN 0-313-29576-X, "It is also recognized as the oldest major religion in the world"; [9]^ a b Klostermaier 1994, p. 1.

Textual evidence for the Torah puts it, at most, in the first millennium BCE (c.f., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah), with the final first edition around 450 BCE; but even Jewish tradition doesn't claim the text originated before 1350 BCE ("According to Jewish tradition the Torah was revealed to Moses in 1312 BCE at Mount Sinai;[7] (another date given for this event is 1280 BCE"), so however you slice it, this isn't before the Rg Veda. Because the issue here is not, of course, who can claim a longer oral tradition, but who has the oldest extant texts to support the argument, and that would be the Rg Veda.

So, please delete this misleading "time line". Talastra (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me but the Graph is wrong by 2 reasons. 1) We Orthodox Christians claim( and this is in fact the truth because we don't call ourselves Orthodox( Right Faith) for nothing) that out Church started with Our Lord Jesus Christ and we are a 2000 year old Church. I can bring arguements that the Popes before 1000 AD were Orthodox Christians. 2) You don't accept our point of view on our timeline but you say the Catholic Church was founded by Saint Peter so it's 2000 years old! Who gave you the right to lie so much? Why don't you say that it was formed in 1054 if you say about us the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.74.28 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The chart captioned "Timelines of major religions" was created by the 2007 Merriam-Webster Visual Dictionary, not Wikipedia. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Since, as I expected, precisely nobody likes this graph, I have removed it. Shii (tock) 01:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To quantify: I count 3 articulated complaints, plus 1 person pointing out this is not Wikipedia information. None of these comments have been responded to. Shii (tock) 05:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I don't keep every article I contribute to on my active watchlist, I didn't realize this discussion took place. A note to my talk page would've helped.  Anyway, I just read the above and can sum up my personal response briefly: the invisible talk about the image itself is here (I didn't know you meant this talk page;) as for the other comments about the truth of the data, etc., all I can add is Wikipedia's keystone rule about verifiability which should be dealt with.  Someone suggested that since the chart does not agree with WP, it's invalid. That rule will need to be explained since I never heard of it. Same is true about "liking" a graph. My understanding is that if an image or factual text is relevant to an article or section and verifiable from a reliable source, it should be allowed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still sourced to an encyclopedia which is not RS. Shii (tock) 07:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That contradicts RS guidelines, doesn't it? And if you're right, won't you need to delete a large percentage of the references used in this article, including the other encyclopedias and similar compendiums, aka tertiary sources? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I remove the encyclopedia links and poorly sourced links from time to time, but they are added back by newbies. Shii (tock) 08:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does your word "absolutely" refer to the contradictory facts? Please support your statement that an encyclopedia is not a RS. BTW, it seems that about half this article, or more, is based on such sources.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The article should be stripped down. You can ask basically anyone about the reliability of encyclopedias, but don't cite them! Shii (tock) 10:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinions are fine, even without any support. Although your own edits citing encyclopedic sources, including Almanacs, might be a good place to start.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Almanacs are faulty but they're better than adherents.com which only compiles almanacs. Shii (tock) 00:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI this disagreement has nothing to do with the various complaints here which you have failed to address. Shii (tock) 12:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly expect everyone to agree about the age and origins of various religions? Your arguments should be with Merriam Webster as a RS, and you've made it clear that noted general references are used throughout the article. You should also consider taking this up on the discussion page of WP:RS and WP:V, not here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please clean up this article of sources you claim are not RS, including your own listed above, before removing other editor's fully sourced material. Your continual and irrational deletions are not acceptable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, why do you want me to delete things in some particular order? Shii (tock) 12:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FIFO - first in, first out. BTW, if you dislike encyclopedias so much for being unreliable and uncitable, why spend so much time writing for Wikipedia? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FIFO: First in, first out is an imaginary guideline proposed by user Wikiwatcher1. According to this guideline, before you fix a mistake that was recently added to a page, you must first fix any other errors that appeared on the page beforehand. It's not clear whether this makes sense to anyone, even Wikiwatcher1 himself, but it sure is an interesting idea to float during a talk page discussion.  Shii (tock) 08:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was another way of repeating what I wrote earlier: "Although your own edits citing encyclopedic sources, including Almanacs, might be a good place to start" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion. Having a reliable source doesn't mean much. Things must represent predominant views. As one glaring example, most scholars do not trace Judaism back to Abraham ~2000 BC. There have been legitimate concerns raised and there are several obvious problems in comparison with the body of modern scholarship. Including the timeline as is, given that context, would be improper. --Vassyana (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Then simply add your reliable sources to those statements to the article. The chart could be modified to include a range of dates so long as they're also backed by RSs. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I see the problem here-- you think there really exists some reliable source out there that can attest to a "founding date" for various religions. I'm sorry to say that this is far from the truth. The idea that these things even have a "founding date" is in most cases a little ridiculous. So, any source that claims such a thing, especially with no apparent justification, is suspect. 61.7.120.132 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not really what I think. IMO, "reliable sources" don't claim absolute proof of "founding dates" of anything related to ancient history. Archaeology is not a precise science. So a key question here is whether an encyclopedia or similar tertiary source has a right to present any date "estimates" based on evidence. They obviously do, since they're only summarizing estimates of others. A visual graph is really not at issue, it's whether any RS can list estimated dates.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I no longer see what you're arguing... you're agreeing with me that nobody can accurately present such estimates, then say that the encyclopedia that compiles the estimates is reliable? Also, this has moved from a theological question to an archaeological one somehow? Shii (tock) 05:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you publicly take pride in contradicting yourself, I agree you probably don't understand. Your multitude of words have not backed up your silly assertions about encyclopedias yet, nor have you tried. Again, you do not own this article, and no, I don't agree with you. More such unwarranted deletions will be vandalism. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I no longer understand why you are saying what you are saying or what the basis of your statements are, and since you refuse to explain yourself I guess I'll just have to keep removing the graph until you summon another admin to block me for vandalism. Shii (tock) 07:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I too vote to remove the graph due to inaccuracies and biasness towards some religions as mentioned by other editors. It also does not include all the religions we list as major world religions, which is confusing and appear contradictory to the information we present in the article. - IanCheesman (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The graph shows Sunnism and Shiaism as 2 different religions. Let me correct, both of these are not religions in true sense, they are merely 2 different wings of the same religion Islam. if you ask a shia his Religion he would say Islam and then add that he is a Shia Muslim and the same goes for a Sunni Muslim, none would say that they belong to Sunnism and Shiaism. Tausique (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue might also relate to the Christian religions shown. But how would the graph be improved to cover this? Note that as it is the coloration implies some connections. In any case, this graph data and layout was derived from a reliable published source, so any improvements or changes should also be sourced. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * May i know the reliable publication source and their source and reference.Tausique (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The source, Merriam-Webster, is given on the graph. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedias as reliable source
Protracted dispute over whether a timeline using data from an encyclopedia can be used in the article, lacking any other sources. Shii (tock) 13:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This section is for any added comments related to the previous section, which seems incorrectly named. The lengthy discussion in that section dealt primarily with RS, not the "relevance of a graph." User:Shii summed up his personal POV clearly when he wrote:
 * "The article should be stripped down. You can ask basically anyone about the reliability of encyclopedias, but don't cite them!"

The other commenters were focusing on extraneous issues, such as date disputes; religion founders, and whether they "liked" a graph. However, the only issue is whether a list of dates given by an encyclopedic source is acceptable to include. The visual presentation of such dates in a graph is secondary and not an issue. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have been watching this fight for a while now, and I have never seen anywhere else on Wikipedia (except on this page) any acceptance of encyclopedia data. - IanCheesman (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking this directly from WP:RS:

"Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose."

- Wikipedia


 * Thus this graph should probably be removed since it is detailed data from a tertiary source. However, do not continue to edit the article or you guys will risk an edit-warring block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay Shii (tock) 12:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comments about tertiary sources do not seem consistent with WP Guidelines. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How are they not consistent? The very policy you cited states that tertiary sources should not be used for detailed content in place of secondary sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm just a regular editor, not a RS expert, so I'm only going by what WP says. However, your conclusion that "this graph should probably be removed" because it relies on tertiary sources seems to lack support from the WP guidelines, which state that such sources "can be helpful in providing broad summaries" for articles like this one. Even User:Shii admits this as many of his own edits used them (see section above.) Some might reasonably argue that only notable tertiary sources are safe to use on topics relating to ancient history or religion, since their own editors essentially summarize secondary sources - the only ones typically available .--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As a reminder, this was not really an "edit war," but an attempt to prevent one: Shii continued to delete sourced material and stated his intention to edit war:
 * "I no longer understand why you are saying what you are saying or what the basis of your statements are, and since you refuse to explain yourself I guess I'll just have to keep removing the graph until you summon another admin to block me for vandalism." (Shii (tock) 11:02 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8))
 * I don't think WP guidelines imply that declaring edit wars are Ok, especially when there is doubt that the user really "no longer understands" what the issues are. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Declaring edit wars is not OK, but neither is your edit warring. The only way to actually not edit war is to stop reverting and discuss on the talk page or request dispute resolution, such as an RfC or a third opinion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1 has been using a number of methods to distract from the fact that he is the only person who wants to see the graph he made in the article and anyone else who has even casually dropped by the page can figure out several reasons why it doesn't belong here. When I attempted to reason with him he became incoherent and stopped trying to explain himself as shown above, a position which he has not changed. As I told Reaper, this guy simply ignored the WP:3O intervention. I don't see any way to avoid confrontation against that which is why I was edit warring against his one man anti-consensus campaign. Personally I'm not sure what the next step is at this stage, besides like an RfC or something. Shii (tock) 00:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some suggestions, the main one being to not create facts or misstate actual ones. Here they are per your latest recreations:
 * The casual visitors did not deal with the issue of RS, which is the only issue. They simply gave their own POV about different aspects of various religions;
 * Any "incoherency" was not on my part, but on yours, since you effectively ignore your own contradictory edits and declarations. That has been restated about 4 times. Instead, you casually brush it off and plant red herrings or claim "consensus" at every irrelevant comment;
 * I did not ignore the WP:3O, and responded directly to it;
 * You seem intent on turning a basic WP reliable sources issue into a "confrontation," per your warlike comment, "I don't see any way to avoid confrontation." Apparently Buddhism isn't helping much.
 * As far as your not knowing what to do next, I suggest responding to the numerous statements about RS policies, including your own reliance on the same sources you attack others for using.
 * Hope those ideas help, including the FIFO suggestion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article-related part of this discussion ended with your extremely confusing statement above, so let's look at it:
 * IMO, "reliable sources" don't claim absolute proof of "founding dates" of anything related to ancient history.
 * So, there's no reason to include such claims in the article, no matter who's stating them, unless if you can supply some reason otherwise. This was the only part of your statement that made sense to me, so I clung on to it, saying "you're agreeing with me that nobody can accurately present such estimates", and you denied that you said that, so oh well
 * Archaeology is not a precise science.
 * I don't know where archaeology enters into this discussion, it has never been mentioned before and this article doesn't seem to have any connection to archaeology. This came completely out of the blue.
 * So a key question here is whether an encyclopedia or similar tertiary source has a right to present any date "estimates" based on evidence.
 * This topic, too, was never raised before, and I consider it irrelevant.
 * They obviously do, since they're only summarizing estimates of others.
 * This is literally a non sequitur, you have gone from saying that the actual RS would not claim such proof for their estimates, to saying that encyclopedias have the right to present those estimates. I asked you to clarify what you meant and you responded to me with ad hominem like you are doing now.
 * A visual graph is really not at issue, it's whether any RS can list estimated dates
 * I agreed with this summary as well as that first sentence above but the stuff in between seemed to have no relation to the first and last sentences. Shii (tock) 03:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not agreeing with you "that nobody can accurately present such estimates." You completely reversed what I said. The point is that because there can be no "absolute proof" of such founding dates, "estimates" are all we have to go on. Those estimates are often arrived at through archaeology, ie. Dead Sea Scrolls. They are also well presented by encyclopedic sources that summarize such estimates. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how archaeology is at all relevant to this article and your example doesn't help. If encyclopedias are claiming to use archaeology for their "major religious groups" data then I'm even more suspicious than before, but I doubt this to be the case. Rather, I expect that the Merriam Webster almanac or whatever simply invented these dates out of the blue. Shii (tock) 06:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any clarification here? Shii (tock) 04:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster did not invent the dates. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's all you want to say? No evidence behind that assertion? Shii (tock) 07:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just guessing here, but I think it's doubtful that a 200 year-old company now owned by Encyclopedia Britannica will be making this kind of stuff up. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright Shii (tock) 08:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heads up. Your obsessive edit warring may have to go to ANI. My "guessing" was a joke - get a grip! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take it to ANI, but I haven't bowed out of any discussion, I'm just waiting for you to start supplying evidence for your claims Shii (tock) 09:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not try a Request for Comment instead of an ANI thread? Then we can get more opinions and probably get a consensus. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, I forgot you could do an RFC based on an article... I should have done that before any of the other dispute resolution methods I tried. Shii (tock) 12:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Merry-go-round?
Shii, what is the problem? Why are you restarting to edit war over something that's been discussed over and over? In case your rationales are actually something new, state the new issues here first. Your ceaseless reverting does nothing to enhance a serious subject on religion.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Similarly, your claim that a dictionary/almanac is a reliable source for information that it does not provide a source for itself remains baseless and dumb Shii (tock) 04:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That would mean to avoid being hypocritical you'll need to start deleting all your own edits which relied on them. You haven't yet started on that chore, it seems. In any case, your entire premise was proven false claiming that a dictionary cannot be a reliable source. So I guess my "merry-go-round" title fits. The sad part is that you are so willing to ignore prior discussions and WP guidelines. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nudism and Religion
Is Nudism considered a religion?The definition of religion. You choose.

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejuice. 7. religions, Archaic. religious rites. 8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flybynighter64 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll have to find reliable, verifiable sources which back up that claim. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I noticed this page has been edited, and was disappointed to see this instead of an RfC response. Shii (tock) 00:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Chronological mix-up
For chronological reasons, this section of the article can't be entirely correct:


 * At the turn of the 18th century, in between 1780 and 1810, the language dramatically changed: instead of "religion" being synonymous with spirituality, authors began using the plural, "religions", to refer to both Christianity and other forms of worship. This new definition was described as follows by Daniel Defoe...

The turn of the 18th century means the years around 1700, not the years around 1800. However Defoe was alive in 1700, but long dead by 1800. The context of this paragraph suggests that the latter era is intended, but in that case the quotation from Defoe is either erroneous or chronologically misplaced. Can anyone fix this muddle? Luwilt (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I misread the source entirely. Sorry for this long-standing mistake. Shii (tock) 01:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction to writing...
Hello all. It's always interesting to read everyone's postings based on religion. Allah or God or G-d willing one day we can all be on the same page.

I believe that the 3 major religions in my opinion (People of the Torah (Moses), Christianity (Jesus), and Islam (Mohammed)) are fighting for no reason. We all believe in one God. Although some religions branching off have changed their scriptures to reflect where they may differ in religious views, I do not believe that a religion that was introduced by God to His prophet should ever be changed by man; therefore, we should take this into account. It also always amazes me to hear how religious figures state their opinions on current events; there should only be the application of religious belief to a situation, not an adjsutment to a scripture based on changing times.

Having said all this I think I will take the time to state what I actually came to mention - in the section mentioning the major religions of the world, Judaism, Christianity and "Mohammedenism" was written. Although some groups may have referred to Islam in this fashion...it is not the correct name of the religion. The name of the religion is ISLAM, the correct term for its followers is MUSLIM, and the correct name to mention for its prophet is Mohammed. Muslims believe in 1 God and they refer to Him as ALLAH. Interestingly enough, there are some non-Muslims who think that Allah is some ancient figure. Allah, however, means God in the holy book of Islam which is the QURAN.

Thank you all for your posts - I look forward to your further comments. God bless us all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReligionScholar1618 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Falun Gong missing
This article does not say anything about the Falun Gong movement. According to its Wikipedia article, there are about 10 million adherents in the World, which makes it a very important religion, more than many of the ones listed. Could someone with more knowledge than myself add it or say why it is not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.93.206 (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Shii (tock) 14:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps of self-reported adherence
Hello, I notice a mistake in "Predominant religions of the world, mapped by state". Malaisians are very muslims and its the state religion, so they are not catholic/protestant ! And about Cote d'Ivoire, they are half muslim half catholic (but perhaps it depends of sources...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.204.16.1 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Mahayana Buddhism only in Vietnam??
...according to the very same map... -- megA (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Omg
I love u like plz edit my work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.123.199 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Scientology?
Theres a notable amount of scientologists (I think I read a million at some point), and they seem to believe that they are a religion, why isn't it included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadagain33 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Also to be noted is that Wicca is a Folk religion not "new religious movements" and Universal Unitarians are based in the Abrahamic religions. 207.119.20.171 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)C. Loy

ERROR: Table does not sort correctly
In section 3.1, "Largest religions or belief systems by number of adherents", the sorting arrows on the third column heading ("Cultural tradition") actually sorts by the content of the right-hand cells (citation notes) appearing under the second column heading ("Number of followers (in millions)"). I suggest that the right-hand cell and left-hand cell of each row under the second column be merged so that the sorting arrows have the intended effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smh62 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What's "Chinese Religion"? Buddhist numbers flawed
...on the map explanations (see on the right)? -- megA (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh, it's Chinese Folk Religions! But what about Buddhism (any vehicle) in China? -- megA (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, the whole table is poorly cited nonsense. Shii (tock) 15:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Buddhist numbers are listed here as 400-500 million. I find this rather questionable since there are an estimated 660-1000 million Buddhists in China alone. Also, the references provided do not support the 400-500 stated here. The BBC article states 1.5 billion, the CIA factbook does not provide a total count of followers, and the other source is from 1986 (world population has risen by 2 billion since then). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.32.44 (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know adherents.com isn't itself a quotable source. It is, rather, a handy collection of quotable sources. The Buddhism by country high estimates of 690...1,900 million is completely over the top. Adherents.com is certainly more reliable than an unwatched Wikipedia article, where people will constantly re-introduce pie-in-the-sky figures inflating the significance of their own religion. --dab (𒁳) 06:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * adherents.com: "World estimates for Buddhism vary between 230 and 500 million, with most around 350 million."

In what sense is this paragraph "neutral"???

 * "Even through the late 19th century, it was common for Christians to view these "pagan" sects as dead traditions which preceded Christianity, "the final, complete word of God". This in no way reflected the reality of religious experience: Christians supposed these traditions to have maintained themselves in an unchanging state since whenever they were "invented", but actually all traditions survived in the words and deeds of people, some of whom could make radical new inventions without needing to create a new sect. The biggest problem in this approach was the existence of Islam, a religion which had been "founded" after Christianity, and which had been experienced by Christians as intellectual and material prosperity. By the 19th century, however, it was possible to dismiss Islam as a revelation of "the letter, which killeth", given to savage desert nomads."

Uh, this is a "point of view" being endorsed here. It's nowhere close to being written "neutrally". Masazawa may be quoted for his hypothesis, but this needs to be rewritten with sources giving other viewpoints as well. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally agree, it is definitely a POV paragraph and needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millertime246 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The paragraph reproduces common sense in religious history. --Saint-Louis (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the paragraph is needlessly editorializing. Just the facts please. It isn't even remotely accurate. Christianity didn't have a problem with classifying Islam, it was simply considered a heresy rather than "paganism". This is discussed at Medieval Christian views on Muhammad. Basically, medieval Christian theology distinguished between "unenlighted" pagan traditions predating Christianity, and corrupted accounts of Christianity, i.e. "heresy", and Islam fell under the latter. In popular usage, Muslims were still included under "heathens". But I do not see why any of this is of interest here, people interested in these questions should pop over to Medieval Christian views on Muhammad, paganism and heresy. --dab (𒁳) 06:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jewish dispora
This line said "the worldwide Jewish diaspora (mostly North America, South America, Europe, and Asia)". Except that 0.2% of the world's population is Jewish, and 0.5% of Australia's population is. Which would leave us naming 5 of the 6 populated continents, so I deleted the parenthetical part.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No religion
I looked at the list of religions with most followers in the world, and saw that the third was "No religion". Why is it on the list of religions? Shouldn't it rather be a side note than on the list itself? As it is "No religion". I'm not intending to start a "Is atheism a religion or not" discussion, but it seems rather illogic to put "No religion" on a list of religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.32.73.253 (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this was an attempt to satisfy people like me who see all blue in the United States and think, rather angrily, "Hardly anyone I've met in California is a Protestant Christian. They're either all atheist, all Wiccan, or all Roman Catholic. I rarely even meet a Christian, so how can they paint all of the US blue?" Whenever it's a discussion about religion, it's going to tick one party off or another. The lesson here is to read between the lines because it's always going to be a generalization... and not to send our kids to Wikipedia for unbiased religious demographics. :) Blomberg (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be on the list as numerous international courts ruled that Atheism is a religion, but not in the term of "No religion", and certainly not as high as it is.

Well it seems that User 'Pass A Method' changed the top image, with no discussion, to a decidedly less encyclopedic one using symbols (some that don't really even represent the faiths they're supposed to). I would revert this back to the chart that was previously there (until the change can be discussed here) but i dont know how. any help? 184.17.199.229 (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like this either so we are in a consensus against one editor. Shii (tock) 03:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Scientology
I'm a little surprised Sceintology is not mentioned. Granted, there are only half a million or so (A "gold" record religion I guess), and places such as the U.K does not recognize it as a religion, but it seems to have enough impact to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.172.20 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Scientology is not mentioned because the only hard stats put it at less than 100,000. Shii (tock) 04:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)