This is an archive of past discussions about Eastern Orthodox Church. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You have not brought forth any contrary source or better source.
Did you instead mean to say that the source is POV? Please read WP:POV carefully. Even if Johnstone had a POV, you can use POV source to create a NPOV page. You just need to include some those contrary sources you found. If you havn't found contrary sources, then you just have your own personal opinion on the topic. tahcchat09:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said this had anything to do with the COI editing policy, which applies to editors. But the source does have a COI which makes him not only POV but unreliable. He's promoting a vision of the future of the church (his own vision, of course), and has a vested interest in making that vision look good. However, he has no credentials, neither as clergy/preacher/whatever nor as historian (church or otherwise) nor as demographic expert. We don't allow blogs for much the same reasons, even though he has a following willing to publish him. The statement just removed from the article has a glaring historical error which also proves the point. Evensteven (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
So what you are trying to say is that you consider him an unreliable source.
If his data is or has a "historical error"-- certainly if it is a "glaring" error-- then it will be easy to find source(s) that give better numbers. tahcchat19:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Tahc, Evensteven, Dr.K., and Thanatos666: the content removed in this edit cites The future of the global church by Patrick Johnstone, an evangelical Protestant. 58.106.230.99 removed content (e.g. here) that does not align with population statistics. Looking at the Google Books preview, I see Johnstone identifies and lists his sources. While looking, for example, at Johnstone's projection that the Orthodox Church will decline by 20% by 2050 is consistent with other demographics, at least in rough scale. For example, a "UN report warned that Russia will lose about a third of its population by 2050 unless the current trends are halted." And Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev said about the demographic collapse of Russia's population in 2011 that, "healthy forces in society should rally to prevent the extinction of our population. It is necessary to reverse the alarming population tendency which has come to prevail in the last decades" (here). Anyone can use the interactive graphs on the un.org website to visualize the data. The Russian Orthodox Church, which is by far the largest, will decline in membership as Russia's population declines – that seems reasonable. Johnstone's book seems to be WP:RS that presents lots of statistics, maps, and graphs. What is WP:POV or not neutral about Johnstone's descriptions?
The US Religious Landscape Survey showed a decrease – was removed by Evensteven and by Dr.K., eventually added back and together , but later removed again (accessable here) – within the margin of error, as a percentage of US population. The article unfortunately describes adherents in terms of a relative growth instead of a percentage of population. Additionally, the "data were obtained directly from the headquarters (diocesan offices) of Orthodox Churches in North America" (orthodoxreality.org cited source in the article), in other words it is self reported claim.
Using a relative growth of a place that has an insignificant Orthodox population to show growth (like here), skews the general understanding that the Orthodox Church is demographically in decline on a global scale.
The article uses the description "the second largest Christian Church in the world" but the the cited source describes groupings of "Major Denominational Families of Christianity" and "Significant Sociologically Distinct Branches of Christianity" but not as "Churches".
The article includes statistics found on about.com which lack source citation on about.com, statistics should come from a reliable source – like Johnstone
The glaring historical error I was referring to was "54% in 900 (which assumes the east was separate from Rome before the East–West schism)". As an evangelical Protestant, Johnstone may have little familiarity with or concern for the sacraments. This statement would seem to indicate that. While there was well-recognized tension between Rome and Constantinople by 900, the Church both east and west had always been sacramental, in were still in communion with each other. This is a principal difference still between RC-Orthodox and portions of Protestantism, wherein Rome and Constantinople still have a lot more in common with each other than with Johnstone's brand of Christianity. There is good reason why 1054 is the principal date assigned to the schism: the mutual excommunications of Pope and Patriarch. And there is good reason also why that is not considered the end of that story either, because complete separation of communion among the whole church membership took considerable time to develop. Even 70 years after the sack of Constantinople, the Council of Lyon (1274) tried for unification again, one of many attempts. What Johnstone can't seem to grasp are the basic facts of Christian history, and especially the centrality of the Eucharist as the most significant ecclesial expression of unity of faith. So, starting from there, how reliable can his numbers be, based upon his own unreliable ideas about history? He shows his lack of credentials - rather of credibility. And from where does his demographic expertise come? Making graphs is not so hard, but why do his have relevancy? If he lists all his own sources, let's see some of them here instead, if they are more reliable. Or is he simply, in his unreliable way, constructing something independent from his sources, without credible basis? The very title of his book, The future of the global church, screams promotionalism, a clear conflict of interest given his propensity to gloss over major historical events. A reliable source would speak in less sensational ways, like "worldwide demographic trends in Christianity".
I grant that demographic collapse in Russia could have a serious impact on Orthodox population. I do not grant that Johnstone is sufficiently expert to determine what that impact might be. Does he have a source that we can rely on?
BoBoMisiu, the US Religious Landscape Survey you mention can be treated as reliable. If you look at the removals made by me and DrK, it was removal of editorial mention of the survey, not the actual source which you have kindly provided here. Our objection was to the unsourced editorial, not the source itself. Your "grouped together" "re-addition" was not this survey, but the introduction of Johnstone, and you see my objections to that.
There is, in addition, another talk page section about general demographic issues from 3-4 months ago. The flaws that do exist in the article are recognized. The solutions to those flaws have not yet been identified. I do not see Johnstone as being any help there. I do see some introduction of information sourced by the US Religious Landscape Survey as being useful. Would you care to make such an edit, since you have located the source? I dislike the perception that DrK and I are trying to be obstructionists here, and I think Thanatos left the discussion above with that feeling also (my conjecture, no proof). It is my frustration that so few good sources seem to exist. But it is also of so little interest to me! I know that this has been a battleground issue on this article some time past (before I came to WP), and that there was a lot of pointy assertion going on at one time. I have an interest in minimizing such activity. I also have an interest in minimizing all this demographic stuff at all in the article, but haven't had time to get to it. I think it's all material that is a breeding ground for contention, and I also think it's quite beside the point of the article. But I'm not sure that what I would like to see by way of reduction would be considered acceptable, and I just haven't made it a priority to find out. But let's please stick to sources that do independent demographical surveys as a normal course of business. At least then we can expect to have some expertise behind the numbers. And anything you can do to contribute therein would be most highly appreciated. Evensteven (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Evensteven: Johnstone divides chapters of history into 100 year units. does not show a delineating event at year 900 in either of the chapters about the time frames 800–900 and 900–1000; the Orthodoxy chapter is not available in Google Books preview to verify that "54% in 900" was written there and what context, for all that we know it may fail verification and turn out to be WP:OR by the initial contributor. I whole hardily agree that the almost universally accepted events in c. 1054 should be an obvious division, when religious but mostly political events before 1054 and events after 1054 had an affect. I don't see a "propensity to gloss over major historical events" since Johnstone does include the year 1054. In the early 900s there was already political reorganization of the church by states, e.g. by the Bulgarian empire and later Byzantine suppression of the Bulgarian patriarchal structure after conquest. There was clear cultural and linguistic separation then, e.g. Bulgarian, Greek, Latin, etc. This kind of real division along cultural and linguistic lines continues to exist today and is merged with national identities. The ecclesiology and sacramental theology generally align in Eastern Orthodoxy, but the ecclesiology also defers historically to the political structure. It has been that way since late antiquity when Christian Church diocese were generally aligned to the Roman civil diocese.
I did mention that Johnstone is an evangelical Protestant, and that is an explicit rejection of the sacramental Eucharist and everything related to it, e.g. Mass, priesthood, sacramental confession. But it does not matter whether Johnstone has "little familiarity with or concern for the sacraments". Rejecting the merit of his book based on his Protestantism is a genetic fallacy and just poisoning the well about its content.
Claiming that "Johnstone can't seem to grasp are the basic facts of Christian history" is just an unsupported argumentum ad hominem statement.
Questioning "how reliable can his numbers be, based upon his own unreliable ideas about history" is both begging the question since the premise that Johnstone holds "unreliable ideas about history" requires proof, and a straw man since Johnstone does not claim that the data he uses are "his numbers"
"Does he have a source that we can rely on?" Yes, he includes his sources on pages 240–241 which are not exposed through Google Books preview.
"If he lists all his own sources, let's see some of them here instead, if they are more reliable" is a double-barreled question which argues against a straw man that Johnstone is someway unreliable.
"Or is he simply, in his unreliable way, constructing something independent from his sources, without credible basis?" is another argumentum ad hominem statement which argues against a straw man that Johnstone is someway unreliable.
Questioning his lack of credibility is just another argumentum ad hominem. "He is one of the world’s foremost missiological researchers," according to a review of this book on the Dallas Theological Seminary website.
I don't think that the title The future of the global church is promotional; but I would even be accepting of a book hypothetically titled That they may all be one. I also think that the phrase "worldwide demographic trends in Christianity" is just descriptive and not sensational as you describe.
Both time (here and here), the text in hilite was removed: "Through both immigration and conversion, Orthodox Christianity is rapidly becoming one of the fastest growing religions in many Western countries, such as the United States (a claim rejected in the 2008 US Religious Landscape Survey) and the Republic of Ireland (doubling in five years, quadrupling in ten)." Both times the "objection was to the unsourced editorial", but the text itself cites the source that is included in the reference section. It was not just an "editorial mention of the survey" but reliable contradicting information to what the other cited sources claim.
Statistics are not beside the point of the article, the basic fact that the Eastern Orthodoxy Churches are decreasing in membership on a planetary scale is encyclopedic. Using migration to show growth in some regions without explaining that there is reciprocal decrease in other regions gives a false impression that Eastern Orthodoxy Churches are increasing in membership. I improved some of the statistical citations. The citations that I removed duplicated existing content or were replaced by better citations from the same sources, e.g. Russian map replaced with Russian article that contained that map. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Also questioning Johnstone's credibility is not an ad homimem argument. It is a simple fact that given his evangelical credentials he should not be viewed as a neutral source for the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Dallas Theological Seminary is an Evangelical organisation, so praising another Evangelical researcher is not exactly unexpected. Overall, religious affairs are fraught with dogmatism and centuries-old mistrust and religious antagonism, so one has to be very careful when choosing sources, especially when these sources are aligned with denominations which are not neutral to the one they are trying to analyse. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις04:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
BoboMisiu, in case you missed it on page 106, the reference to 900 AD appears in item #9 under the "1900" heading, which compares 1900 figures to those of 1000 years earlier.
Let me say also that you have clearly missed my earlier point also, just as Johnstone may have. You speak of the 900s having clear cultural and linguistic separation and real division along cultural and linguistic lines, and those descriptions reveal a lack of awareness of both Orthodox traditions and their social placement, and of the centrality and unity of its worship and faith within divergent cultures. You are perhaps expecting something monolithic in structure and organization, but Orthodoxy is nothing like that. It is its faith, its worship, and its shared communion that are its unity, even while its organization and structure is distributed (but not "divided"). Also, the Church in the east has been under threat and attack for most of its history, and has had to grapple very often with political forces not only not under its control, but which has sought to dominate it or persecute it, or both. No one denies the politics that has afflicted the Church, both east and west, as 800-1054 was an especially problematic time for Rome as well. Also, geographic distance was an almost insurmountable barrier in those times, especially under political duress. So naturally, your "separations" were present, but you do not seem to realize that they did not separate the faith, or the worship, or the communion, which is the life of the Church. And to those central things, Orthodoxy also has added, nurtured and blessed the various cultural settings in which it has found itself, expressing that faith within those cultural heritages. That has not altered the faith, but it has provided localized trimmings in the manner of non-liturgical local traditions often followed by church members. You need to understand the difference between liturgical and non-liturgical, and how their significance and relation to Orthodoxy is so distinct. Catholicism provides westerners some clues as to liturgy (but Eastern ones are different liturgical traditions), but Catholicism itself has no analog to Orthodox organizational structure, and a different kind of cultural trimming. This is not easy for westerners to grasp. Sometimes things look the same at first, and one thinks "I understand", only to find later that "no, that's not quite right" or "yes, but the point is [something else]". Johnstone is clearly at sea in these matters. And Dr K is quite right about historical mistrust and religious antagonism, which makes Johnstone unsuitable as a source. May I also point out again his lack of credentials, and in the field of demographics specifically, which itself makes him inexpert and unreliable as a source for these figures.
And may I reiterate that the US Religious Landscape Survey was not referenced where it was referred to. Another use of the survey in the article is insufficient. If it is to be the source for this (or other text), another reference needs to be present, with page number or some such, so that the specific source basis can be verified. The Survey itself may be considered WP:RS, but the source basis must address the claims of the article text specifically, and that was not done. If you wish to provide such backing from the Survey, please do so, but until then, the passage that was removed is unsourced. And given your claims regarding Johnstone's sources, use them in place of Johnstone, if they are reliable; Johnstone is not. Evensteven (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: thank you for the link to page 106. Throughout his book, Johnstone is describing counts in bins of a histogram with a wide width for the first bin, i.e. limits of 900, 1900, 1950, 2000, 2050; it is just data binning. The bins describe a loss of population without implying that a schism, or any separation, took place in the year 900, there is nothing unusual about using this method to describe population data which is used throughout his book.
This edit added: "Historically, it has been reported that the Orthodox share of the worlds total Christian population has declined from 54% in 900, to 22% in 1900, and 13% in 1950."
The Johnstone's sentence is: "Orthodoxy in 1000-year decline, from 54% of Christians worldwide to 22% in 1900."(p106).
Historical Dictionary of Byzantium also describes large percentage of losses in Byzantium, which was one of the most populous political divisions. Islamic conquests, plagues, etc. decreased populations, that is reasonable. Catholicism spread into the Western Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere.
What is POV or not neutral about Johnstone's binning?
@Evensteven: using the phrase "a claim rejected in the 2008 US Religious Landscape Survey" conveys all the information needed to identify the source by name, according to WP:CITE"what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed."
Both of you are presenting more logical fallacies:
"given his evangelical credentials he should not be viewed as a neutral source for the Eastern Orthodox Church"
It is a genetic fallacy to reject what Johnstone compiled based on his being a Protestant. Where in Johnstone's work is this purported lack of neutrality shown?
"historical mistrust and religious antagonism, [...] makes Johnstone unsuitable as a source."
I don't see that. This is just more unsupported ad hominem. It is a genetic fallacy to reject what Johnstone compiled based on his being a Protestant. Where in Johnstone's work is this purported "historical mistrust and religious antagonism" shown?
"his lack of credentials, [...] makes him inexpert and unreliable as a source for these figures."
He is described as "one of the world's foremost missiological researchers."
Johnstone was the source that the contributor selected and added, why divide the facts that Johnstone compiled?
Evensteven, I don't understand what you are saying about either the survey or use of the survey, can you explain? Are you writing about what I commented in the <!-- -->, that was about not being able to add a link to the archiveurl field that displayed the content found at the url, the url is not a static page so the archive will not backup correctly. I was not questioning the veracity of that survey. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Both of you are presenting more logical fallacies Please leave aside the personal attacks. Evensteven has explained to you in depth the reasons for Johnstone not being a reliable source. I have also tried in a much more limited fashion to respond to your arguments. But neither I nor Evensteven have made any ad-hominem arguments against you. You obviously disagree and you want your arguments to prevail. Please stick to the facts and not to personal arguments in this discussion. Your arguments are not persuasive. The fact remains that you want an evangelical Christian as a source who has neither the scientific background as a statistics expert nor a neutral background toward the Orthodox Church, being a leading advocate and promoter of Evangelical Christianity, to make sweeping and big claims about the demographic decline of the OC through the centuries. Evensteven already told you: You can use the sources Johnstone used but not his tainted conclusions and/or interpretations. That is very good advice and no amount of personal attacks will change that fact. However, if Johnstone writes a paper and it gets accepted in a reliable, academic, peer-reviewed journal and his sweeping demographic interpolations through the centuries are peer-reviewed and accepted then I would have no objection including him as a source in this article. As it stands, Johnstone is neither a statistician nor a demographics expert and his promotion of religious products such as books and websites promoting the Evangelical faith makes him unreliable as a source about sweeping generalisations regarding the demographic statistical trends and characteristics of the OC through the centuries. This conclusion is basic due diligence and proper vetting of sources for reliability, not a logical fallacy or an ad-hominem argument against Johnstone as you would have us believe. Johnstone obviously promotes his brand of Christianity through books and websites and part of that promotion is to show that the EOC is in constant decline through the centuries while Evangelism is the wave of the future. That may well be true but we need a neutral and qualified expert to use as a source in this article. Johnstone is simply neither a statistical demographics expert nor neutral and has a COI to boot. Again, religion is a very contentious area and sources should be very carefully analysed before they are used. In this case Johnstone does not pass muster for reasons presented multiple times already. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις16:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with BoBoMisiu on this. You discount his data because he is a Protestant. You cannot find any source with different numbers. In fact you will not even discuss (as far as I can see) which data you think is wrong/the most wrong or why you think this. BoBoMisiu asked "what is WP:POV or not neutral about Johnstone's descriptions?" We are not trying to include his statistics so that we reach his (or any other) conclusions. We think it is very useful for people to understand that for many centuries more than half of all Christians were Eastern Orthodox; their numbers were not always as small as it is now. Roman Catholics enjoy claims that over half of all Christians today are RC. tahcchat18:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: no, I disagree with you, my pointing out that both of you are presenting logical fallacies is not a person attack but only pointing out the logical fallacies that both of you present about Johnstone. I have responded to the arguments presented about the book, but both of you do not discuss what I write. I have clearly shown that Johnstone's use of the year 900 as bin limit is nothing unusual and it is obvious that the year 1054 fall into the first bin, i.e. 900–1900.
That Johnstone:
is "an evangelical Christian
Yes, he is. As I said above, it is a genetic fallacy to reject what Johnstone compiled based on his being a Protestant.
does not have a "the scientific background as a statistics expert"
Johnstone does not have to be a statistician to show counts and trends. What in Johnstone's work is being questionable?
does not have "a neutral background toward the Orthodox Church"
As I asked above, where in Johnstone's work is this purported lack of neutrality shown?
is a "leading advocate and promoter of Evangelical Christianity"
Yes, he is. As I said above, it is a genetic fallacy to reject what Johnstone compiled based on his being a Protestant. If he is in fact "a leading advocate", that seems to add to his credibility.
"make[s] sweeping and big claims about the demographic decline of the OC through the centuries"
@Evensteven and Dr.K.: can either of you provide errors in his book that have led to your conclusions about his book? I certainly agree that "religion is a very contentious area and sources should be very carefully analysed before they are used", but please share where in Johnstone's work you see any dubious information? There is no way to do fact-checking without knowing what facts you are questioning. Can either of you provide a single link that contradicts Johnstone? A search for "Patrick Johnstone" on Google Scholar shows both the book and him.
Please do not shift the goalposts here. And please do not repeat the same nonsense about "genetic fallacy" which only betrays your POV and refusal to get the point. Read my reply carefully: I did not reject Johnstone for being a Protestant. If you understood so litttle from what I wrote please read it again. I reject Johstone because he is: a) not an expert b) Not recognised as an expert in academic circles c) an advocate who has a vested interest to present statistics that show the EOC in the worst light possible. Now repeat after me: These are academic and activist background concerns and NPOV concerns that have nothing to do with him being a Protestant. I don't have to analyse his book to reject it. Academically Johnstone is not an authority on the subject. He is just a layman who advocates for his religion. That is not the background of an author of a reliable source. Insisting otherwise is disruptive. Further, on any other article on Wikipedia such a source would have been dismissed without much discussion. Why is it so difficult to do so here? Is this article of such low standards that you must advocate endlessly for such low value source? I am sorry but that shows a very high degree of POV-pushing. Unfortunately, religion articles are full of this type of disruption. I think this has to end; the sooner the better. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις22:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]: BoBoMisiu, let's drop the theatrics. It is now you making sweeping characterizations about our motives. Let's see if there is one single point that could settle all. Ah, I have it. Johnstone has no credentials in the field of demographics, and is himself dependent upon others for that information. If the others are themselves expert in demographics, then they are the sources that should be used here because that is best evidence. It is not necessary to go beyond this until that much is settled.
Furthermore, why have you not used the US Religious Landscape Survey? It is reliable. The text that was deleted last Jan 1 was not a reference. Textual mention of a source does not constitute a reference. Also, the text mentioned only the entire survey. That's like leaving a book name in a reference, but without page number (or anything else to identify the information source). References are there so that information can be verified. As you pointed out, WP:CITE states "what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source". That had not been done, and the text was removed. If you find something in that survey that you wish to add to the article, then make the edit and provide a real source, and there is no problem, as has been said before.
Tahc: Roman Catholics enjoy claims that over half of all Christians today are RC? Where have they ever said they "enjoy" such claims? And if they did (or you do), isn't that just the kind of grandstanding that proves Dr K's point above about how religious affairs are fraught with dogmatism and centuries-old mistrust and religious antagonism? And so his following point is also most pertinent: so one has to be very careful when choosing sources. Away with your suppositions of how we don't like Johnstone because he is Protestant! I'll tell you my own opinion now, and that is that this whole business of collecting membership counts and comparing and quantizing churches is one big grandstand, and that everyone who touches that business is degraded by it. It is in fact, contrary to Orthodox spiritual teaching to engage in comparisons like these, and for very good reason. It "puffs up".1 Cor 4:6 Haughty, arrogant delight in some perceived superiority to another, and completely incompatible with love. What filthy behavior! SO, I have a pet peeve against having any of that material here, and if I had my way it all would be removed, all. That behavior is roundly condemned in Orthodoxy, as is the material that gives rise to it, and as such it certainly doesn't reflect the Orthodox faith. I don't expect to have everything my way on WP, and you can see for yourself that it has not been removed. And because of that we have to sit around here discussing this worthless tripe and arguing about it! WP is not perfect, that's for sure. So much for my motivations! Evensteven (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: no, I am not moving any goalpost. WP:SOURCE, the policy, states: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history,[...]" but "may also use material from reliable non-academic sources". You do not discuss where in Johnstone's work you find these purported unreliable statements. Like I wrote above, please share where in Johnstone's work you see any dubious information. There is no way to do fact-checking without knowing what facts you are questioning.
Your claim that Johnstone is "an advocate who has a vested interest to present statistics that show the EOC in the worst light possible" is unsubstantiated. I don't understand how Johnstone's figures communicate anything other than population information. Demographic change and secularization reflects what people do and, in my opinion, only superficially reflects on their religion.
Where in Johnstone's work are these purported "academic and activist background concerns and NPOV concerns" shown?
What about his background makes him an unreliable source? WP:SOURCE is clear that contributors "may also use material from reliable non-academic sources". Reliability is not dependent on academic status.
@Evensteven: I am not characterizing either of your motives by pointing out the logical fallacies in both of your arguments, especially that it is a genetic fallacy to reject what Johnstone compiled based on his being a Protestant. I did add the most recent US Religious Landscape Survey, i.e. the 2014; I also updated Krindatch from the 2000 survey to the 2010 survey.
I have found academic sources that are in harmony with Johnstone's projections and use more dire language (similar to what I added from Alfeyev). The Eastern Orthodox "will suffer acutely from demographic change" and in "an optimistic population projection, Orthodox believers will by 2050 have shrunk to less than 3 percent of the world's population, dismally smaller than the early twentieth-century figure. In the worst-case scenario, the total number of Orthodox believers in the world by 2050 might actually be less than the Christian population of a single nation such as Mexico or Brazil" (here). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Evensteven: You are entitled (as they say) to your own opinion regarding when and if membership counts are good or bad... I would think that they sometimes used for bad reasons... but my opinion and your opinion do not matter. This data is part of Eastern Orthodox history and it is Wikipedia policy to include such data, because WP:Wikipedia is not censored.
Also, we do not have to sit around arguing about this. You just need to (A) to show your contrary and/or better data or (B) to admit you have no contrary and/or better data.
No, not true. We don't have to analyse the data. This is done by the reliable sources. The WP:BURDEN is upon you to prove that your source is reliable. What are the credentials of Johnstone? As I said before, he does not have any academic credentials. A layman without any credentials is not a reliable source. If you do not prove the credentials that make your source reliable we might as well scour the internet and copy any random book written by a non-expert and add its facts to the article. And please no edit-warring to add non-credentialed, unreliable sources into the article.Trying to add non-RS to any article through edit-warring is an absolute no-no in a serious encyclopedia. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις04:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
BoBoMisiu, his sources don't back up his conclusions, isn't that so? And he is not qualified to make demographic conclusions. Not reliable.
And, by the way, you are not competent either to draw the conclusions, nor to make judgments about the techniques used to draw conclusions. And neither am I. Which is why we leave it to the reliable sources. Your asking me to point out flaws is out of order. Evensteven (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing, Tahc: Don't lecture me on opinions. You know perfectly well that I was not giving mine as an argument for or against article change. That was entirely for your benefit, since you called into question our motivations here, and in a manner that suggested we were arguing in bad faith: "You discount his data because he is a Protestant.". No, I discount his data because he is not reliable. But he also has a COI, and that also makes him unreliable. But the second point is not necessary to show he is unreliable, there is already enough otherwise. Evensteven (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Johnstone is a WP:RS. You don't necessarily need a degree in something to be WP:RS. To claim over and over that Johnstone isn't a WP:RS does not make it so.
I am not quite sure what you think Johnstone's demographic conclusions are... but the if you mean what I consider demographic conclusions I would say there is no need to include they on this page, and so to bring them up would be a red herring.
Evensteven, I never asked for your opinions nor your lecture. I neither see how my stating facts would "call[...] into question [your] motivations" nor do I see how your opinions makes your motivations any better. Maybe we can just drop that. tahcchat06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Tahc, you did cast aspersions on my editing motivations, and they required an answer. Motivations are often driven by opinion, and I gave them, so in that sense, you did ask. Further, you have not stated facts, but rather your own opinion. Now, I don't object to your giving your opinion either. They can help make it clear what someone is saying in a discussion. But it's just plain wrong to assert opinion as fact. Your opinion is that Johnstone is reliable; mine is that he is not. I grant that this is currently an impasse between us. But the fact is, the WP:BURDEN is yours to prove that he is reliable, so simply asserting your opinion about it is not enough, just as it is not enough for me. And I have done far more than assert my opinion here, yet I have been answered mostly with huffing. I don't doubt your good faith, nor BoBoMisiu's, that is not in question. I do doubt your assertions. Please settle down and let's talk about those. To paraphrase you, To claim over and over that Johnstone is a WP:RS does not make it so either.
I have never claimed that a degree is needed. I have repeatedly used the word "credentials". And I have repeatedly expanded on what I mean by example (the survey above) and by suggestion (expertise in the form of doing and interpreting independent demographic surveys). The word "independent" is important here, and that is a matter that has already been explained to you also. If I have repeated anything, it's because it's not getting through. I know you have heard of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but I have been restrained in applying it, not wanting to cast aspersion or accusation, and neither do I do so now. But please be reminded that the policy doesn't just talk about refusal to "get the point" (a willful lack of good faith), but also a failure to "get the point" (an inability to see an opposing viewpoint) [my emphases in the quotes]. Both are in fact disruptive, and you have as much as thrown this down in front of me as I have, by suggesting that you are speaking facts while I am speaking opinion. That is disruptive also.
So, the problem as I see it is: what can be done here to bring an end to tendentiousness? I agree with DrK: Unfortunately, religion articles are full of this type of disruption. I think this has to end; the sooner the better. That is, the tendentiousness has to end. The discussion cannot even begin until that happens. That is what disruption means. Evensteven (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree a lot of this has to end. I see an incredibly long section here which seems to contain a great deal of personal comment and not a lot of review of the sources. FWIW, having been avoiding this discussion for awhile, hoping it would resolve without me, I have to believe that the source provided, in and of itself, is not necessarily one which can be used without attribution. Whether it should be used at all is another matter entirely, and I am not sure I would necessary think it should, because, personally, ultimately, I really don't like seeing us try to predict the future in any way. Issues regarding religious belief in the future are complicated by any number of unknowable variables, at least some of which can reasonably be expected to surface. These would include apparent revelations of some sort, wars, particularly effective evangelists, political situations, etc., etc., etc. If other similar articles, on like say the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion or whatever have similar content in their main articles, then I can reasonably see including something roughly equivalent here. If they don't, then I don't see any particular reason for this article to differ, although having such content in a more focused article, on perhaps demographics, might not be unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I am in agreement with John Carter: the source cannot be used uncritically. Also, speaking of someone who has ever-diminishing time to devote to goofing off on Wikipedia disputes, I really appreciate those who avoid WP:Walls of text and get right to the point. Extended off-topic discussion is very hard to follow, and very off-putting, especially on core articles in which many editors are likely to participate. Evensteven, I greatly appreciate your ongoing contributions to the project, and think you are one of the most valuable editors currently in this topic area, but please try to be brief and limit your comments to what is germane to the dispute. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter and Elizium23: the scale of things is encyclopedic and not a viewpoint. People study the effects of demographic change on Christianity and the Eastern Orthodox Churches – those population are dynamic. It not WP:OR and merits inclusion just as demographic descriptions by race or by ethnicity or by religion are included in other articles. A single sentence is not WP:UNDUE weight and is substantiated in multiple sources.
@Dr.K.: WP:BURDEN is about verifiability and "is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". Is your challenge that the book (The future of the global church) is not reliable, or is your challenge that the author (Patrick Johnstone) is not reliable?
All I am saying is that if we want to use it, we might as well attribute it, erring on the side of caution. It's just one source. What's the big deal? Elizium23 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
And, honestly, if one were to say that something is encyclopedic, I imagine it would be fairly easy to find an encyclopedia which makes similar statements in a similar context. Producing such an encyclopedic overview containing such statements would be useful. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I am still not sure why we must mention Johnstone in the article, even with attribution. There has been no reply to my questions about his credentials and qualifications so I have to assume he doesn't have any. Why then the opinion of someone with no apparent qualifications should be mentioned in this article? I think we can all agree that on the internet there are many opinionated laymen who write books about religion. That doesn't mean that we have to add their opinions to articles. Further, since religious articles are a magnet for religious POV-pushing, adding non-expert opinions to articles, even with attribution, makes the already existing problems of these articles even worse. To the contrary, to cure these problems we must insist on adding the most qualified and expert sources to these articles. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις19:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Thanks to all for the comments! I agree with John Carter (and BoBomisiu and Tahc) that demographic info can be useful. There is another problem in this article that hasn't yet been brought up, which is that it is too long already, and it is my opinion that these details (and the whole Johnstone issue) really ought to occurring at the Eastern Orthodox Church by country article, which is where such details belong. (There were walls of text about that in early July.) And I further agree with John that predictions of the future are to be avoided (imo, as they are self-generating contentiousness in themselves).
BoBoMisiu, no one said WP:OR or WP:UNDUE. That's off track. Both DrK and I used WP:BURDEN, and I think I'm the one who used it improperly. You are right that that policy pertains to verification of article text when a source is given. Nevertheless, it is still your responsibility to show that a source is indeed WP:RS, and you have taken no steps to do so. You force me to repeat for at least a third time! I say Johnstone the author is unreliable, having no credentials, which makes his book unreliable, since he is its source, which makes the content of the removed article text unreliable and worthy of removal. And once again, if Johnstone himself has sources, and they themselves can be regarded as WP:RS (which would also need to be shown, but it might be), then those are the sources we should be using in the article here.
Everyone, I hope that makes it clear that I do not oppose demographic material showing trends over time past. (I just think they should be in the other article.) But that material, including specific numbers, needs to come from a WP:RS. That's all I've ever asked for. To reiterate, BoBoMisiu, go ahead and use the Survey!
And Elizium23, I appreciate your kind words above. Also, I appreciate the need to avoid walls of text (and I'm not alone in contributing to that here). But it is also my experience that many WP editors do not read carefully. Sometimes a longer presentation has served to avoid confusions. And in addition, I must say that western perspectives so often are different from eastern ones, that many WP editors simply do not understand the significance of what I say without further explanations. Finally, some are resistant to understanding those things (as you have also seen), but if anything is to be actually accomplished in the articles, not only understanding but some sort of resolution is required. It all adds up in a hurry. I don't always get it right, but I do try to be as succinct as I think will be possible. BoBoMisiu and Tahc, for example, still do not understand that "Catholic" and "Orthodox" cannot be separated before 1054, as Johnstone does, despite a whole wall I devoted to that. Frustrating, I know. Maybe your approach is better after all. I'm getting mighty tired of trying to explain things to the uninformed.
Final point (also made above): Comparisons among the various churches is anathema to Orthodox teaching. I do not support any type of comparisons, and find all this "second largest in the world" stuff offensive. Other than for direct notability (which surely is not in question here), what use can comparisons be but to create and sustain soapboxing, hostility, contentiousness, and rivalry? (This is why "anathema".) It is also why we've got walls of text above. We make our own problems by having such stuff in the articles. I say away with it! Its claimed "usefulness" is nothing but vanity - and trouble. And isn't that the point of the Johnstone material too? I don't see that any of the churches have much to celebrate about in current demographic trends. What's there for anyone to crow about? Evensteven (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
(e-c)My questions have not necessarily been answered either. I acknowledge that this page does indicate that the source was published by Oxford, which is nice to know, but, honestly, even the best academic presses have published some less than really good sources. Also, if the book is, at that page says, part of a series on the future of global Christianity, it might be best to take all the works from the series and try to start either articles on the individual works in that series, which could certainly mention their projections for all the groups they cover, or perhaps provide better information on the reception of the work. Having said that, like I said before, and speaking as someone who was at least passingly familiar with the economic projections published by the university I attended at the time, any projections are ultimately based on best available information of the time they were written. That book was published in 2011, four years ago, and, honestly, a lot has happened since then. The recent Middle Eastern emigration through Eastern Europe comes to mind as one of the most obvious ones, and I doubt it was taken into account in the projections made in 2011.
If the information were to be included, it would I think reasonably have to say something to the effect of "in 2011 (or whenever the work was actually sent to the press) [the author] made the following projection: ...." And I don't know that many encyclopedic articles that would still use such potentially outdated material. But, like I said, if you can find a reference work, like any of the innumerable encyclopedic sources out there dealing with Christianity in all of its variations, which gives attention significant enough in that work's main article on a Christian faith tradition to such projections of future numbers, that would very much help your case for inclusion of such material. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, John, I'm not sure what your further questions are now. And I'm not at all enthusiastic about anyone's projections, as there is no way of verifying today how reliable they will turn out to be. The whole area of projection is just so much more fodder for contention, imo, and is best left alone. Besides, it's not encyclopedic, has never been the business of encyclopedias (and for good reason). If that book looks RS, and also contains some historical data, that has potential to be useful, and some of that kind of thing accompanies projections sometimes. We could cut off the numbers at the time of publication, and avoid controversies. Evensteven (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The Johnstone figures are an overview of a planetary scale not a national scale, that kind of overview belongs in an overview article like this is.
@Dr.K. and Evensteven: the entire argument (that Johnstone's book is unreliable since Johnstone has no credentials) remains unsupported based on logical fallacies about Johnstone that is contradicted both by the other sources that corroborate Johnstone's projection and by Johnstone being called "one of the world's foremost missiological researchers"; Dr.K., Johnstone is called an evangelical expert on missions, his opinion on the subject is an expert opinion. It is also a straw man, like I wrote above, reliability is not dependent on an academic status. These fact-checks demonstrate the reliability of his work. I hope that everyone here realizes that Johnstone's projection that the Orthodox Church will decline by 20% by 2050 seems to be among the smallest changes. Do either of you have opinions about the alternative titles and authors.
Evensteven, Johnstone does not separate Orthodox from Catholic before 1054, he is using a 1000 year wide bin of time to describe population change in a standard way, just as he also uses 50 year wide bins of time is a standard way in his book. Measuring and describing change is neither western nor eastern but is objective.
Evensteven, I feel the pain of your conviction and don't want to offend Orthodoxy. The demographic information is about describing what people are doing (e.g. genocide, abortion, secularization, dechristianization) and what is happening to the population of the planet; it not just about the churches. I trust what you say about an anathema against comparing churches but Christianity does not anathematize truth. Providing information about scale is not vanity but is an acceptance of the world as it is; it is seeing past the individual and group assumptions and false beliefs people make about themselves, sometimes for centuries. It makes me reflect: if only Ananias had trusted completely.
@John Carter: I agree about adding projections for other groups too. Jenkins' book is cited by 1321 according to Google Scholar. I don't think the migration numbers affect the overall count; Middle Eastern death numbers might, but since death is a decrease the change does not alter a projection of decrease. All information is dated by the time it is published in a book. You can almost infinitely regress about what is timely, but for example, a census takes place once every 10 years in the US and that data is used as more than a historical record even several years after it conducted by more than the US government. There is nothing controversial about using such statistics and including projections, its a common way of understanding things. I agree with you that it should be qualified, I would use a descriptive foot note. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
[insert] I regret to say that you still have not provided the evidence I requested. I indicated that what I sought was reference works which discuss matters of population projections regarding religious communities. You indicated that Google scholar says the work is cited by other works. The fact that a book is cited by other sources does not, obviously, mean that any specific data from that book is necessarily used in reference works. I ask again, provide a reference work, by which I mean something of a roughly encyclopedic nature, which specifically discusses population projections. Also, frankly, I find your statement that there is "nothing controversial about using such statistics" completely unsourced and pretty much a personal declaration of POV. WP:BURDEN would seem to imply that you not only make such statements, but that you back them up with similar instances where such statistics are used. That is, basically, what I requested above, show me a reference work which discusses population projections for religious groups. And, regarding your statement that you would include the data in a footnote, honestly, in no way would I consider that remotely acceptable. I did pay a little attention to economic projections and population projections in college, and projections of this type are really only counted as still reliable if they are, basically, current. They are, in this case, four years old or older, and very, very rarely, if ever, have I seen four-year old projections still counted as necessarily still useful. Of course, if you can provide the requested material from reference works, which I have asked for, indicating that such material is counted as being significant enough as per WEIGHT requirements for inclusion in the main article for this group, and, by extension, most other religious groups, I would love to see it. Having said that, I don't remember having seen it very often if at all in such works, but I don't remember them all that clearly. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
[insert] @John Carter: other than World Christian Database (which some works included in the article use as data), I cannot find a single reference work which discusses population projections for religious groups. World Christian Database seems to be the goto source for the data.
This is not going anywhere BoboMisiu and it is not going anywhere fast if you have to keep repeating yourself and self-citing yourself that Johnstone is a "foremost researcher". I will simply copy and paste my reply to you from above: The Dallas Theological Seminary is an Evangelical organisation, so praising another Evangelical researcher is not exactly unexpected.. Please understand one simple fact: Johnstone is not an expert or even an academically-recognised person. If someone is not recognised by any valid authority, he is essentially a layman and he doesn't get to be quoted in the article. In fact I am surprised that you keep defending Johnstone's inclusion despite the available evidence or lack thereof that he is an expert and your repetition of the identical points for his inclusion in the article is not constructive. It would be in fact a disservice to the readers of this fine encyclopedia if we quoted Johnstone because it would make it appear as if he is an expert, although he is not. As editors we have a great responsibility toward our readers to quote the best and most qualified sources because our readers expect that much from us. Johnstone fails on both of these counts by a wide margin. As John Carter said, if these facts are notable they could be found in and supported by other sources as well. We don't have to rely on Johnstone for their inclusion in the article. I have no problem at all with such an approach. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις23:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
As am I, BoBoMisiu. And I appreciate your sentiments about Orthodoxy. As far as the article goes, I think it should indeed "describe what people are doing", as you suggest, and I have no problem disclosing figures that show drops. That there are drops is well known, and my own parish had a discussion about it just this past Sunday. As for truth, the only "small-t" truths that exist are the ones that are true to the "capital-T" Truth, which is Jesus Christ Himself (John 14:6). And as for the article, I think both the truth and WP's and our own best interests lie in seeing the best numbers created and supported by the best that human beings can do, also without deceit (1Peter 2:22) - which means no conflicts of interest, no misleading statements, no cover-ups, and on WP, verifiable honesty. That's a good goal, I think. Let's find a way to get there. I just can't believe that there's any necessity for us to remain stuck! Reliable numbers ought to remain reliable wherever they come from, but the ones who actually produced the numbers are always the prime source. Evensteven (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dr.K. and Tahc:you shouldn't be surprised that I defend Johnstone's work after I evaluated it; I have not found factual errors in his work; I looked through the Google Books preview, randomly fact-checked to my satisfaction, and I don't find anything in the work that is either unreasonable or that I have not read previously. I like the visual way the work presents facts. I don't reject the work for being written an evangelical. You shouldn't be surprised since you haven't explicitly refuted anything other than your straw men and your red herrings. Your edit summary"Reverted good faith edits by Tahc (talk): Per BRD. Please continue the discussion on the talkpage. No consensus this is a reliable source." suggests you are expecting WP:BRD, but you are not BRDing, look at the pyramid from WP:BRDWRONG, you points of discussion are at the level of ad hominem which is one step above name calling. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have not found factual errors in his work; I looked through the Google Books preview, randomly fact-checked to my satisfaction You are performing original research. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to take upon themselves to fact-check sources "to their satisfaction". "Your satisfaction" is irrelevant. The reliability of the sources is the ultimate criterion. The duty of Wikipedia editors is to find reliable sources and not to find unreliable ones which can they then analyse "to their satisfaction". That is of course, nonsense. you sic points of discussion are at the level of ad hominem which is one step above name calling Same nonsense again: For the nth time: Analysing the academic credentials of a source is a normal part of academic life. Are you familiar with the rigours of academic enquiry? If you are, you are not adhering to the principles of academic enquiry.If you are not familiar with academic enquiry, please read about it. But whatever your awareness is regarding academic enquiry, do not attempt to stifle academic enquiry on this encyclopedia again. That is disruptive as I have told you multiple times before. And leave your stunts with the irrelevant charts out of this discussion. Your POV is strong enough to be detected without them. You don't need to highlight it further. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις14:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: more straw men fishing for red herrings: you seem to misunderstand WP:OR – my fact-checking is nothing original, it is reading. My writing is on topic – there is nonsense. Reliability is not dependent on academic status in Wikipedia. Familiarity with research is just another red herring. I did not "stifle academic enquiry on this encyclopedia". Like I wrote above, the entire discussion is about what this edit added:
"Historically, it has been reported that the Orthodox share of the worlds total Christian population has declined from 54% in 900, to 22% in 1900, and 13% in 1950."
And what Johnstone's sentence is:
"Orthodoxy in 1000-year decline, from 54% of Christians worldwide to 22% in 1900."(p106).
It not disruptive to keep the discussion on the actual content that was removed and away from logical fallacies. Look at the picture I added, it may help with understanding the difference: to "explicitly refute the central point" is not to argue ad hominem which "attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a courtesy note that I will not entertain your nonsense any longer by replying to it. But let me be clear about one thing: Until others support inclusion of your non-reliable source, which you are pushing for days now with walls of text, there will be no inclusion of that source in this article. As I have repeated many times before, if any reliable sources are found supporting the facts you want to add in the article then we can discuss further. The Johnstone source is simply not a reliable source and no amount of personal attacks, obfuscation, disruptive and irrelevant taxonomy diagrams or walls of text will change that. You can have the last word obviously but don't expect me to reply to this disruptive nonsense any longer. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις15:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of WP:COI, I am not accusing anyone here of having a formal COI, and as far as I know, the adherents of a religion are exempt according to the criteria of COI, but every human being has a religious POV, and the adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, and atheism may have particularly strong feelings about these disputes, but seriously need to set aside sectarian feelings and concentrate on Wikipedia policies. Elizium23 (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what this comment tries to address. The only issue here is if Johnstone is a reliable source or not. Generic remarks about "religious feelings" and "COI" based on "adherents of a religion" are not helpful in resolving the issue. It would be much more helpful if you offered an opinion regarding the issue at hand. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις17:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
(Sigh, but needs must.) BoBoMisiu, to clarify: I have not objected to the numbers Johnstone published (except for AD 900, which is still wrong because it is the wrong bin); I have objected to him as the source of the numbers. This is because we need on WP not only to report correct information, but to be able to verify it through RS. I submit that we can't know how reliable the numbers are until we have confirmation from at least one independent expert source, even though the numbers themselves "look reasonable" to both of us. We would also accept Johnstone's type of reporting from an independent source that is expert and reliable in the field of reporting, such as a major media outlet. It really comes down not to our own evaluations of Johnstone, but to verifiable recognition of how independent sources have evaluated him. It is the same criterion I would hold to any source, and I've been so tenacious because failure of credibility in sources has always been such an issue for this article and so much cause of contention. Evensteven (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
is not the wrong bin it is just the limit of the bin, it is a common practice to round numbers for dividing time, using the nearest roundest number 2000 as a base:
From what I have read while searching on this subject over the last few days, most of the raw data in several works (including Johnstone, Pew, World Politics, and others) is sourced from the World Christian Database. You wrote "we can't know how reliable the numbers are until we have confirmation from at least one independent expert source", I think they will point to World Christian Database but the Johnstone's sources on page 240 are not exposed in Google Book preview. It is a dead end with out looking at that page to see his other sources. Unfortunately, recreating the even the historical tail from other sources will result in WP:OR to claim that Eastern Orthodox Churches have for over a 1000 years lost population as a percentage of world population. Even with access to World Christian Database the result would be challengeable as a WP:SYNTHESIS. The forecast tail data will be found in World Christian Database but adding it will be challenged for WP:DATED, and WP:UNDUE like it is already in discussion. So a forecast, that even bishops talk about in terms of people ignoring a possible extinction, will be relegated from Wikipedia because an evangelical is just not reliable enough. I hope I will live for another 35 years to see if a demographic collapse will happens. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You still don't understand the point here, BoBoMisiu. It's not a matter of bin technique or demographic process. It's a matter of history. In AD 900, the Orthodox Church included Rome and all the western dioceses. There was no east/west, no division. Regional differences were superficial, as they are in Orthodoxy today. In 900 AD, the Catholic church included Constantinople and all the eastern dioceses. So said all of them then. So say they all now. The Orthodox Church still considers itself to be catholic (One, holy, catholic, apostolic), and we use small "c" only to distinguish the word from Rome and the churches in communion with it. The Catholic Church still considers itself to be orthodox (right-believing, right-worshipping), even though it doesn't use the word any longer, as a reflection of not being associated with the Orthodox Church. But even the words catholic and orthodox were inseparable in 900, and there was no church division to make name distinctions necessary. And this is what is so difficult for Protestants to grasp, somehow. You, and Johnstone, are looking at externals: political divisions, language and cultural differences, and things like that. And yes, there were religious conflicts, but they were internal conflicts, such as had occurred many times during the centuries preceding. The conflicts were not yet external, for that awaited the schism. So, the percentage within Christianity of Orthodox in 900 AD must be a bin that includes Rome and the west as well as Constantinople and the east. It's not 54%. It's not 100% either, since the Copts and other Oriental Orthodox had separated before AD 900. But Johnstone doesn't have his facts right on this score, and that is undoubtedly due to his lack of expertise. Academic degrees may not accomplish all, but one hopes they would accomplish this much. It's extremely basic. And it's not because an evangelical is just not reliable enough, it's because this particular evangelical is verifiably mistaken, at least in regards to figures for AD 900.
Let's consider another point here. I am saying that since 900, Orthodoxy has lost even more population than Johnstone is saying. The schism was responsible for huge losses. And there were later things as well: for example, the rise of the Ottoman Empire, and overthrow of the Byzantine Empire, with accompanying political dominance by Muslims. And let's not forget that within the 20th century numbers Johnstone presents there was the rise of communism, the decimation of the church in its largest population center, and the worst persecutions in its history over 70 years' time. The numbers are one thing, but it's really a disservice to the truth unless that raw data is put into context, and we need some contributing sources to provide the synthesis that would enable the article to present that context. The current declines throughout the various Christian churches are not due to the same factors as other historical declines, for the present situation is unique in history as regards the rejection of religion in general. But as you have pointed out even with projections, there is a demographic collapse going on in Russia, so the departure of the faithful will not be alone among the problems churches face. And another current factor that deserves mention is indeed the rise and spread of Orthodoxy into regions of the world where it had little or no presence before, like Ireland, Guatemala, and the US. Small numbers, but significant aspect.
This is not all on Johnstone's head, for sure, but the whole consideration of demographics, on Orthodoxy and other churches alike, really ought to have a real scholarly or authoritative synthesis accompanying the numbers. For the whole lot of the statistics is simply uninterpreted raw data otherwise, and neither we nor our readers can be supposed to make sense of it all by ourselves. It's way too shallow. And that bugs me more than simply ensuring accurate numbers. Now that I consider it, it may be one reason the numbers themselves have such a tendency to present themselves as agents of dissention. Because of what we fail to present, the numbers are being asked to do what they are incapable of: providing context. Each human brain looking at them provides its own, and voilà, controversy. That would put any source in a bad light. Evensteven (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Pew global Christianity report
The Pew report estimates that "Orthodox communions comprise 12% of the world's Christians" (p21). But "Orthodox Christianity" in the report combines Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches (pp31, 38). The 12% does not accurately depict just Eastern Orthodox Churches. I guess by looking at the report that figure should be ≈10%. A better representation would include an estimated figure as percentage of world population. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep, you're right. What can we do about it? That's how Pew chose to group and report their numbers. The key is that they are reliable, and the problem is that they have not reported the actual number that we want. But we ourselves cannot be correctors of the information, for that would make us original researchers. You're right that actual Eastern Orthodox numbers are something lower than 12%, but probably not much lower. But we need the sources to say that before we can say that. I think what we can do here is to point out the combination in the figures in an article note, calling it to a proper degree of attention. Or, of course, we can decide that Pew, while reliable, doesn't give us the precise information that we have to have in this article (which is true), and thus remove it and its info from the article. And that's precisely one of the problems that there's always been at this article. There's a distinct lack of independent reliable sources that categorize their information in the way we want it for presentation on WP. (There's another problem also: that in some places, even reliable sources cannot themselves get precise information, but only rather nebulous aggregates and estimates, because of troubles in data collection, various reasons.)
So, we can't say ≈10% because the source doesn't say it. (And what source does? If there is one, let's get it in here!) But as for Pew, what do you think we should do with it? It's often been a choice here either to deal with what we do have, or to drop all and say there is no verifiable information and let the article do without. Evensteven (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't be at all surprised, and if I remember right, I've seen that myself (but I'll just take your word this time). Ditto my comments on Pew above.
And actually, this source has never seemed to me to be reliable either, for many of the same reasons as those about Johnstone. Maybe it's time to challenge it on that basis.
Essentially, this brings the discussion back to the same problems brought up at the #World map of Orthodox Christians by country and relevant claims in the text should be removed from the article section above, in April 2015. I know where I stand with regard to WP:RS, and I'm sure DrK agrees on that point. But I still don't see a clear path to what is best for the article. (That is, I see what I would like, removal of all, but that's not what others want or find useful.) I also want article stability and an end to disputes about these matters. But my opinions are known on that now also. I'd throw up my hands and walk away happily, except for my interest in the article. So I haven't decided to walk away, and I leave my concerns and thoughts here. But I think the time has well arrived to make a community decision or two on how to handle this reliability issue in general. Decisions about Johnstone, Pew, and adherents.com should provide a fairly good survey of the problems (are there other candidates?). And then maybe we can put some of this stuff to bed for a nice sleep. Evensteven (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
We've had one edit already from BoBoMisiu that seems acceptable to all (to me certainly). Is it time to just open things up to editing again, and see if we have further things to discuss? We've aired a lot already. Might I suggest dealing with edits regarding Pew and adherent.com first, and see if that is suggestive of a resolution on Johnstone? Evensteven (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure Evensteven that these forecasts from 2011 projecting to 2050, 39 years into the future, are ok to be included in this article? They look too speculative to me. John Carter raised objections to them and I agree with him. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις21:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
(e-c) We often have situations of this sort. I think similar statistics on "Eastern Catholics," for instance, tend to lump them together too. FWIW, I would think myself, for both the EO and OO churches, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have Demographics of Eastern Orthodoxy and Demographics of Oriental Orthodoxy, and, possibly Demographics of Catholicism or Demographics of Eastern Catholicism pages, which can provide data on the details of each unit within each of those larger groups on a more specific basis. Provided they are notable of course, but I think that they probably are. The sources involved might be closely related or even sometimes published by the bodies in question, but I tend to think they are also discussed elsewhere. The World Christian Database at http://www.worldchristiandatabase.org/wcd/ probably has the required information. If sources exist which provide information which isn't such that it can comfortably be used in any article, well, that's happened before elsewhere. We don't use it. Regarding Dr. K's point above, well, I could see such information included in the more specific articles on demographics, but, honestly, until I see another encyclopedic source which gives that information sufficient WEIGHT in their article for it to proportionally be included here, particularly considering the length of some of the articles, I don't see that it needs to be included here. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you John. I agree with your well-made points. This information from 2011 is old and to be included somewhere, if it must, it has to have the larger context of speculation within a demographics article. But it is UNDUEWEIGHT to be included in this article. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις21:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. DrK, no I don't think any projections from anyone are really suitable for the article, reliable or not. I think I said something like that above, but it could be lost in the wall somewhere. John, I agree entirely with you about your series of "Demographics" articles. It's just the place for all this info, rather than in the rather long articles on the churches themselves. I also like your titles for them. You know of the Eastern Orthodox Church by country article, right? Isn't that essentially Demographics of Eastern Orthodoxy? But I like your title better: more descriptive, better phrased for topic, allowing an easier comprehension of what material is suitable. Perhaps a rename? I agree DrK about undue weight here. I agreed with the edit simply because I think all the issue of where to put the information is still to be talked about and decided, and I wasn't going to push that stream of considerations forward myself, but I'm certainly open to this. And one more point regarding organization of information. Even in a demographics article, it would be useful to separate "current data" from "past data / trend", and both of those from "projections / trends". The two items that pertain to trends should reside side-by-side in adjacent sections, however, so that a reader could proceed from "past-til-now" to forecasts more seamlessly. I would propose that demographic weight should favor "current state of things" over trends, and occupy the majority of the demographics article, but the amount of material may be the deciding factor. I certainly don't think projections should occupy a large spot even in a demographics article. Projections are always dependent on unknowables, subject to speculations, subject to POV and agenda and contention, and even relatively reliable sources can fall prey. If too much of that stuff intrudes, the demographic article will just become a battleground too. Editorial controls are desirable and necessary. And I can give my vote right now on any poll about projections: oppose, since no projection can be verified reliable on the basis of what is known today. I still think it's a hornet's nest. But that's my take, and a consensus will decide, and it's acceptable to me to let that process proceed. Evensteven (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I had to read Megatrends by John Naisbitt in school; being more ignorant then I argued with students and the instructor regularly that Naisbitt was speculative and a waste of time; over the following decades I saw otherwise. Anecdotally from what I see here, demographic articles about religion that include forecasts will never escape the shadow of sectarianism. I see in contentious Catholic articles that many editors really don't contribute or improve the content but delete mostly for poor reasons. I think list articles that presented tabulated figures would be interesting and informative. But the way, for example, Eastern Orthodox Church by country is assembled now, even the referenced data is unreliable because the figures mean different things., e.g. including survey of self identification, with CIA Factbook, with a book, with a tertiary website, etc. If Wikipedia could get World Christian Database access then the figures would have a better consistency. I agree about the Eastern Catholic figures. I have seen graphs of self-reported figures from churches and self-reporting yearbooks that are best called bullshit. I disagree with John Carter and Dr. K. about forecasts – a clearly labeled forecast shows trends, I think most positive forecasts are generally not controversial but dire forecasts are. Those disturbing forecasts are the ones that some folks fear and suppress in the real world, e.g. North Korean sociopathic behavior – so maybe it is undue in Wikipedia because of human nature. It is unfortunate that there isn't open source data of this kind. Evensteven, I think "it's a hornet's nest" from bias – everybody wants to be right even if their right isn't true. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know Naisbitt, but he (she?) may have been one whose projections turned out to be on the mark. Some do. A few get lucky. Some knowledgeable and conscientious manage for good reason. Other knowledgeable and conscientious fail for reasons that aren't their fault. The future always has things unforeseen. So I don't argue that it's all pure conjecture. But neither can it be verified in advance in any firm manner. Everything future is always subject to vagaries and what mathematicians would call "chaotic systems". But I agree that it's a striking human characteristic that it shies away from bad news. (About oneself, that is. About others, it all too often becomes voyeuristic.) Forecasts are manipulable, and a negative forecast is almost always subjected to pressure for revision. Churches are full of people, so guess what? But look around, it's everywhere. Business? Read an annual report, especially in a year that stock prices are down. Governments? Hopeless. Scientific research funded by either business or government? Ooh, that's really a touchy subject! And truth suffers. These are the seas we navigate. It takes skill to keep off the shoals. And a good Navigator, with Charts. I wouldn't want to be on my own.
A more practical idea before departing: self-reporting is subject to abuse, but it is also subject to higher accuracy. You can get either. But as far as church membership goes, Protestants report and think and view differently from Catholic and Orthodox. Let me generalize (that is, become fuzzy accurate). The difference stems from views on baptism. For in Protestantism generally, the sacraments are de-emphasized, even Baptism which is often the highest-regarded. For Catholic and Orthodox, baptism is the entire means by which membership is known. Protestants stress church attendance to give numbers; Catholics and Orthodox count the baptized. Protestants complain that baptism doesn't represent ongoing participation as a Christian. (And they're right, Catholics and Orthodox would agree.) Catholics and Orthodox count baptism as analogous to citizenship in the Church. Even living abroad for awhile, one's citizenship does not expire automatically; that requires specific renunciation. And even after renunciation, return can be accomplished without re-baptism (in fact, it must be done without re-baptism, for baptism is persistent). So, it becomes a matter of theological viewpoint driving viewpoint on membership, and naturally there are differences. It seems to me that the only way to resolve some of those things is self-reporting. In the end, all institutions do define their own membership. Unless independent demographers ask the right questions and compile their data according to the institutions' own definitions, then we should not report their numbers as constituting membership, but rather on the basis on which the number were collected, such as "self-reporting of individuals". And we shouldn't compare apples to oranges, because they truly are not the same thing. Evensteven (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Evensteven: its not just random, the past and present develop into the future, e.g. the US national debt. I also see how Catholic Church demographics are argued against, e.g. the 11 self-identified Catholics not found in Church tabulations. When the US Census counted church membership it did not ask the churches but the people about their membership to blind the data, the church figures were unreliable for the census because they were self-reported and not independent. No institution can survive without participation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
No institution can survive without participation. Well, I wasn't arguing with that. You haven't grasped what I've said, so we'll just have to leave it there. Evensteven (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Good. And I think I understand your references to "bin" and to what Johnstone was doing. So we have some foundations under this item. Understand also, then, that this was a critical item for me that called loudly for attention with regards to Johnstone's credibility as WP:RS. I'd like to focus on that issue first, and we can come back to this as needed to tie it in to any decision. Evensteven (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Data about the future
BoBoMisiu-- (1) I really have no idea why you want to include information about what may or may not happen to Eastern Orthodox numbers in the future. Off-hand it, seems to me to run counter to the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (2) Even more-- I have no idea why you want to discuss it up here-and-now. Future data has different origins, different purposes, and takes different expertise. If you do want to include data about the future on this page, mixing that discussion with this discussion seems like the worst way to do it. tahcchat02:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Johnstone's work includes demographic forecasts for the year 2050; part of the discussion was about the appropriateness of including those kinds of figures. WP:CRYSTAL is about unverified speculation not about WP:VER and WP:RS trends, e.g.Future sea level and Projections of population growth. Rejecting Johnstone for being unreliable is an indirect way of rejecting the figures that he included for being unreliable; It is faulty logic as I pointed out and some people reject logic.
We discussed everything included in Johnstone's book. The content I added was from another book that contained a similar forecast to see what would be done with it. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The theory of forecasting/projections has been discussed already above. If that is the reason you are insisting on Johnstone, then why haven't you said so? I have to go with Tahc on this one. Evensteven (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I regret to say that, at least to my eyes, the statement that rejecting Johnstone is to declare him unreliable is itself to my eyes a direct violation of logic. What I believe the point of contention to be is the matter of WEIGHT. For what it might be worth, this is what I see from the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus as being the content of the directly relevant articles in the works listed there:
From the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, the first work listed there, the article "Eastern Orthodox" is listed as being between 3 paragraphs and 2 pages long, with no indicated named subarticles
The Brill/Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Christianity lists its article on the Orthodox Churchas being over 2 pages long, with subsections as follows, with (L) being used to describe sections 2 pages or longer, "S" sections of 3 paragraphs to 2 pages, and "M" sections of one or two paragraphs:
Orthodox Church – Terminology and self-understanding (S); History (L);
Orthodox Church – Terminology and self-understanding – Names (S); Meaning (S); Approach (S); Singular versus plural (S);
Orthodox Church – Terminology and self-understanding – Names – Orthodox Church (M); Orthodox Catholic churches (M); Eastern Orthodox Church (M); Eastern Church (M); Greek Orthodox Church (M); Catholic church (M); One, holy, catholic, and apostolic church (M);
Orthodox Church – History – Structural development (S); New horizons (S); The East-West schism (S); Reorientation and restructuring (S); The Diaspora (S); Orthodoxy and the oikumene (S);
I would think, logically, the best way to structure the article is more or less in accord with the best extant reference works, such as the Brill/Eerdmans above. And, FWIW, the subsections of history do reflect historical eras, even with the vague titles. So, on that basis, the only place I can see projections being added is either to the most recent historical section, or, if one wanted, to a new separate section for projections, which I do not find in that article, so I have to question whether it meets WEIGHT for our own.
Maybe we should first try to get the article basically balanced, and then worry about what seem to me anyway to be minor details like projections which don't even seem to be covered in the other best encyclopedic sources? John Carter (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: I agree that the demographics are a minor detail but I don't think the demographics are a matter of WEIGHT. For example, if Nigeria's population is projected to rise because of birthrate, and US population is projected to fall because of birthrate, so the population of Nigeria will be greater than of the US in 2050. This seems innocuous to me, but could elicit the same emotional response from some about COI, POV, Neutral that is demonstrated here. Hispanic population projections in the US elicit emotional reactions in the US. I don't have an emotional reaction to the Nigeria projection, or the Hispanic projection, or the Eastern Orthodox projection but each projection is interesting for me.
I think some of the article can be pruned to remove duplicate content, e.g. move the administrative content into Orthodox Church organization and have an overview paragraph here. The gallery of church edifices could be moved into a new list article (similar to Polish Cathedral style) to list the architecturally significant places. I agree with John Carter about the history section, there is a History of the Orthodox Church article that content can be harmonized with. Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity has a sociology chapter that also describes development and change. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that some moving around of information is likely to prove beneficial, but that's really a separate topic, so we should take it to another section. The intersection point here has been projections in general, and if we can peel that topic off also and consider it separately, we may be able to see better in order to settle the core issues of this section. Evensteven (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
For reasons I don't understand, there seems to be a desire to pour out pages-and-pages of text over this issue in hopes of getting this over-with. People have really been talking in genuine good faith, but it has involved lots and lots of talking, and no so-much listening. Everything that needed to be said could have been with only about 10% of the words spilled over this.
For Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Furthermore, the current discussion is not focusing on the right things much, is not making progress, is (because of its length) not practical for anyone else to join catch-up and join in and is also not very conducive to we that are here participating well. We should take a break and give ourselves a chance to cool down. This can be brought up again sometime weeks or months from now and maybe we can do it better then.
By the way, at first I did not realize that a "no consensus" in this situation was treated differently than a "no consensus" in most situations I been involved in in the past, so I apologize for my error. I am content to leave the Johnstone data out over this lack of consensus, until such a day that there is some. tahcchat02:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Tahc: I agree with you – and think the whole thing is reactionary to prevent progress. Progress would require, in my opinion, acknowledging the difference that to "explicitly refute the central point" of the work is not to argue ad hominem which "attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument" in the work. Maybe someone uninvolved could WP:REFACTOR the discussion, maybe wrap the distracting content with {{Hidden}}. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks BoBoMisiu. If you still feel that way, I guess I'm done. As Tahc has pointed out (and Elizium23, earlier), I've spilled out miles of text here hoping to build a consensus. But if you think the whole thing is reactionary to prevent progress, then you apparently think I've been doing so in bad faith. Sorry you feel that way. Evensteven (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Evensteven: no not you, in my opinion Dr.K. prevented progress with his straw men, red herrings, and ad hominem statements about Johnstone – what he wanted removed was removed. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen DrK behave in such a way as you describe, and never in bad faith, not elsewhere, not here. Disagree with him you may, but imo, your expressions of straw men, red herrings, and ad hominem statements are unjustified maligning, and that certainly prevents progress. True civility isn't a rule or a policy. So again I have to go with Tahc that further cool-down is much to be desired. If I'm commenting in good faith, then I present to you that I share DrK's views on Johnstone, and my view that he was commenting in good faith also. In particular, to question Johnstone's suitability as WP:RS is not an attack upon him. It's a legitimate question that must be asked on WP sometimes. And I remind you, I raised it first. Evensteven (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Johnstone as WP:RS
This is has been a great sticking point, and if we can get a firm decision on it (even if we don't all agree), then I think we'll be able to move on much more effectively. Straw poll, anyone? I'd suggest the question be put as the statement "Johnstone meets the WP:RS guideline". I'll set it up, or someone else can, if this looks to everyone like a good way to proceed. Otherwise, we can just discuss here. Evensteven (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
No. Johnstone as a WP:RS is the whole discussion, and a straw poll is not they way to way to drop the discussion.
Just drop it, and (if you want the page text changed-- but I thought you did want it not changed) start a new discussion later just about Johnstone as a WP:RS. tahcchat14:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, my idea was to try to resolve it, not drop discussion, and to see if a straw poll might yield a path to that. But ok, what you suggest looks fine to me. Evensteven (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
