Talk:Growth of religion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Last edit #3

The good man 232, According to the study around 1.5 million people may convert to Islam between 2010 and 2015, while around 1.6 million people may leave Islam in the same period, so the net loss will be around 60,000, so more people are expected to leaving Islam than converting into Islam between 2010 and 2050. Also the main reason, according to the study for why Islam is growing more than the other religions, is because of the young age and high fertility rate of Muslims, while religious conversion has no net impact. So if he decides to make a religious comparison of growth between both faiths, then there are so many factors why Islam is growing more than Christianity: these factors include high fertility, gaps between new babies and death, life expectancy, age structures, etc., so why the cherry-picking of factors to make POV comparison.? This about why Islam is growing faster than other religious groups.Eliko007 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, you said:According to the study around 1.5 people may convert to Islam between 2010 and 2015. which study do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The good man 232 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, no wikipedia policy said that comparing is forbidden — Preceding unsigned comment added by The good man 232 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

According to the study the main reason why Islam is growing faster than other religious groups is the young age and a high fertility rate of Muslims, while religious switching has a modest impact on Christian population growth and the Muslim population growth, picking this factor and making a comparison is obvious POV to make a point, especially that it has a modest impact on both religion population growth, the induction is about why Islam is the fastest-growing major religion in the world, not about Christianity. Eliko007 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, I know that religious conversion has a modest effect on Islam, You seem to be discussing another thing. The good man 232 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you want to push a factor that has a modest impact on both of the growth of the religion?, It's already mentioned the main factors that the study adapted for the growth of Islam, is there a reason why picked this factor rather than other factors to make a comparison?.Eliko007 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Also you are going against a consensus, at least four editors reverted that edit, and they told it not appropriate to add in the introduction. Eliko007 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, But you wrote the effect of religious conversion on Islam in the introduction, but you do not want to write the impact of religious conversion on Christianity in the introduction, what is the reason for that? The good man 232 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Because this about why studies suggest that Islam is the fastest-growing major religion in the world, what has Christianity to do with that?. Also why you are focusing to make a conversion comparison with Christianity and not with Religiously Unaffiliated for example. Eliko007 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, Christianity is the largest religion, therefore, it is justified to put it in the introduction or compare with it. The good man 232 (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Again the introduction is about why studies suggest that Islam is the fastest-growing major religion in the world, it's not about Christianity, and you did not get any consensus, at least four editors reverted that edit, and they told it not appropriate to add in the introduction, are we done with that. Eliko007 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You didn't make a comparison, you picked one factor that had a modest impact to make a point. Eliko007 (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, If the article spoke about Islam in the introduction that does not mean that no other religion can be mentioned in the introduction. The good man 232 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, religious conversion has a modest impact on Islam but you mentioned it on the introduction. The good man 232 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, consensus? Hahaha, do you mean your sock puppets consensus? The good man 232 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Also there are other different factors for Christian growth that have a greater impact on its growth, yet you picked only this factor that may have a modest impact on the future, you didn't get a consensus to add it, this statement doesn't belong in the lead paragraph of growth of religion. so move on. Accusing me of sock puppets is not accepted, don't throw accusations. Eliko007 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, there are other different factors for Christian growth? Give me these factors. The good man 232 (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow seriously you asking me that, it's obvious to me now that you don't read the citation. Eliko007 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, You are the one who should read the citation. Factors affecting the growth of religion are the births rate and the conversion, but the conversion has a modest impact for all religion, as there is no religion the main reason for its growth is conversion expect Atheism. These are just the factors. The good man 232 (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the factors include fertility and mortality rates, age structure, life expectancy, conversion, etc. Also Religiously Unaffiliated is not equal to Atheism; this category includes atheists, agnostics, and people who do not identify with any particular religion in surveys (these three groups have a different understanding of dogma or God). Please read first the citation, if you having issues with the language you can ask me, or you can use google translate because till now all your statements clarify that you misrepresenting the citation or you didn't read it. Eliko007 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, You are avoiding the topic which we discussing about and discussing another topic. The good man 232 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you that there are plenty of factors that have a greater impact on the Christian growth population, yet you picked one factor that has a modest impact to make a comparison in the lead paragraph that discusses why studies suggest that Islam is the fastest-growing major religion, to make a point. Eliko007 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Also I'm not avoiding, I'm giving the advice to read the citation carefully, because I can't keep discussions with you when you don't read the citation carefully, a statement such as "Factors affecting the growth of religion are the births rate and the conversion ... these are just the factors", show that you misrepresenting the citation or simply you didn't read it. Eliko007 (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, you said "plenty of factors", What are the many factors that I did not mention? Do you mean the births rate? The good man 232 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No for example factors include age structure and life expectancy, these factors are not equal to birth rate, to understand the demographic changes and it affects I will give an example, 24% of European Christians in 2010 are older than 60, that may affect negatively the Christian growth there because this 24% they may be died by 2050, while 41% of African Christians in 2010 are younger than 15, that may affect positively on the Christian growth not only in Africa but also world’s Christians, These factors have a greater impact than conversion. Eliko007 (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, no, you are wrong, age structure and life expectancy is equal to birth rate, when a person is younger, his fertility is higher and he can conceive more, that is what they mean. The good man 232 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Anther example, according to the study, in 2010 around 13% of the world’s Christian population were older than 60, compared to only 6% of the world’s Muslim population. Also, Muslim fertility rates are 3.1 compared to 2.7 for Christians, this has a greater impact why Muslim is growing faster, in some area such as Europe the fertility rates for Christians (1.6) is very low (less the media).Eliko007 (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think that age structure and life expectancy is equal to birth rate, then we have a series of problems here, I'm having doubts now about your ability to understand academic citation. Eliko007 (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Being a young nation is not necessarily mean having high fertility, for example (Iran, Israel, etc). And if age structure and life expectancy are equal to birth rate, then why on earth the study separates these factors?. Eliko007 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, you said "Being a young nation is not necessarily mean having high fertility", give me source of this. The good man 232 (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, I think that the one who have a questionable ability to understand academic citation is known now. The good man 232 (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Anther example of misrepresenting the citation, the source doesn't make such a statement: "Most of the net gain to Islam through conversion come from Europe". on page 43 the citation shows that between 2010 and 2050, 1.5 million people may convert to Islam and around 1.6 million people may leave Islam, which means there will be more people who leave Islam than convert to Islam (60,000), please stop making a false statement. Also, the study treats fertility and mortality rates, age structure, life expectancy, conversion, as separated factors, so please read the source before any further edit. Eliko007 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on the table of page 43, the net gain to Islam through conversion come from Sub Saharan Africa (2.9 million) and Asia-Pacific (950,000), while religious conversion may negatively affect the growth of Muslims in Europe by 60,000, and religious conversion may negatively affect the growth of Muslims in North America by 580,000. So can please explain how you get this false statement: "Most of net gain to Islam through conversion come from Sub Saharan Africa and Europe". Eliko007 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The introduction should give a brief summary about the article, per WP: LEDE. Adding what you want to add isn't helpful. Especially that this specific factor has a modest impact on the future Christian growth according to the study. Eliko007 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, also religious conversion has a modest impact on Muslims growth, but you mentioned it in the introduction. The good man 232 (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

First, I'm not the one who mentioned it, it's been always inside the introduction, you can check the history of the article. Second, the paragraph gives a brief summary of the fastest-growing religion in the world, which is, in that case, is Islam, and it gives a brief summary of the factors beyond that. So it's a different case. Eliko007 (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, I notice that you are repeat the discussion again, if you do not understand me well you can return to the discussion that we discussed before and read it again. The good man 232 (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha?, I'm explaining to you to understand WP: LEDE. The introduction should give a brief summary of the article, per WP: LEDE, read it, please. The article is about the growth of religion in general, it is not about Christianity nor about the comparison between the two largest religions in the world. The article in the first and third paragraph gives a brief summary about the statistical measure of the growth of religions in general, and the second paragraph gives a brief summary about the suggested fastest-growing religion in the world and the factors beyond that, which is in that case, is Islam. Picking one factor that has a modest impact on that religious group which is not the fastest-growing religion in the world - in your case Christianity- to make a comparison isn't helpful. Eliko007 (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think this statement should be added to the introduction? I gave different arguments, such as the introduction should give a brief summary of the article, this a POV comparison, cherry-picking of factors that may have a minor effect in the future on that group. You did not give any reasonable argument expect that Christianity is the world largest religion in the world so we have to mention it (you forgetting that this article is not about the largest religion in the world), and the argument Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, your forgetting here that the studies suggest that Islam is the fastest-growing religion so mention that in the lead is relevant. Eliko007 (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

checked User:The good man 232's edits on the article and what I'm seeing is to present inaccurate figures about the so-called decline of Christianity, as well as figures regarding apostasy in Islam. With this POV behavior it is difficult to assume good faith. The article is about the growth of religion, not a comparison between Muslims and Christians, the lead paragraph should cover general material about the growth of religion, the fastest growing religion, and the reasons behind that. Anything beyond that is bound to end up in POV disputes. desmay (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest this tex: "According to studies Christianity is world's largest religion, and within the next four decades, Christians will remain the world's largest religion; by 2050 the number of Christians will reach 3 billion. Since the 20th century Christian pouatiaion become more geographically diverse. According to Pew Research Center religious conversions are projected to have a "modest impact on changes in the Christian population", and may negatively affect the growth of Christians by 72 million between 2015 and 2060, most of the switching is expected into the unaffiliated and Irreligion. On the other hand, other studies cited that Christianity rank at first place in net gains through religious conversion, especially in China and other Asian countries and sub-Saharan Africa. Studies in the 21st century suggest that that the so-called popular Protestantism is one of the fastest-growing religious categories in the world.

References

Eliko007, The proposed text contains details which we do not need to mention in the introduction. The good man 232 (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

What details we do not need to mention in the introduction, and explain why?. And what you suggest instead?. Eliko007 (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Also do you suggest anther text to give a brief summary about Christian population growth, that covers the material further on?. Eliko007 (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your explanation of which part of the text you disagree with, and what you suggest instead, the page been protected for a reason to get a consensus. Otherwise, I will ask for an extension. Eliko007 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The good man 232, I'm still waiting for your explanation of which part of the text you disagree with, and what you suggest instead, the page been protected for a reason to get a consensus. Otherwise, I will ask for an extension. Eliko007 (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a few questions, why is it that Islam is so specifically mentioned in the opening section, while other religions barely get a mention? And secondly, how come only people "leaving Islam" is part of the opening section? It doesn't make any sense to not have it for other religions like Christianity, particularly if they're well sourced and relevant to the article. This was mentioned in a previous edit, but then it was removed [1] - Wakemeup38 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

According to this source [2], the population of Muslims is having a small net gain due to conversions, and it is the second highest in terms of gain, right after the general "unaffiliated" category. This is something very pertinent to the article. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Misleading changes

User:The good man 232, the sentence that you changed is a quote from the citation p.182: "Generally, however, there are few reports of people disaffiliating from Islam in these countries. One reason for this may be the social and legal repercussions associated with disaffiliation in many Muslim-majority countries, up to and including the death penalty for apostasy". Is there a reason why you changed "many Muslim-majority counties" to "some" when the citation use the word "many"; sorry but you obviously misleading the quote.Eliko007 (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a disproportionate focus on Islam? The PEW reference gives similar weight to the impact of conversion on the populations of Christians, Muslims and unaffiliated.Bless (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Christianity subsection - unreliable source

"Scholar Dudley Woodberry form Fuller Theological Seminary estimated approximately that 20,000 Muslims convert to Christianity annually in the United States.[206]" This part of the section cites a catholic website and it makes no sense to use it as a neutral source. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

NC Register - reliable source

The National Catholic Register is a news source that is independent of Islam, independent of the Catholic Church, and has editorial oversight and a strong reputation for fact-checking. It is owned by EWTN which has the same credentials as a source for news. Elizium23 (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@The good man 232: We are curious why you attempted to add unreliable sources such as amazon.com and linkedin.com? Do you think that promotion of scholars' social media accounts is a good idea here? WP:BLPSPS applies. Amazon sells books. We don't use commercial booksellers as sources. Use Google Books or WorldCat. Elizium23 (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

How do you know it's independent of the Catholic Church? It used to be owned by Legionaries of Christ, which is part of the Catholic Church. Even if it is independent of the Catholic Church it does seem biased towards Catholicism in specific and Christianity in general. I'm not sure how this is a neutral source. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wakemeup38, even if your suspicions were all accurate (for more on that, further down) there seems to be this idea going around that there is something called a "neutral source" and that only "neutral sources" are allowed. This has never been Wikipedia policy. Sources have to be reliable but they need not be neutral. There is no such thing as neutral sources and NPOV is not achieved by using only "neutral sources" (which do not actually exist) but to cover what sources of various stripes are saying in a neutral manner, endorsing no position.

As for your suspicions, the Catholic Church is not a Leninist party with the Pope giving out orders that will be executed by the last parishioner or some journalist writing for a paper that is somehow affilated with it. It just doesn't work that way. The NCR is just as reliable as any newspaper. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Str1977: Ok, so does that mean that a website run exclusively by Muslims in favor of the Islamic paradigm would be considered a reliable source as well? - Wakemeup38 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

BMBs

Hi Ramos1990, regarding "Believers in Christ from a Muslim background" report, I have reverted your edit, because it violates the requirement of neutrality to be considered as a reliable source. This report is based primarily on estimates of Christian missionaries and it was started by Patrick Johnstone who aimed to help Christians "preach" and "praying".--Averroes 22 (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree on this because the source is from a peer reviewed journal from Baylor University [3]. Author affiliations are not what qualify reliable sources - its the amount of oversight that is provided by the presses that matters. it says, "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Also the policy also states, "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." which is what all the sources have on this growth of religion article - or any religion article for that matter. Full blown religious and non-religious people certainly publish in academic journals and no one has claimed them not reliable sources as long as they publish in academic journals.

Last time I checked the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion was a solid sociological journal. Also one of the authors is Duane Alexander Miller (St. Mary's University) so you cannot really pick and chose one author and ignore the other. For all of these reasons, I will restore.02:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Ramos1990 (talk)

I agree with Ramos1990's argument. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion is a solid sociological journal. Also it the estimated numbers that the study gives that have been covered in reliable sources such as Journal of Democracy([4]), Hudson Institute ([5]), The New York Times ([6]), The National by Interest magazine ([7]), The Jewish Press ([8]), Newsweek ([9]), and other sources. Undoubtedly the source is a reliable source.desmay (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Problematic edits

In the last few days, User:Averroes 22 have been removing sources en masse, and making false statements that are not supported by citations. I have checked these and I found that his claims are false:

1. For example ([10]) he states "Most of what written here is not supported by the source"; if he bothered himself to check the source, he would have read that the source states ([11]): "Much of growth, moreover, has occurred quite recently, meaning since post-World War two decolonization across Africa and Asia, and since the historically Catholic countries of Latin America, lifted restrictions of Protestant activities a few decades ago". Can you explain to me how you concluded that the sentence is not supported by the source?.
2. For example (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_of_religion&diff=next&oldid=1033331072) he states "The first source is an unreliable source, other sources do not support these claims"; the first source is published by the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, and I made some random checks and I found that his claims are false: Here some of the sources that are easy to check that report Muslims convert to Christianity ([12]), ([13]), ([14]), ([15]). So it's not true that "other sources do not support these claims"; I restored the material with better sources
3. ([16]); the section is about Christianity and the sources state that modest impact on changes in the Christian population, why are you changing it to religions in general.
4. He keeps removing sources claiming ([17])

they are unreliable sources, even though there has been a discussion about this source ([18]), and other users agreed that NC Register is a reliable source.

1. Also you are still repeating the same false statement ([19]), even though many other users tried to explain for you the difference between a decline in numbers and the decline of expected growth. Christian population numbers are expected to increase by 2050 in absolute numbers, meanwhile it's expected that it may lose 66 million; learn the difference.

I'm busy these days, I hope some users will check his claims.desmay (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I am seeing this too. Thanks for being a second set of eyes on this as I have checked a few source myself and it looks like some of the stuff that has been removed does looks properly cited and in the sources. It passes WP:VerificationRamos1990 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-hinduism-is-the-second-fastest-growing-religion-in-ireland-2395754. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Christian distribution.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Blanking sources

User:LionAjk cliams that "the sources used they arent upto wikipedia standards and are from christian apologetic websites just look at tge source from robert spencer"; which is a false claim.

1. In this edit [20], he remove a bunch of sources, among them being sources from The Jewish Press, HAL-SHS (Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société), The Oxford Handbook of European Islam, Journal of Democracy, Telegraph, Cambridge University Press, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Oxford University Press, the Guardian, Greenwood Publishing Group, ABC-CLIO, University of Oslo Press, etc. None of these sources are "Christian apologetic websites" or Christian publishers, and none of the material that has been removed are based on sources from "robert spencer" as User:LionAjk claims.
2. In this edit [21], the new claim is not supported by the two references.
3. In this edit [22], sources mention Javanese Muslims, your changes do not reflect the cited sources.
4. In this edit [23], you removed sources from Cambridge University Press and Pew Research Center that deal with Buddhist population growth. You did not explain why you keeping removing sources here; this is vandalism.desmay (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)