Talk:Growth of religion

POV in the Islam section

There's a POV-tag on the Islam section, which there should be since there has been a lot of edit warring and adding IMHO very biased material. I can't see any discussion here on the talk page about the problems having been rectified and everyone being happy, which there should be before removing the tag. So are the problems solved or not?

I can't see any conflict. The section looks well balanced and represents scholarly views. I've tried my best to add relevant and reliable material over the last couple of hours as I did notice some problems. There doesn't seem to be any problems now. If there are then no one has discussed them on here, except me (see above). NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The template seems to have been added by one author for dubious reasons. It warrants removal. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have re-written the lead section with proper information. Hopes that is okay. Thank you.117.194.198.198 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Growth of religion

While growth of Buddhism in Europe and Islam in world is persistent but recent growth of Hinduism only in Australia and Ghana is not. Adding it to lead section is a POV. 117.194.204.248 (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not true. The growth of Buddhism is not supported by any secondary reliable source, no statistics but growth of Hinduism has been supported by the Australian census. The growth in Ghana is not cited by any independent reliable source. Hence, mentioning Hinduism as fastest growing religion in many countries is a original research so I have removed that. Please, do not include them on lead too per WP:Lead. Thanks, --Benfold (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You can make your own research if you want any "statistics" or "growth in Ghana". Instead of reverting the clear and proper representation of a reliable source. If you want to stick to such POV, then you may want to object upon the sources that are saying Islam to be fastest growing religion, because they don't provide any statistics either. Delibzr (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea about WP:RS or WP:OR so you can stop violating their meaning. Calling patheos.com, asiatribune.com, wwrn.org, abs.gov.au a unreliable source is obviously one biased opinion. Per WP:OR you have to "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." - Something you are clearly opposing. Delibzr (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop vandalizing and from your edits you seem to me a sock. Firstly, The Australian source is a reliable source which is already presented in the article but the www.patheos.com link is a blog post and not independnent of the subject hence not acceptable. Secondly, you entered that Hinduism is the fastest growing religion in a number of nations -this is vague. Which nations you're referring to? Now, I am not sure about wwrn.org but the Asian Tribune is not relible. It was critised for its political alignment[1] and [2]. For the Islam, it is found to be the only religion with global growth rate supported by non-Islamic sources and Guinness World Records. You can include growth of Bahai faith and Islam in lead but recent growth of Hinduism in 2011 Australia census is definately POV. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you are the sock puppet here, reverting back to nonsense that you had done with your ip 117. until this page received protection, then you got into your main account. Patheos and asiantribune, are incredibly reliable sources. They have been used over hundreds to thousands of times on Wikipidea. None of your sources claim any statistics for the rise of Islam, just because you seem to have no problem with Bahai' faith, but problem with other religions, I wouldn't be completing your wishes. Unless they have WP:RS. Delibzr (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Patheos source is used in many articles for resources hosted by them and not a blog post on their website. My which sources you're reffering to? Please, explain. I don't think your edits are neutral so I requested administrator's intervention. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To chime in, I agree with Benfold that those edits are not constructive. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A vote is not enough, you have to explain why you agree or disagree. You can only rewrite or increase the content bytes if you disagree, you cannot remove any content which is supported by reliable sources. Delibzr (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Individual cases of religious growth are not notable enough to mention in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, we should not mention all the nations where Islam is not the fastest growing religion. The lead is a summary of the article. The overall trend is that Islam is the fastest growing religion. Exceptions should be noted in the body of the article. Additionally, you are incorrect about editing policy. You can removed sourced info if it's against policy or consensus. This is both. I am removing it. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep no religion on lead then. If you keep one you will have to add the growth details about others as well. It is already noted in later sections, that who is fastest growing and where. I guess it should be over now. Delibzr (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not an "all or none" kind of thing. Read WP:LEAD EvergreenFir (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Also per WP:Lead your edits are again non-constructive. The text about Islam you removed was backed by several credible independent reliable sources. You seem to have problem with Islam as a religion. Please, try to be neutral. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.", "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.", in WP:LEAD. Add all 3 or none. Delibzr (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, avoid Wikipedia:I don't like it edits. As per lead the recent growth in just Australia doesn't make it significant enough comparing to Islam for inclusion in lead. Each and every religion has noticeable growth rate in few countries and that should be covered in the article but not lead.Benfold (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You've explained about yourself very well, you are the one blatantly removing the sourced material with reliable sources concerning buddhism and hinduism's growth, for over 1 week. That is Wikipedia:I don't like it. Only Hinduism and buddhism other than Islam have largest growth in multiple nations. Because the lead is small it doesn't even effect, you can remove Islam from the lead too, instead of giving extra support by mentioning on lead and later sections, but not any other religion. Not only australia, but ghana. And singapore, macau for buddhism. But you are trashing that information simply because Wikipedia:I don't like it. Delibzr (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, original research. Do you have sources to support that Only Hinduism and buddhism other than Islam have largest growth in multiple nations. Also, I am noticing how you're omitting Bahai and atheism.Benfold (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Original research doesn't apply in talk pages. Let me know at least 2 countries where Bahai and atheism are fastest growing religions. It can prove my alleged original research of talk page to be incorrect. Delibzr (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Remember the purpose of talk pages is to discuss how to improve articles. It may sometimes be helpful to use limited original research to aide in seeking out sources etc. But this doesn't generally including making a claim based on original research and then asking someone to disprove it. Ultimately even if your claim is true (which with only OR we don't really know for sure), it's not going in the article without better sourcing. So it's largely unhelpful in discussing what to include in the article. In other words, at most you should be asking people for sources for your claim so you can include it in the article, not for people to disprove your claim for any reason. If you want to debate the subject matter of the article, you're welcome to do somewhere besides wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nil Einne. If Hinduism is fastest growing religion in Ghana, Australia. And Buddhism is fastest growing in Singapore, Macau, etc. How come it cannot be written on lead that "Buddhism and Hinduism remains fastest growing religion in number of countries", it is being conflicted today for basically no reason. Delibzr (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Ghana itself[3] doesn't mention their fastest growing religion at all while the book A History of the Nation of Islam: Race, Islam, and the Quest for Freedom by Gibson, Dawn-Marie published from ABC-CLIO in 2012 cites Islam as the fastest growing religion in Ghana[4]. Moreover, if certain religions have significant growth in some countries only in recent years then they can be expanded to their corresponding sections in the article but both Buddhism and Hinduism is declining worldwide including decline of Hinduism in India thus adding particularly these two religion in the lead violates the policy of WP:Lead and definately a POV. Benfold (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[5] Another reliable source supports that Hinduism is fastest growing in Ghana. Buddhism and Hinduism are not declining, but one of the fastest growing religion because their increase is in plus. Seems like you are never going to agree with anything else other than your own personal agenda, even though these information are supported by reliable sources. Delibzr (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong about me and please stop your agendas and desperate attempts to block me. You are clearly misunderstanding Wikipedia policies even after other editors tried to make you understand what lead is. According to studies by World Religion Database, Buddhism and Hinduism both are continuously declining. Try to be neutral when editing Wikipedia and do not drive by your personal religious practise. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Delibzr: I agree with Benfold and EvergreenFir that those edits are not constructive. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article. Religious growth of Buddhism in Singapore and Hinduism in Australia and Ghana are not notable enough to mention in the lead. Islam is the fastest growing religion worldwide. National exceptions may be mentioned in the corresponding sections of the article, if they are referenced with reliable sources. The only reliable source used in these edits was the Australian census. JimRenge (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can also add the countries where Christianity is largest, so that would make 3 another religions that are largest increasing in number of countries. Because you have made a lot better point, I have made the lead pretty more specific to the point of article. I have no problem with the current lead now, and I've notified other editor about it, I think he will have no problem either. Delibzr (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My friend Delibzr, you're again distorting the sources. The references are not credible and reliable except the Australian census and adding particularly these sources which acknowledges only Hinduism and Buddhism and not other religions in the lead is a POV. Those sources do not cite about acknowledging other religions growth in a number of nations. You can add these sources in later part of the article but not in lead. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I find 2-3 more sources for lead, for now, one source is confirmed which is australian gov. Or maybe we can use a "Note" instead of direct reference, which would cite about Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and anything else. I know that many references of this page needs to be arranged properly.. I see some deadlinks too. For now it is good that you agreed with the current lead. References will be arranged anytime soon. Delibzr (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to remind you that I had no problem with the current lead until you changed it. I have no issues on the current lead if those particular references are not added back. Since, the later part of the article already covered each religion thus I see no need of mentioning individual religions in the lead in terms of notes or anything else as this would again raise issues. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do these numbers include toddlers and infants?

Do these claimed numbers of adherents include toddlers and infants? I've seen educated adults refer to babies, whose cognitive capacity was limited to 'touch big blocky thing, poop, waaaah,' as Christians -- is that level of generalization at play in these numbers? Note in fairness that a Deist or Pandeist is most unlikely to deem a child incapable of processing any level of complexity to hold any intelligible theological views at all. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Pandeist is not even mentioned. Delibzr (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well naturally -- no belief system is going to make the list without engaging in outrageous puffery and an absurdly broad counting of infants and others of like mental state. To adopt Pandeism as one's theological model requires thought, and a fair degree of research and intellectual rigor. It cannot simply be claimed as one's belief like so many others, it must be understood!!

But back to the original question, are these faiths claiming infants, toddlers, elementary school children, and others incapable of rationaally evaluating theological thought as adherents? DeistCosmos (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Future growth section

The new section "Future growth" describes a forecast for the year 2200 (!) by Dr. Todd M. Johnson, a reputable expert of religious demographics. I propose to remove the table in this section because a 200 year forecast appears too speculative to be included (in detail) in an encyclopedia. See: Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion JimRenge (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Supplemented my cmt above. (I have removed the table) JimRenge (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think a 200 year forecast is too speculative for inclusion? Benfold (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Because "Projections of future religious adherence are based on assumptions that trends, total fertility rates, life expectancy, political climate, conversion rates, secularization, etc will continue. Such forecasts cannot be validated empirically and are contentious (...)." (see section "Future growth") JimRenge (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Hinduism is the fast-growing religion in Ghana."

This claim is not supported by the citations. Returning to Our Spiritual Roots (Removed copyright violation)

The second source, Religion on the Move!, was also misinterpreted:(Removed copyright violation) In other words, page 135 of Religion on the Move! doesn't identify Ghana's fastest growing religion; the authors only note that Hinduism is growing, and that the Hindu Monastery of Africa is the fastest growing Hindu church. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it was discussed too much already. Just see [6] Bladesmulti (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, the source you are citing is a blog. Please see Johnson, p.26, table 1.18 for countries with fast growing Hindu communities. JimRenge (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no agreement that patheos is not a reliable citation. For preference we can put a question at RSN. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like WP:SPS. It is not used in the article but you might ask at RSN if you want to use it. JimRenge (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks likes Bladesmulti reinstated the deleted content using exactly the same sources. I would just like to point out that Bladesmulti has a history of questionable editing on this article. If I may be so bold, I think he has an agenda to push. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was against those multiple crystallball claims, and the speculative table was actually removed. I wonder how it is questionable. If anything is questionable, it is you who were violating copyrights like now, and you are just gaming system by misinterpreting those weblinks/books and ignoring other links. Also see [7]-[8]-[9], now put up or shut up. For the last time, stop ripping off copyrighted material to here, I have just removed them from your post and giving you a formal warning now. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, I don't know if you were being serious about the "violating copyrights" thing or if that was supposed to be a red herring, but you gave me a chuckle. Thanks! Now, let's examine the new sources you provided. This source does indeed state that Hinduism is Ghana's fastest growing religion, but if you look closely at the bottom of the page you'll see that this "source" is actually a snapshot of Wikipedia! We can't cite Wikipedia as a source. Patheos is a weak source; the "Religion Library" section may be credible because it's supposedly peer-reviewed, but the article you cite is actually a posting on a personal blog hosted by Patheos. That's not a credible source, and there's no indication the author is an expert. This source is probably your best bet. The problem is that it's actually Louise Müller's personal page at the African Studies Centre website; it is not a work of scholarship and it has not been peer-reviewed. It would be best to make a posting on WP:RSN. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)