Talk:Religion in China/Archive 1

Ancestor Worship

Does anyone know why the ancestor tablets are made of wood? Thanks in advance!

Zement 14:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No specific reason. And I don't think there's any reason. Some made it from granite stone (and carve on it). I guess it's preference and the cost of material that matter. Heilme 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relinking

Regarding the links in the third paragraph: I realize that some of those links already appeared in the second paragraph, and I realize that in general we should avoid over-linking (not making the same link multiple times throughout a document), but because the third paragraph lays out a list of the religions, those religions need to have links. The second paragraph, by contrast, is only citing religions as examples of people practicing multiple religions simultaneously. If others insist of having only one set of links in the introductory paragraphs, then it's better to have the links in the third rather than the second paragraph. Frankly, I think it's just simpler to have the links be in both paragraphs. An occasional double set of links is not overlinking. --Lowellian 22:32, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

The linking policy is not a strict one. I agree with your points. It is certainly OK to have multiple linking in one article, fot the sake of clarity and convinience. olivier 08:10, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Taoist religion and philosophy

Concerning the term Taoist Religion: I am using this to refer to the religious movement that, according to Henri Maspero apud Holmes Welch (Taoism: The Parting of the Way [Boston, 1965]), can be traced back to the Yellow Turban Rebellion at the end of the Han Dynasty. (Welch calls it, undoubtedly more accurately than me, The Taoist Church.) Since my own research into Taoism has fairly well ignored the popular of Taoism, what I know may simply be wrong. -- llywrch 19:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think that's really besides the point. "Taoist Religion" should have been changed in any case to "Taoism" in order to make it consistent with the other headings in the document (e.g. Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, etc.). --Lowellian 00:29, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

Maspero's scholarship is flawed beyond belief, and rejected even by the few remaining religious studies scholars of Daoism that use the "philosophical" and "religious" paradigm as a sort of short hand to describe a supposed shift in organization of the Daoist magisterium at the end of the Han (ie Livia Kohn). Even that analysis has come under intense scrutiny as an orientalist invention. It survives only because of the New Age Daodejing "translation" industry.WuShufei 08:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not beside the point. There is a POV that Taoism the religion is a separate entity from Taoism the philosophy; & as I mentioned above, Holmes Welch is one person who makes the distinction. And the concept of NPOV requires us to acknowledge this view point. However, the fact whether experts on Chinese culture still make the distinction is a separate argument, & requires input from someone current with the secondary literature to resolve. -- llywrch 00:35, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That this topic is even still being debated on this site is emblematic of why wikipedia is scholastically useless. The "Parting of the Way" has been debunked for 30 years in both Western and Chinese scholarship. Not all POV need to be evaluated equally. This "POV" is only worthy of inclusion as an example of how early Western scholarship about Chinese anthropological conditions fed to further missionary and colonial ends. Seriously, this is right up there with 19th century ideas about historical progression of religion and the hierarchy of races, folks. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Daoist writings beyond the Daode Jing and Zhuangzi, texts actually writen by Daoists, or acquaintance with clergy, will be sure to note this. If you need a white eye to seal this coffin, check out Isabelle Robinet's work, or that of Louis Komjathy. Both provide excellent grounding on Daoism without resorting to imperialist tropes.WuShufei 08:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this myth of Daoist religion vs. philosophy is a Western creation, hence has *no emic value whatsoever*. Thus it is *bad scholarship*. Period. His Holiness the 63rd Celestial Master himself rejected this imposition. It's an ex-proposition. Gone. Dead. Honestly, after what this religion has gone through in the past 150 years, a little emic humility here is in order.WuShufei 08:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official atheism

Rewrote PRC section. I can't think of any current official statement that the PRC is an athestic state.

User:Roadrunner

changed the statement since I don't think that the PRC was ever officially atheistic.

User:Roadrunner

There is now a citation to the CIA World Factbook, which notes that the PRC is officially atheist. —Lowellian (talk) 02:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Is it really official? I see more communist officials visiting temples (praying for promotions i guess) than any other groups in my province. Plus, last year, a bunch of provincial heads gathered to mark the official anniversity of Huang Di in a religious ceremoney.

Atheism also holds great swashes of chinese people's faiths, and I find these statticstics that ignore that relgion, the official one of communism, a little dubious in nature. try finding out how mnay are there nad inserting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.101.101 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "official" in the sense of a government policy or a law. It is only "official" in that it is part of the state ideaology of Communism. So it's like, to use a very bad analogy, how "pursuit of happiness" is an "official" "goal" of the United States. --Sumple (Talk) 10:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor and religion

Move here

The emperor was regarded as the Son of Heaven, and he typically led the imperial court in performing elaborate annual rituals.

This is highly misleading as it implies that the Emperor was considered a deity which was never the case. There was never a religion around the person of the emperor. It is true that the emperor was conceived of in terms of mediated the forces of heaven and earth, but that's something rather different.

--- User:Roadrunner

It's not misleading. Back then, there was no set religion, so they worshipped several different people/gods. Get your facts together before complaining and removing info. 151.198.99.16 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The emperor led the court in the ritual. However this doesn't mean there was a worship of the emperor. Taoism and folk reglion do deify extremely popular or influential people but there is no direct worship to anybody simply because he/she occupies the throne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.29.195 (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PRC religion statistics

The statistics for religious worshippers were added by User:Mshe ([1]) a long time ago, but there was no source listed for them. Can someone either

find a source for those statistics OR
dig up some other statistics on religion in the PRC for which a source can actually be found and for which we can list a citation?

--Lowellian 01:37, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

The figures for the mainland are recently changed ([2]). Is there any source for this? Thanks. — Insta ntnood 17:39, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

they looked funny to me, so I researched and found reliable data. SchmuckyTheCat 00:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent Survey Results

A poll of 4,500 people by Shanghai university professors in early 2007 found 31.4% of people above the age of 16 considered themselves as religious. This suggests more than 300 million people nationwide could be religious. About 200 million believers "are Buddhists, Taoists or worshippers of legendary figures". Christianity accounts for 12% of all who consider themselves religious , or around 40 million people nationwide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Multiplestars (talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Link? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Can somebody please fix the vandalism at the top of the article and rewrite what got deleted?

EDIT: thank you to whoever fixed the vandalism

Statistics On Religion

The statistics on religion is very wrong. Whoever said that Muslims could number up to 10% of China's population is wrong. Christians number 80 - 100 million which was not mentioned. Muslims only make make up 2 - 3% of the population. If Muslims made 10% of the population, we would have heard about religious crackdowns against Muslims in the news.

This page also did not mention the fact that 30,000 Chinese people convert to Christianity everday, and I have a link, which I have to find, amongst my 3000 favourite pages.

Should prove interesting. I look forward to reading it. The Muslim "estimate" is indeed overstated, but then again, it seems like the numbers of Muslims are regularly overestimated (sometimes by as much as 500% in the US, 140% in the Israeli disputed territories, etc. [3][4]) From what I can find, Muslims make up 19M of China's 1.3B ppl, which, according to my math, is 1.46%. Tom e r^TALK 03:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christians are less than 0.1% in China - mostly found in coastal provinces. Not 80-100 million as you claim! I think you are confusing Christian names like Jackie Chan, James Soong to be signs of converts to Christianity. Those people are not Christians.

With all due respect, just because you haven't heard of the differences, doesn't mean it's not there. I have done extensive research on the subject; you can check out Christianity by country, which provides its own reliable sources (e.g., the state department). You are not going to get any reliable modern sources that say 0.1%. If you do, please get back to me here. -Patstuart 13:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese government practiced liberalism, pluralism and multiculturalism, but of a peculiar kind, a decorative kind of pluralism. So if christians made 10% of the population, we would have heard about religious crackdowns against christians in the news. which is why i don't understand the evangelicals' tendency to exaggerate the number of christians in china, which would only elicit hatred and violent suppression. number is not always a strength.

Opinion

This page has helped me a lot! thank you for the information!

Do-Woo Kim

PRC and atheism

Despite a widespread opinion to such effect (see [2]), the PRC is not officially "atheist" by law or government policy.It's absurd! The PRC officially support atheism and atheist propaganda. --Vess 16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Vandalism

Has anyone noticed that somebody wrote "homework is retarded" at the bottom of the page?

I have removed it. You can also remove vandalism, unless your IP is blocked, which it obviously isn't. Be bold! ... discospinster _talk 00:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Tibet

Does anybody know if Christianity "exists" in Tibet (particularly Lhasa)?

Christianity and Opium in China

This article claims that Christians were opposed to the spread of opium in China, but I am certain that I have read before that the spread of Christianity and Opium in China went hand in hand - that is, Christian missionaries and opium were intentionally introduced into China by the same groups of people, with the intention of using both in combination to break down the resistance of China to western trade, influence, and colonialism. Someone should correct this article to reflect this.

See Protestant missions in China 1807-1953 for evidence that shows the opposition to the trade by Christian missionaries.Brian0324 (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take in account that for the non-Christian Chinese the christian merchants weren't remarkably different from chirstian missionary in terms of religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.29.195 (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New stats 2007

I've also found an article about the boom of the revival of Taoism. Here. --Nyo it 12:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen... This article is embarrassing. And whoever wrote it has also damaged the wiki 'CHina' entry. I am a Sinologist.

Buddhism is a minority religion in China with a relatively tiny number of practitioners and very little concern with things buddhist from the vast majority of the population. I presume this entry has been written by Buddhists - but this is just laughable nonsense to call 1 billion Chinese buddhist. Religion in China is a very complex affair - there are very very few people who would self-identify as a 'Buddhist' - let alone 1 billion. The same is true of Daoism (note the modern spelling).

The source for these numbers is totally unreliable with no reference to their counting methodology at all other than just what they seem to 'feel' is true. They say that Chinese people 'identify' with Buddhism. What they mean is that CHinese people identify Buddhism as a Chinese religion - WHich is not the same thing at all.

This article is now a total embarrassment as it completely misrepresents the world's largest country.

I strongly suggest that whoever added these figures removes their posts and waits for someone who studies China and its religions to write the entry.

A good place to start might be: Stephan Feuchtwang, "Popular Religion in China : The Imperial Metaphor"

This page must be amended as must the main China entry - because the current source of information is a Buddhist cult in Nevada USA?!?!?!?!??! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLoniusMonk (talk • contribs) 11:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 1 billion Buddhists looks wildly inaccurate, and contradicts all other sources on China, as well as the rest of the article. The rest of the article says China has about 100 million Buddhists, and Demographics of the People's Republic of China says the number of Buddhists is 8% of the population. The page Major religious groups lists the total number of Buddhists in the world as 376 million. If China has a billion Buddhists, it would be a major revision of world demographics, supplanting Hinduism as the world's third largest and rivaling Islam. I'm going to delete that more reliable and neutral sources are found. For that matter, the number of 400 million for Taoism might be hard to substantify, too. Adherants doesn't list Taoism because says it's impossible to differentiate between Taoism and Traditional Chinese religion, but it does give a number of 394 million for Traditional Chinese religion, so I suppose if one equates the two, the ballpark figure is about right.--67.101.223.69 (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps on reverting me, and insisting on putting in only high ranges for numbers on Buddhism and Taoism. If Buddhism somehow did gain 400 million to 900 million followers in just 10 years, then it would be the fastest-growing religion in the world AND it would have displaced Islam as the world's second biggest religion by now. Somehow, neither of these have appeared in the news, and the source itself comes from some Nevada Buddhist foundation, as someone pointed out, which doesn't cite any reliable survey or studies to back up their point. The person who insists on reverting has to answer these points if he insists on pushing these numbers. --67.101.223.69 (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to what I have already written here... The number of Daoists is also wildly inaccurate. CHinese 'traditional folk religions' cannot be seen as commensurate with Daosim so the figure of 400 million is just ridiculous. Wth regard to both Buddhism and Daosim - there are very few adherents in China... most people go to the temples to see what religious people are like and behave much like western tourists. There is little practise or worship in daily life. Furthermore, CHinese people do not tend to see religions as mutually exclusive so they can mix and match and do different things on different days. Then there are discussions as to whether Daoism and Confucianism actually constitute religions at all. Most Chinese are at least in some sense 'confucian' regardless of whatever else they might be (even Christianity does not stop people from being Confucian - its more like a set of defining cultural characteristics). In general China is a profoundly secular country, even more so since the communist revolutions - and at the moment it is being portrayed as a very religious place with worshippers making up the entire population. For a wiki entry - this is a very very bad misrepresentation.

Everyone would do well to remember that China is largely secular and take the numbers from that baseline. Any numbers which end up covering the whole population, or anywhere near it, are likely to be very very wrong. According to http://www.china.org.cn/english/travel/229576.htm there are only 1500 Daoist temples in CHina... trust me - that doesn;t indicate 400 million adherents - or anything like it. In fact most will have small 'congregations'. In fact the figures here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Religious_affiliation look much more accurate.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLoniusMonk (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Sinologist. Vipassanafoundation, the citation for the "660 million - 1.2 billion" is terribly pro-Buddhist. The problem with the larger Japanese and Chinese estimates for Buddhists is that it simply shows the amount of people influenced by Buddhism or having a few Buddhist beliefs, rather than the amount of people who would actually identify as Buddhists. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot: the other problem is that the whole world religious demographics would go out of whack - the numbers for the non-religious would have to be heavily lowered. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? My edits keep being reverted! They reverters aren't even coming to the discussion page! 60.240.85.65 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above guy was me, btw. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Saimdusan!

I am still keeping your sources (59% Athiest, 8% Buddhist, etc) but I disagree to delete the old sources, links from Esimal (50% to 80% Buddhist/Taoist). I think we should keep both and I have added new links that show mostly Chinese people (and also mostly East Asian people too) consider themselves as non-religious or "unknow" but in fact, they are still worshiping Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, etc...That is why I have used the phrase of "secular/nominal Buddhist-Taoist", it's as similar as Muslims in Turkey or Balkans (Muslim woman don't need to wear hijabs and they could wear bikinies on the beaches...Sorry if I am rude here!) or Christians in the whole Europe or North America (many people attend the churches 2-3 times a year although it's a violation in Christianity,etc...so well, the black sheeps!)

And I am also considering myself as a secular Buddhist/Taoist too (40% Secular, 30% Buddhist and 30% Taoist) because I haven't taken the refuge (not only me but also 90% of my family members) and I only know how to burning incense and pray "Namo Buddha Amitabha" as everyone did.And I am not a vegetarian (only 2 or 4 vegetarian days a month) and I am very lazy to go to pagodas (2 or 3 times a year)!But I like to learn about all religions and East Asian culture because it is my descents!

So I hope we can share our knowledges because you seems to be a good-faith contribution here!

Thanks!Best regards to all of you here! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that a billion Chinese would identify themselves as Buddhists, and 400 million as Taoists? Plus, Vipassana Foundation is totally pro-Buddhist and doesn't say the reason for which he thinks there is a billion Chinese Buddhists other than that he feels that it is true. Asia Sentinel simply says that the highest estimate is at 400 million, not that it is an actually correct number. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, I mustn't add my favorite entries without sources or links or an example: "Hey! The religious numbers must higher because I am...whatever, blah blah blah..." but the culture of East Asia is very different with European culture! I think you should read Buddhism by country and you will see how dificult to gauge it exactly, especially in East Asian countries as China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, etc...If I were apro-Buddhist person so I will only take the highest numbers as China (80%), Japan (96%), Vietnam (85%), etc...although, the numbers of Buddhists who have taken the Refuge is extremely low.But I personally believe that the numbers of secular/nominal Buddhist-Taoist could very high as over 1 billion because although 90% of my family members haven't taken the Refuge but they consider themselves as Buddhist rather than Taoist and some people consider themselves as non-religious but they still keep the traditional Ancestor Worship with Buddhism together because they believe it could make our lifes better, more peaceful and the most important personality of East Asians, taht is Filial piety (please read this article and you will know our Asian personality and our beautiful human traditions) and remember Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, all were non-theist religions or philosophies and especially Buddhism was not the religion of obligations, dogmas, etc...as many Abrahamic religions!That is why you can eat vegetarian foods or not but you shouldn't and mustn't kill any animals! And you could go to pagodas 2-3 times a year or only 1 time in during 2-3 years, etc...that'sno problems with Buddhism and Chinese religions! But I appreciate your contributions!Thanks!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "the culture of East Asia is very different with European culture!"

And? "If I were apro-Buddhist person so I will only take the highest numbers as China (80%), Japan (96%), Vietnam (85%), etc" I didn't say that you where pro-Buddhist. I said that Vipassana Foundation is pro-Budddhist. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"because although 90% of my family members haven't taken the Refuge but they consider themselves as Buddhist rather than Taoist and some people consider themselves as non-religious" So you're family is a good sampling of China's population? WTF? Thats not evidence... Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"non-theist" That's highly debatable, but I wont go there.

"especially Buddhism" Why especially Buddhism?

How about a compromise? We have both numbers on the page. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert to the last version by me because its sources and links have explained why mostly Chinese consider themselves as both Buddhist-Taoist although the numbers of Government's estimates are extremly low.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and Taoism are not religions in the Abrahamic sense, they're more like spiritualities, ways of life or worldviews. Follow the Tao doesn't mean to have faith in something supernatural, it's simply "be" and "be in harmony with Nature". In addition to these considerations, statistics of places of worship are not up to date. In 1994 there were less than 500 Taoist guans; today they're roughly 10.000, 15.000 or even more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.91.15 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo, what is your problem? We lead to a compromise, and then you decide that only your numbers are any good? WTF? 124.177.165.82 (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must remember that Buddhism and Taoism are atheist religions and mostly Chinese people worship it as an important part of their traditional spiritual culture than true religions! Youshould read all this article again!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are atheistic or not is no business to how many adherents there are in China. Yes, there may be atheist Buddhists but there are not secular Buddhists. 124.177.165.82 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how about secular Muslims in Turkey, Balkans or some part of Central Asia? They are still Muslims but with secular thinker and secular lifestyle! And so how about secular Christians in the whole Europe, North America; the people are leaving Christianity more more and more every year so why the churches are still call them as Christians (at least black sheep). Now in the 21st century, the people are loosing their religious background but they are still keep it as a part of their traditional spiritual culture. But those are theist religions and Buddhism is the most secular religion! And I want to ask you one thing: Why did you still take the estimates of Chinese goverment for Buddhism (8%), Taoism and Islam (1.5%) but not for Christianity (it was 1% but you still keep it as 3% to 4%), Saimdusan???

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that was me. Forgot to log in. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this topic, guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Religion#Criticism_of_Buddhism

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo, what does criticism of Buddhism have to do with anything?

Regarding your previous stuff: it is recognized that 10% of Americans identify themselves as atheist, that Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Estonia are non-religious, due to self identification. It is the same for China and Japan. I'm not focusing on the Christianity estimates because I don't see those estimates as ridiculous, but I'm fine if someone changes it. I just thing that the "1 billion Buddhists" is absolutely ridiculous and no scholar would agree with you. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Angelo, are you a Buddhist? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, "informed by Buddhist culture", or "influenced by Buddhist culture" is rather different from self-identification as a "Buddhist". Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a negative person, yes I am half Buddhist half Taoist as many Chinese people or many other East Asian people although I am not 100% pure Asian) but not too much religious material! I wonder that why you are always delete over ten of sources that show about Chinese religious life, Chinese culture, etc... That is why I still keep dual sources: 80% (nominal Buddhist/Taoist) and 8% (the number of Buddhists who have taken the Refuge). Look at Japan, the numbers of Buddhist-Shinto could be around 84% to 96% but the percentage of religious people could low as 10% or 20%. Because East Asian people were still keep the worship with their family religions as the culture than the true religions. 'You must register a course in any university to learn more about East Asia and travel to this region for know how different in Eastern and Western culture than stay in one place and say what you are don't understand or don't see. Or at least, you can visit Chinatown or any East-Asiatowns near your resident...SEEING IS BELIEVING! I see that you are from Australia (Brisbane or Canberra) and it's very easy to have a tour to Singapore, China, Malaysia, etc...And I hope these cases will not happen again because it makes me headache!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo, being influenced by Buddhist culture is not the same as self-identification as Buddhist. Regarding Japan, most Japanese would not identify themselves as Shintoist or Buddhist. The reason they are identified as Buddhists and Shintoists in demographics is because of a long-standing tradition of temples and shrines to register people who are part of it from birth and lineages, rather than people who identify as part of the religion. The same happens in Sweden and Norway with the Lutheran church. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know what are you talking about, it's right but you see, I don't delete your citation given about 59% Atheist in 1998 but I also add 14% from the newest survey (2005) from the same author: Zuckerman!Angelo De La Paz (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "atheist and agnostic" (the second Zuckerman thing) and "non-religious" (the larger Zuckerman number). Also, saying there are "secular/nominal Buddhists" at 900 million and refuge Buddhists at 100 million sounds like Original Research, since none of your sources say that. Plus, your second Taoism source doesn't seem to make a percentage or number. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo, I don't understand how your sources indicate the "Refuge/Baptism" thing after I say that its non-religious. Plus, I'm not a Christian, or pro Christian. I'm secular. And I also think that the Abrahamic religions are worse than the East Asian and Indian religions, and I find the Indian and East Asian religions far more interesting. I just find it ridiculous to think that there are a billion Buddhists in China. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see the sources from BBC News and China Daily have asked random 300 million people for their religious belief who are Chinese Government considered themselves as non-religious. And I don't said that 1 billion people are true Buddhists only but:

"...But in fact, the social influence of the mixture between Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Ancestor Worship could reach popularity as about 1 billion people as the traditional spiritual culture of mostly Chinese people from one millennium before; although it's still a huge dispute between many scholars, professors, Orientalists and organizations were researching about history, culture or religion..."

Some other social reality opinions:

You should go out and learn more from real people, real cases, etc...because it could help for your religious projects. And remember Buddhism was an original atheist religion and I personally think that Buddhism is the true religion for a better World without wars, blood, tears, deaths, etc...Thanks for your contributions, Saimdusan! And remember...BALANCE and RESPECT are the good ways!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is cultural influence that could be considered Chinese traditional belief - but that doesn't mean they self-identify with the religion. It doesn't make you Christian by believing in a god and practicing Christmas, and it doesn't make you Buddhist by believing in rebirth and practicing Shakyamuni's Birthday. Angelo, don't start preaching to me about your "wonderful" religion. Its completely irrelevant to how many Buddhists there are in China. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia requires more than just sources, but reliable sources. In this case, the source appears to be a non-neutral primary source, and since there seems to be no secondary sources which agree with its findings, its usage here would be a violation of verifiability. As such, the numbers indicated by secondary sources should be used. Justin ^chat 08:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is non-neutral? 122.104.13.73 (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the 1 billion Chinese Buddhists statistic violates WP:V, unless there are secondary sources which indicate the same number. Justin ^chat 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you Justin that over 1 billion Buddhists statistic violates WP:V. But as a Chinese mix, I believe that over 1 billion Chinese people were influencing by the mixture of Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Ancestor Worship as our traditional spiritual culture; it is very strong influence among our lifestyle, culture, philosophy, etc... Because I know that the true numbers of Buddhists (who have taken the Refuge, extremly vegans, read Buddhist prayer-books every day, mustn't kill any animals including fishes or eggs, etc...) are really low as over 100 million people (in China only) because these people are worship Buddhism and Ancestor only and they don't believe in Chinese religions as Taosim, Confucianism but respect it as brothers! I would confirmed that over 1 billion Chinese people are not too much religious but we always keep our traditional culture values because it's our origin!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true (I'm not well versed in Chinese religion). And if there are secondary sources which state as much, I certainly agree that it belongs in this article. It's unfortunate, but there are occasions when facts simply aren't verifiable, and the best we can do is hope eventually secondary sources cover that information so it can be included in Wikipedia :). Justin ^chat 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to official pushings US are 75% Christian, while religious practice is probably less than 20%. The same situation can be found in Britain and other European countries where less than 30% of the population declares itself "Christian" whereas the "official" statistics (based on baptisms) show Christians as the 90% of the total. POV. SHIT POV.

But in the US and UK the largest group is those who declare themselves Christians, right? And about the Chinese traditional religion - yes, there would be over a billion people influenced by Chinese religions. But influenced is the key word. Not calling themselves part of it, or anything. And with the Triple Gem thing, I'd say the figure is less than that, since the 100 million figure is the amount of people who call themselves BuddhistsSaimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saimdusan, you've deleted sources claiming large number of Buddhists and Taoists while leaving exaggerate Bushist Evangelical visions about Christians in China. You're POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.84.220 (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I didn't know that they where Christian sources. I didn't find them completely ridiculous. Its not like it said 70 million Christians. But "1 billion Buddhists, 400 million Taoists" is the most ridiculous figure for Chinese religion I have ever heard. OK - change the Christian numbers to lower. I'm not POV, I just didn't find, say, 2-3% over as insane as 72% over. Sure, change the figures. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and Taoism are deeply radicated in Chinese culture, and the most important thing is that they aren't religions in the Christian sense. 1 billion Buddhists could be an exaggeration, but 50% is reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.10.76.157 (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK! My dear Dutch friend, I am really like you but I think you must open your mind as I am doing! As a East Asian mix so I know that 1 billion is the truth but this is Wikipedia and we must respect its rules and laws. But that 1 billion people are influencing heavily by the mixture of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Ancestor Worship but the Atheist Chinese Government or any Atheist Communist Governments or whatever are considered all us as NON RELIGIOUS and we must or should accept it true because the religious numbers (Buddhists or Taoists) are not too much important as its teachings, its doctrines, its philosophy, its humanism and its purpose! Over 1 billion Chinese people and over hundred million Asian people were loving these peaceful religions as our traditional culture, our origin and our blood than the selfish religions which always want to claim as much as better (LUST) and Buddhism against it (Lust, hatred and delusion...because it's the origin of SUFFERINGS)

One again, the numbers of adherents are NOTHING in Buddhism so 100 million true Buddhists in mainland China are acceptable but I would disagree if someone call our Chinese people are ATHEISTS because it's TOTALLY WRONG. We Chinese people could be non-religious but we are not Atheists because we always respect our rich culture, great history, proud ancestor descent and wonderful traditional beliefs of Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism! We Chinese could be non-religious but not ATHEISTS because the influence of our traditional spiritual culture will always heavily!

Thank you!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo, 1. I'm not Dutch, 2. Being influenced by Buddhism, Confucianism, ancestor worship and Taoism is a far cry from being a Buddhist, 3. Please do not preach to me about your religion, 4. No True Scotsman fallacy, 5. I never said that Chinese are mostly atheists, just mostly non-religious. 6. Again, stop preaching. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr.Saim! I am not talking about you and you would be not my friend! I know where are you from, Saim (your IP address shows that you are from Queensland, Australia). And I am not preaching; I am only advise the hidden IP address who pro-Buddhism should be more open-minded and neutral only! Look again! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saimdusan: you're imposing your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.83.205 (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo, 1. Uh... what? 2. Then why did you call me Dutch? 3. "we are not Atheists because we always respect our righ clture, great history, proud ancestor descent and wonderful traditional beliefs of Mahayana Buddhism", "are not too much important as its teachings, its doctrines, its philosophy, its humanism and its purpose! Over 1 billion Chinese people and over hundred million Asian people were loving these peaceful religions as our traditional culture, our origin and our blood than the selfish religions which always want to claim as much as better (LUST) and Buddhism against it (Lust, hatred and delusion...because it's the origin of SUFFERINGS)" are preaching. 4. Oh, OK. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article looks pretty good now, I just think the paragraph "But in fact, the social influence of the mixture between Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Ancestor Worship could reach popularity as about 1 billion people[12][13][14][15] as the traditional spiritual culture of mostly Chinese people from one millennium before; although it's still a huge dispute between many scholars, professors, Orientalists and organizations were researching about history, culture or religion[16][17][18][19][20][21][22]." should be reworded. I'll probably do that soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimdusan (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop introducing the massive section on Falun Gong

The first level sections of this article deals with the major religions in China: Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam etc. Sects which are not recognised religions and which do not have a major presence in China today are dealt with under "recent sects". Falun Gong does not belong in the list of major religions because:

Not a religion: Falun Gong is not incontrovertibly a religion: see the Falun Gong article which calls it a 'system of "mind and body cultivation"'. Saying that Falun Gong is a religion violates WP:NPOV, because many would call it a "sect", "exercise regime", or "cult" instead.
Not major: The extent of practice of Falun Gong at any point is controversial. However, what is not controversial is that after years of government crackdown, its presence in China is minimal. There can be no doubt that its prevalence in China is not comparable to Buddhism or Taoism, etc.

The proper place for Falun Gong is under the "Recent Sects" section. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here are three sites to prove that you are wrong. there are thousands of sites that consider it as a religion. whether you think that it is a religion or not is not important, because there are many people who consider it as a religion. and it originates from China, therefore, it should definitely be included in this article.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/falungong.html, http://www.religioustolerance.org/falungong2.htm http://www.religionfacts.com/a-z-religion-index/falun_gong.htm

If you think that it is not "major," then you should definitely DELETE "judaism," no matter how big judaism is in China, it is nowhere close to the followers of falun gong. and judaism in China is long gone. that is for sure. falun gong is still going strong in China. --Maigad 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong does not say it is a religion. If the balance of sources actually say that it is a religion, I would think it would be reflected in that article, don't you?

Here is my compromise: If you can get Falun Gong article changed in a stable version to call it a "religion", then I will support including it in this article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chinese government never said that it has bad human rights record, then why does wikipedia have articles about China's human rights violations? just because falun gong didn't call it a religion, that doesn't mean that it is not a religion according to the thousands of sites that you can find online. just because someone doesn't call him/herself crazy, that doesn't mean that person is not crazy. --Maigad 02:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies on WP:RS - Reliable Sources. Your thousands of internet sites count for nothing unless they are reliable. If they are reliable, then they should be used in the article Falun Gong first.

To clarify, I was referring to the article Falun Gong on wikipedia, not Falun Gong the organisation or whatever they are called.

So my offer, to be clear, is this: if you have enough sources to convince the editors at the Wikipedia article Falun Gong to call it a "religion", then I will support its inclusion in this article.

It's not just about my "views" - if there is a reason why the editors at the article Falun Gong don't want to call it a "religion", then sticking Falun Gong into this article seems like a backdoor way of circumnaventing whatever that objection may be - which may be something as simple as "Falun Gong doesn't fit the definition of a religion". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users Maigad and Tastetrees have been indef-blocked as sockpuppets of banned sock-puppet edit warrior SummerThunder (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. If he shows up again under another username, report him immediately to WP:ANI and or WP:SSP. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 06:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got an automatic message about vandalism when I attempted to revert this article, which is currently filled with text about Islamic Architecture, back to what is apparently the article about religion in China. Someone else please do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.16.105 (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in China

How many Jews in China? --Esimal (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population

About 1,000 Jews in China!And I think percentage of Muslims in China should be edit because 2.5% is very biased;it could be only 1.5% to 2% as many neutral sources said!

BTW,I appreciate your new revision.Best regards!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Angelo. Regarding Jews... they're far less than Dongbas... --Esimal (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The figure in Jewish population is dubious... My OR guesstimate is that the real number is closer to 8k. There are several thousand Jews in Hong Kong, at least 2k in Shanghai, about 1k in Beijing, and probably Jews in several other cities as well... Tomer ^talk 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Hong Kong is not in China!83.148.238.194 (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers of Buddhists and others are contradicted

Not to throw a wrench in this, but as this article gets revamped, the intro needs to be reconciled with the section on the PRC at the bottom. Atheism isn't getting mentioned in the intro, either.Brian0324 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source for irreligious. The numbers given in the intro are not that of the Chinese government, that can be discussed in sections. --Esimal (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese folk religion

"Nowadays religions" isn't a great section title, and treating Chinese folk religion under "cultural background" rather than as a "real" religion shows a rather chauvinist bias towards organised world religions. It will be better to de-indent the ToC to the h2-only state in the version preceding recent edits by Esimal (talk · contribs). --dab (𒁳) 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article simply stresses the importance of Chinese folk religion as an integrant part of Chinese culture, along with Confucianism and ancestor worship. CFR is much more a cultural factor than one of the organized religions which chinese can adhere to. As a matter of fact a "Chinese Folk Religion Association" does not exist. --Esimal (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's more or less what I just said. --dab (𒁳) 22:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The heavy influence of Buddhism - Chinese religions among various East Asian civilizations

Saimdusan has made me headache for days because his stubborn attitude as a kid in many articles related to Buddhism, Chinese religions, Chinese culture, etc! His contributions in these articles have nothing wrong because it was legal with Wikipedia's rules, laws but it's hurt our culture and our national pride. Saim, you was making people know wrong about East Asian culture that you let people think that mostly East Asians are extreme non-religious or Atheists and they don’t worship any religions; that is totally WRONG. As I can see in his "Contributions" section that he is totally anti-Buddhism and a little bit of Chinese religions! Hey Saim, please check NPOV again and open your mind because this is not your private website where you want to say what you like and against what you dislike although it could be right! If I were him so I think I would be kicked out for my very first contributions because I am not biased for Buddhism or any religions (see my Profile, Talk Page and my Contributions if you like); I have added all sources I have or I can find if it's acceptable! I’ve always added multiple sources with mixed opinions, estimates in my mostly (not all) contribute articles because religion is a very sensitive topic, and if I choose only one estimate of the lowest or the highest so it’s violated NPOV!

Saim was always adding that Buddhism is the majority religion in mainland China with only... 8% where Han Chinese people constitute about 92 percent of the population of the People's Republic of China? But it's really ridiculous because in Malaysia (a truly Muslim Kingdom) has only 23.7% to 24.5% of the total population are Chinese but how many percents are Buddhists? It's 19.2%; 2.6% are Taoist or other Chinese religions and total as 21.8% for both (Buddhist/Taoist); remains of it are Christians or Muslim [5][6]

Now, we travel to Singapore where the Han Chinese is the majority ethnic group (every 4 people in this island country, 3 are Chinese) and how about the religions of this island? Buddhist 42.5%, Muslim 14.9%, Taoist 8.5%, Hindu 4%, Catholic 4.8%, other Christian 9.8%, other 0.7%, none 14.8%. Buddhist numbers were growing fast in this island from 27% in 1980, up to 31.2% in 1990 and 42.5% in 2000; this growing is incredible for traditional beliefs of Chinese people because the percentage of Christians among Singaporeans increased from 12.7% in 1990 to 14.6% in 2000. And according to the newest surveys of International Religious Freedom Report as of 2006 and 2007 from U.S. Department of States have wrote for the harmony combination of the religions in Chinese culture as: "...Of this group, 51 percent practiced Buddhism, Taoism, ancestor worship, or other faiths traditionally associated with the ethnic Chinese population..."[7][8][9].

Buddhism and alongside with Taoism, Confucianism are the dominant religions of Chinese people in Indonesia [10] ("...According to the Young Generation of Indonesian Buddhists, most adherents live in Java, Bali, Lampung, West Kalimantan, and the Riau islands, ethnic Chinese make up an estimated 60 percent of Buddhists...").Now, let's travel to another Muslim kingdom of Brunei where have 15% of total population are Chinese and they have made up 14% of Brunei's population are Buddhists [11][12][13][14][15]

And how about the relationship between Buddhism and Chinese people in the Christian or Hindu countries as the Philippines (my mother's hometown, she is half Filipino and half Hispanic), Mauritius (..."Those of Chinese ancestry generally practice both Buddhism and Catholicism"...)[16], Seychelles, Réunion [17][18], Nauru [19] etc...where mostly Chinese people have converted to Catholicism but they are still keep the traditional belief values of Buddhism, Taoism, Cunfucianism and Ancestor Worship...Read more about this incredible phenomenon in Religion of Chinese Filipino (Buddha, Taoist deities, Jesus and ancestor on the same altar) or you can see how Chinese people in the Philippines love Guan Yin, Virgin Mary and Tian Hou as the holy godmothers. And that is why Vatican has accepted their Chinese, Vietnamese or any East Asian followers in Asia to worship their ancestor or folk deities because with these traditional religions which have rooted in our blood and our mind as our ancestor origin for two thousand years. Read Chinese Rites controversy.

Why don't we go to "mini China" Taiwan (I think this is the truly China). The numbers of Buddhists who have taken the Refuge was only over 8 million or 35.1% with 7,600,000 Taoists as of 2005. It’s amazing growing (+ nearly 50% after 3 years) because it was only 5,486,000 Buddhists and 4,546,000 Taoists in 2002, exclusive new other Chinese religious sects which also the mixture of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism with some Chinese national heroes), such as: Yi Guan Dao, Maitreya Great Tao, etc but the cultural influence of tradtional syncretist beliefs of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Ancestor are very heavy and popular as of 93% among the 98% of total population on this island are of Han Chinese origin [20] (See the growing of religious populations, mostly traditional religions in Taiwan from 2002, 2005, 2007). All citation given have wrote: "...While the overwhelming majority of religious adherents are either Buddhist or Taoist, many people also consider themselves both Buddhist and Taoist..."

Let's talking about the religions of Japanese people and Vietnamese people; it's as similar as Chinese people in many points:

The religious background of Vietnamese people is as 90% similar as of Chinese because Vietnamese people have influenced by Chinese culture for over 2000 years from 109 BC to modern history. Read History of Vietnam. The Vietnamese Communist Government has declared that 16% of Vietnam's total population have taken the Refuge (Buddhism) but the mixture of Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Ancestor Worship were influencing over 80% of national population (Vietnamese, Chinese, Tay people, Muong people, etc) throughout the traditional culture and folk beliefs, it exclusive nearly 2 million Theravada Buddhists (the main religion of Khmer people, Laotians, Thai people and others) and nearly 2 million Hoa Hao Buddhists are living in Mekong Delta([21][22][23][24]).

84%[25] to 96%[26] of Japan’s total population are nominally Buddhist/Shintoist adherent although the true religious percentage could be about only 30% to 50% [27]. Taoism and Confucianism from China have also influenced Japanese beliefs and customs. Religion in Japan tends to be syncretic in nature, and these results in a variety of practices, such as parents and children celebrating Shinto rituals, students praying before exams, couples holding a wedding at a Christian church and funerals being held at Buddhist temples. It's as similar as in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau or mainland China.

Nowadays, don't like many European or American countries are secularize and the people are living their owned religions and turning to Atheists or other religious. But in many East Asian countries (exclusive the PR of China, please read this main article again and you could see the supports of Communist Government for Buddhism); the people are coming back to traditional belief values and welcoming Christianity. Here are some examples:

About the return of Buddhism and Chinese religions in Taiwan, Singapore, etc (read the entries above again if you want)

Mainland China, according to the official estimates of Communist Government that have only over 100 million Buddhists, 20 million Muslims and 16 million Christians in China as of 1997. But in the latest surveys of Shanghai University (2007) has found over 200 million Buddhists (double) and 40 million Christians. That is incredible! The religious population was growing thrice after only 10 years.

Macau, according to 1996 census figures on religious affiliation of Macau has showed only 16.8 percent were Buddhist, 13.9 percent were "other" (followers of combinations of Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian beliefs) or 30.7% for both [28] ...but after 10 years (2007), Buddhism is the largest religion, with 79.3% (nearly 5 times, from 16.8% in 1996) of Macau's population professing the religion[29] (it is exclusive separate adherents of Taoism, Confucianism and new Chinese religions) and the Christian population is decline slowly from 8.4% (1996) to just over 6% (2007). Remember that Macau is one of the "mini China" nations have influence by European culture and Christianization.

Vietnam, only 9.3% in the total population have taken the Refuge (Mahayana and Theravada only) with 1.5% are Hoa Hao Buddhists as of 1999[30]. But in the newest survey of Vietnam Government (White Paper 2006); 12% of national population have taken the Refuge (Mahayana only) and the Hoa Hao Buddhist population was growing thrice after 7 years as about 2.3 million people (nearly 3% of total pop. as of 2006) and 2 million adherents (or 2.5%) of other Vietnamese Buddhist sects (Pure Land Buddhist Home-Practice Association and the Tu An Hieu Nghia religion). It's still inclusive nearly 2 Theravada Buddhists (Khmer people, Thai people or Laotians)[31][32] and International Religious Freedom Report 2007 of U.S.Department of States has wrote: "...Most other citizens consider themselves non-religious, although many practice traditional beliefs (mixture of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism) such as veneration of ancestors and national heroes...". In 1999, only 10.8% of total population have taken the Refuge (all sects of Buddhism) but now, it's double as 20% (12% Mahayana, 3% Hoa Hao, 2.5% new Buddhist sects and 2.5% Theravada) and still growing faster. The Vietnamese Communist Government are supporting Buddhism most because as they said that Buddhism is the patriot religion and Buddhism is the most important part of Vietnamese culture ([33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]

Chinese people were bringing Buddhism to the Western World as in Americas, Europe and Oceania. Nowadays, many Chinese Buddhist temples are spring up in the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Argentina, etc... Because Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Ancestor Worship are not only the traditional religions or beliefs but it's also the culture, origin, blood, national character and spirit of many East Asian people as Japanese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Mongolians or others with long history...Well, if you (Saim) asserts mostly East Asians are Atheists so I think they will not build their owned temples, pagodas and they will build the statues or worship places for Lenin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh,etc…because the true numbers of Buddhist or Chinese religious adherents are less than 20% to 30% in these countries (China, Japan, Vietnam or Korea) and Atheism is the state religion of these countries as Saim has asserted.

As you can see that the unions between Mahayana Buddhism and Ancestor Worship with various East Asian traditional religions (Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Shamanism, etc) or maybe even Roman Catholicsm is as similar as the relitionship between the United States and Canada (as two brother countries without national frontiers, hand in hand and side by side together) or European Union...Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and others are as different countries but all are living together peaceful and in the mutual respects (see the pictures in this article). But in some cases, only Mahayana Buddhism and Ancestor Worship are as the two most common religions in East Asia which could be mix with Taoism and Confucianism (in China, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc), or Shinto (in Japan), or Korean Shamanism and Confucianism (in Korea) or Roman Catholicism (in the Philippines, the Americas or the islands in Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean); but have you ever seen the mixture of Taoism with Shinto or Korean Shamanism with Confucianism??? I've discussed it before here: Buddhism, Ancestor Worship are as the most common religions in East Asian culture

Why Buddhism earn the support from the Communist Governments (PR of China, Vietnam or Laos)? Remember, the relationship between religions and Communism are very stressful and the main victim is Christianity as usual, not Buddhism or any traditional religions. Because as you can see that Buddhism appreciate and encourage the people must respect and keep the traditional culture and that is why Buddhism styles are very different and localized in the whole East or South-East Asia (from sutras, customs, costumes, local architecture, etc...). Don't like other religions such as Christianization = Westernization/Europeanization, Islamization = Arabization or Hinduizationn but have you ever heard "Buddhization"? When Buddhism went to East Asia, it become the most popular religion (the numbers of Buddhists are always higher than Taoists or Confucianists in China, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau and Korea) here but the people haven't left their traditional beliefs such as Taoism, Confucianism (Chinese), Shinto (Japanese) or Korean Shamanism (Korea), etc…and in this the USA, some Jews have converted to Buddhism but they still keeping their ancestor religion Jewish because Buddhism has never taught the people must leave their traditional religions and worship Buddhism only and because Buddha has recognized himself as a teacher only. Let’s see some examples about the different of Buddhist temples or Buddha statues in various local architectures [43]

Not all East Asians are Buddhists but if you look again so you could see that although East Asians are agnostics (they worship the mixture of multiple religions as traditional beliefs and they don't know what their favorite religions) and the most common religions are Mahayana Buddhism and Ancestor Worship. Even many Chinese people, Vietnamese people prefer Buddhism to Taoism and Koreans prefer Buddhism to Confucianism, etc....That is why many people in these countries classify themselves as non-religious, although they visit religious temples several times every year. Their everyday behaviors and attitudes are dictated by the synthesis of philosophies which can be traced from many religions. Those religions have been co-existing in mostly East Asian countries for centuries and mixed perfectly with the East Asian tradition of worshiping their ancestors and national heroes. That special mix explains why the people there find it hard to say exactly which religion they belong to…And here is the main point in our deal:

So Saim, you shouldn’t let people think that all East Asians are non-religious only or someone shouldn’t let people think that mostly East Asians are Buddhists only because all is very incomplete, biased, lacking of knowledge and very fanatic. We must let people know that although mostly East Asians could be non-religious or agnostics but the people here still keeping their religions as the traditional cultural background which have been influencing throughout the lifestyle, daily activities, culture, history, society, etc… among various East Asian civilizations. Please visit Buddhism by country and read its links to know more.

And as a Chinese mix and Orientalist, I must have responsibility to protect and let people know more about our rich culture, our national spirit, our great history, etc

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 11:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo, what exactly is your point? Buddhism is rising in many places, yes. Buddhism is 40% in Singapore (although, you did put a very different number on the Buddhism by country page). Many of your sources do not support your assertions. Also, can you please stop ranting about how great East Asian culture and Buddhism are? Please? Can you please stop insulting me as in "Hey Saim, please check NPOV again and open your mind because this is not your private website where you want to say what you like and against what you dislike although it could be right!"? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions:

Angelo has asked me to comment here, but I'm someone confused about what, exactly, is being argued about, so I want to ask to start off: what is the precise nature of the content dispute? john k (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your comment here. The main points here that Saimdusan was persisting mostly Chinese people and many East Asian people are non-religious/Atheist and they don't worship any religions. As an Asian mix, I know that is wrong because we could be non-religious but we are still keeping our traditional religions (see above for greater detail) and he is always let Buddhist numbers as less as better in many different countries and promoting Christian and Atheist numbers as much as better (you've discussed it before [44][45]). And here is the problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion_in_China#Third_Opinion

Thank for your comments again, John! Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue ought to be to look at reliable numbers on religious believers/worshippers in the PRC, and use those as the basis of our article. If there's a disagreement among reliable sources, we ought to report that. john k (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to look at the issue, and I will do so and provide substantive comments later, probably in a couple days.

However, based on my initial impression, I'd like to ask everyone involved in this: tone down the rhetoric and remember WP:NPOV and WP:CIV. We're all contributors here to a great project. Let's stay civilized to each other and also, remember that regardless of the factual merits of assertions, everything should be presented in a civil and unbiased manner to the extent possible. There is a difference between "Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton" and "Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky," even if both are factually correct. Please be careful. --Nlu (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This again seems to be the common problem that we run into with figures on religious adherence in Asia. 1) The definitions of religious adherence used with respect to Buddhism, the various Chinese "Great Tradition" religions, and local folk belief are not really congruent with those used in counting religious adherents in the US and Europe. 2) Numbers that are reported by governments are difficult to interpret, both because of the above problem, and because of official bias with regards to reporting religious adherence, which may filter down and cause people "on the ground" to change how they report their religious beliefs and practices. We end up with two things: some official numbers from governments, and the impressions of people who are in the country and observing the religious practices of people. The question is, how to resolve the two. In essence, I don't think we can in the framework of no OR and NPOV. The better thing to do would be to report the official statistics as such, and add for balance sourced, non-quantitative descriptions of religious life in China. It's perfectly reasonable to say "Official statistics from blah say that this is the religious breakdown: ...., and according to these statistics, most Chinese people are atheists/non-religious/Zoroastrians/whatever. We can also state that there are interpretive problems with the picture derived from official stats, and that they need to be understood in the context of other measures of religious adherence and practice, and then provide some counterpoints from sourced accounts. The difficulty is going to be in balancing and not giving unfair weight to one side or the other. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Clay Collier. You are totally understand my ways that we should add various estimates with multiple sources. Thank you so much!Angelo De La Paz (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is basically a rehash of the above; if sources disagree, but meet the criteria for inclusion (i.e. WP:RS, WP:V) then they should all be covered. As Spasemunki says, "The government says blah... According to other accounts, blah blah" and so on would be a good way of tackling the issue. Of course, developing consensus on how you'd do that first would be awesome. Hope this helps. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Clay and MoP; let's document the various reliable sources, without making any conclusions or leading of the reader. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key word from some comments above from John is "reliable"; and I suppose I should add "unbiased" as well. If no source is fully reliable or unbiased, I suppose we should quote all the numbers in all differing sources according to what MoP suggested. Saimdusan, if you quote accurately and consistently from existing sources, I don't think people would have any reason to argue. People should not be led to any one conclusion by manipulation of figures or language if there are wildly differing sources. Hope this helps, 203.218.223.176 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Angelo. The version we wrote was balanced and explained the various points of view about religion in China. The current version created by militant Saimdusan is an apology of irreligion. Say a country is 79% irreligious is simply ridiculous, especially in the case of East Asian societies, in which religions are not "faiths" in the Abrahamic sense, whereas they're worldviews/ways of life/social practices/ways of thinking. --Esimal (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The current version created by militant Saimdusan is an apology of irreligion. Say a country is 79% irreligious is simply ridiculous" Why are you doing this? I suggest you look at WP:CIVIL and then stop insulting me. Saying that I'm "militant" is not in line with WP:CIVIL. Whether or not they're worldviews or ways of thinking, saying that China is 85% Buddhist, that North Korea is 60% Buddhist and that Taiwan is 90+% Buddhist is absolutely ridiculous.

The sources for 85% Buddhists in only two, while the sources that say that it is non-religious are much larger. One of the sources is from a Western Buddhist who mentions "most recent surveys" without indicating which surveys they are, and the other site says that they are more nominal Buddhists, and then goes on about people influenced by Buddhist culture. Clearly, influence by Buddhist culture =/= nominal Buddhism. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Saimdusan version seems to present things as concrete facts, but when you add up the stats he cites from various sources, the total is greater than 100%. We are supposed to just leave the various estimates in there and discuss how and why they vary according to definitions and such. With attribution of course. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between non-religiousness and atheism. The source cited for the statement "China is officially atheist" doesn't actually support the point. It merely talks about how the position of the communist party is atheism. That is different from saying that the government has sanctioned atheism as the official religion (as was the case in Albania). The article cited actually goes on to say that China today is much more tolerant of different religious views than it has been in the past. Kristamaranatha (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it over 100%? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and the total is 81%... we know there is an extra 8% that is "Taoist or worshiper of legendary figures", so that's 89%. Still 11% left. Maybe the number for Buddhists or non-religious are underestimated. Strange. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know, the number for non-religion in China takes into account Chinese folk religion! Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Christianity is flourishing"

Not keen on the term "flourishing" there. With the influence (if not practise) of Communism and overwhelming numbers of atheists, I'm not so sure that Christians in China have a particularly easy time at all. Not050 (talk)Not050Not050 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christians are free to practise their religion like Buddhists or Taoists, at least if they don't meddle in politics. --Esimal (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity is definitely better off in China than it was back in the days of Mao. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Version

I just:

Trimmed the opening section, moving parts into new "History" and "Difficulty in counting adherents" sections
Moved some images around to remove clutter in the opening section
Made the citations make more sense with the text in the opening section
Changed it to "according to the old government numbers", "according to a 2007 survey", "according to adherents.com", rather than "According to the Chinese Government", because that's more accurate.

Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo De La Paz, please, talk in the discussion section before reverting! Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not appreciate your latest version [46] because I know that is wrong and biased Atheist and you have deleted many important informations. So please stop and no more reverting! Look at some ex-Communist states:

Albania: Under period of Enver Hoxha. The Government said that was only 10% of the total population is religious. But how about today? There are 70% is Muslim, 30% is Christian.

Soviet Union: 70 years under Atheist ruling of Communists. There is less than 15% Christian and less than 10% Muslim. But nowadays, 78% is Christian and 14-15% is Muslim in nowadays Russia. And mostly Russian Government's leaders are adherents of Russian Orthodox Church. [47]. And former Soviet states as Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, etc... over 80% to 90% is Muslim now; as well as Georgia, Armenia or Ukraine where Christianity is the predominantly religion and become state religion again (over 90% each country).

Mongolia: Before 1990 under Communist ruling, all religions are prohibited and all citizens must be atheists. But after it, 93% of Mongolian pop. considered themselves as Tibetan Buddhists; Christianity and Islam are also come back and all religions is flourish.

Vietnam: Before 1975 under Capitalist ruling ; over 80% of Vietnam pop. is Buddhist and also Taoist or Confucian (3 in 1). But the Communist census in 1999 has showed that only less than 10% is Buddhist and 6% is Christian.

That is so WEIRD when Buddhist/Taoist numbers in mainland China (<10%) less than in Malaysia (22%), Brunei (14%), Indonesia (over 60% of Indonesian Buddhist is Chinese), etc...although Chinese is only a minority ethnic group there.

Mostly Sinologists know that Chinese are at least cultural or nominal Buddhist/Taoist. And you must know that in all normal Chinese families, there are at least 2 altars (one for Ancestor; one for both Taoist deities and Buddhist bodhisattvas).

I think I were generous with you but you are never listen to me or anyone's comments (even if it is a comment from a Chinese). But after all, I have reworded it again and I want there is no more disputes about that again because I think I were very sensible with my edition.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China is still a "Marxist" state. All of your examples are POST-Marxist. Yes, there will, be a Buddhist majority in China. Regarding the diaspora: many Chinese came to Southeast Asia before the Marxist government, and many religious would leave China fleeing Marxist persecution. Asian Americans aren't mostly Buddhist. They're mostly non-religious and Christian with a Buddhist/Taoist minority. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opening section is way too long. Can we at least agree on that? Lets move most of the information down into the main article. Perhaps a "Statistics" section with all the percentages, then the history stuff from the head could get its own history section, and the difficulty in counting numbers could go under statistics. Anyway, I changed it so it adds both statistics in an unbiased way. And there is no "census by the Chinese government" that is shown on the page now. Its a survey by some group supported by the Chinese government. That census says that 17% of Chinese are Buddhist, Taoist, or worshipper of legendary figures. Additional figures say that 8.5% of China is Buddhist, while others argue that China is as high as 80% Buddhist. Finally, stop talking about ethnic Chinese, or the Han Chinese and Hui, when talking about the People's Republic of China, because they're not the same thing. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I and many people here could accept your idea, that is making a new "Statistics" section with various estimates from multiple sources and the people have right to believe what things they like. And I think the current version is much better and fair. I hope there wlll be no more disputes, biased edits or one-sided thinking. Be open-minded and relax your mind...the balance is coming.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I redid bits of the "Statistics" section:

Moved some periods (periods look better before references than after them)
Fixed some references (some of the citations, although good ones, where not relevant to the sentence they where citing)
Added in adherents.com
Fixed a sentence that contradicted itself (it said that the Chinese government said that 100 million people where religious, and that over 100 million where Buddhist)
Added in that the Chinese government accepts the new survey's figures.

Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your deletion of some sources. Both of these sources [48][49] have wrote that China is official state atheism but didn't dare to count the numbers of Buddhism with Taoism and note: officially atheist, but traditionally pragmatic and eclectic. And many people here know that Chinese Government is encourage the folk religions (Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism) which could help making a harmonized society from the traditional moral values and beliefs [50]. And from this year, the Chinese Communist Government has officially recognized one more national holiday, that is Qingming Festival and support to celebrate some Buddhist and Taoist religious festivals as public events. Daodejing and Confucius's teachings are apply in mostly public schools and many Chinese teachers didn't punished their students by beating or scolding as in the past...but by meditation of Zen Buddhism (Dhyana) in one hour or more. And you must remember one thing that is nowadays CPC considers Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are not only our traditional religions but also our culture, history because they weren't hurted anyone or betrayed Chinese people or China, they are patriot religions. As a proud Chinese, I must know what is happening in my original country, that is a duty and a responsibility. The main victim of Communism is mostly Christianity. I think the current version was OK and I hope there will be no more troubles with it. It's over!Angelo De La Paz (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is mostly over, and this version is far better than older versions... but....

I still think that there are some sources that are sourcing things that are either true or would be possible to find sources on that they do not talk about.

[51][52]

[53] do not mention pantheism, nontheism or polytheism.

I don't think the stuff about theism in Chinese religions should be in the opening section, it should go under their respective sections (Religion in China#Taoism, Religion in China#Buddhism and Religion in China#Chinese folk religion)
I think the citations look better after periods than before them.
Phil Zuckerman is not "on Adherents.com", its just that Adherents.com is sourcing him Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Phil Zuckerman's book was in 2005, he just happened to source something from 1993 in the 59% number. Plus, the 59% and 14% numbers where for different things, one was for non-religious, the other for atheism. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious classification: Chinese folk religion - monotheism-centric view

I found the classification of this "combined religion" called Chinese folk religion absurd, since we Chinese do not identify it as a unified form of religious belief or practice, Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to interpret it via monotheistic views.

Fundamentally, an individual can be multi-religious, and it is common for Chinese people to believe in elements of different religions. The practice of believing in only a single religion is a byproduct of Western monotheism. The three major monotheistic religions all have doctrines telling their followers to denounce other religions. Additionally, the practice of identifying an individual by a single religion is also a byproduct of this monotheistic religious exclusion.

The fact that this article discusses the multi-religious nature of Chinese people as a single religion is absurd. I know Wikipedia is not the first to do it. I have read similar stance on Britannica. But I think we need to set this straight. --Voidvector (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Chinese Folk Religion is an invention of Western Christian scholars. Ther most of Chinese adheres to Taoism, Buddhism or both the religions. Polytheistic worship which pre-dates Buddhism and Taoism has been assimilated primarly by Taoism: Taoist clergy is that which officiates rituals for souls, deities, immortals and other folk deities; divination is practiced in Taoist temples. The 400 million practitioners of so called "Chinese Folk Religions" are de facto Taoists. --79.1.86.120 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated and "democratized" parts of the "Religion in China" article to address help address the problem of western/Christian users, perhaps scholars, using original research and other limited and/or biased sources regarding the state of religious practices in China. The term "SHENISM" is an example of this, and I made a reference as to the origins of this unusual term used to describe "religions of the Han Chinese". I also included statement of Chinese law in regard to the practice of religion in China, as this was avoided by biased users who often edit these articles around Wikipedia --Got Milked 05:03, 4 March 2011

Islam in China

Angelo, once again, you are not addressing the problem I stated in the history section; even if you feel that something is "impossible", that is still your original thinking. You can't remove credible, sourced material. The 100 million upper limit is a significant opinion. Please stop deleting this. The government's numbers can also exist with this estimate.Editingman (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:REDFLAG#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."

I do believe this claim of 100 million Muslims in China falls under an exceptional claim, and although the claim comes from a webpage [54] by BBC, there are no sources backing this claim, meaning the webpage makes no attempt to back its numbers of "100 million" so there is no way knowing where this number of "100 million" comes from, so yes Angelo is correct in his case against Editingman. Abstrakt (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in China2

Angelo, if separate articles have templates, then that does not exclude this general article from having one. In fact, it is quite appropriate that the 'Islam in China' template should be in it's section because this new edit is both a lot smaller, which should calm your fears about Islam being portrayed as the largest religion in China, and it is more brief, while simultaneously enabling more information for the readers. So I would be all for it, if you could make a template for the other religions in China and including them in here while keeping the size appropriate as I did; since this article is supposed to be a brief introduction to each religion, templates will serve that purpose well. Please abstain from constantly deleting this. Thank You.Editingman (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were links to the main articles of all religions in China and of course, all were included its owned templates. Remember, this article is only a shortened summary of all religions in China, not only Islam which is not important like such religions as Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism or Chinese Folk; and Islam is even not bigger than Christianty and came to China later. That's all my ideas. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editingman, what is the point of adding this template to this article? I mean if we were to add that template, then why not the templates of the other religions of China? Honestly what is your point of engaging in an edit war pushing for your template? I mean seriously what is your agenda? Why do you feel such a need to promote Islam in China? I've asked you several times out of curiosity what is your background with Chinese Islam (ie. Are you an ethnic Hui Muslim?) and each time you've choosen to ignore the question. I ask out of sincerety and curiosity, I mean the most respect when I ask why you are so obsessed with Chinese Islam, I'm just trying to make sense of it all. Again I do not see the point of adding this template to a religion article which is merely a summary article of the various religions in China. Abstrakt (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinions, Abstrakt. I totally agree with you because whyen he said there is 100 million Muslims in China so many people were disagreed because if depend on all Muslim ethnic groups (with highest 100% is Muslim), there was only over 19 million. Many people could believe that there are over 50 million Christians in China but 100 million Muslims in China? PLEASE, COME ON. I think if there is 100 million so you will see the Chinese security on daily news like in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan. This "bombing" number of Muslim is also equal with the number of participant Buddhist, according to the official census of Chinese Government. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You two ask why not have the templates of other religions in China stating that they all have their templates in their respective articles. My answer, as stated directly before, was that "I would be all for it" and that the templates should be made first because they actually do not exit right now. Again, "if you could make a template for the other religions in China and including them in here while keeping the size appropriate as I did" I will be all for it "since this article is supposed to be a brief introduction to each religion, templates will serve that purpose well." As for Angelo and Chinese security issues, we try to do original research here so it is best if you could keep your speculations from affecting the article.Editingman (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with you again, Editingman. So why there is only template for Islam while it's an unimportant nor special minority religion in China. The length of this article was too long and we don't want it longer and some admins have warned to shortened this article before and all was solved. But now, you (Editingman) want to promote for your religion Islam by your owned templates which is totally un-needed here because if you want to find out more about each religions in China so there were the links to the main articles on the top of each sections, look again. And of course, in every main such articles as Buddhism in China, Christianty in China or whatecer in China; there were its owned templates or portals and we don't need it again right here...DOUBLE TROUBLE! There were many problems in this article so please don't do anything trouble here again. I will invite some more Chinese Wikipedians, as well as admin to justify for this problem. Thank you! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm an administrator and I've been asked to give my opinion on this debate by Angelo De La Paz. Firstly, the edit warring must stop now or both parties could be blocked for violating the three-revert rule. Secondly, I'd like to remind everyone to remain civil and assume good faith during this discussion. As for my own opinion on the template, there are good arguments for and against it, and I'm not going to make a definite decision. However, I disagree with Angelo De La Paz's assertion that it needs to be removed to keep the article short; it would only be the text that needs to be kept short and in summary style. Epbr123 (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting yet again Editingman you have dodge the question, what is the point in engaging in this edit war to push for your template? Seriously what is your agenda, what is your reason for this POV pushing? As for original research, please refer to Wikipedia:No original research. Let's be honest here Editingman you're trying to push your OWN POV here, it's not only on this article but other articles as well, ie the People's Republic of China article [55]. Abstrakt (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of this dispute is NPOV because there is no reason to added special template of only Islam while there are many different religions in China. About Editingman, I know what are you thinking when you always insisting there must be over 100 million Muslim in China and 20 million Muslim is a wrong number by Chinese Gov. while I've added many other sources of CIA, US epartment of States and even Muslim China, Islam Toady, Islamic Media Network all was agreed with 20 to 30 million Muslim in China is the most common number. And you have tried to deleted those sources [56][57][58]. And let's see what you have done with other articles recently [59][60][61]. I appreciate your work for Islam in China but I am very upset when you abused it for not good purposes.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, for the admin's point, I did consciously try hard to be civil and honestly it should be more of an issue with my opponents.[62] Secondly, for Abtrakt's question, which I have supposedly dodged, of why I am "POV pushing" this template, the short answer, as you would assume, is that I wouldn't think a template was POV and I have said, for at least the third time, that if you could make templates for the other religions in china, which didn't exist though you kept insisting they did (pleased to see angelo is making one now), I would be "all for it,.,since this article is supposed to be a brief introduction to each religion, templates will serve that purpose well." So POV should not be an issue. I also added the Christianity in China portal and vastly shortened the text of the Islam in China section so that the section with the template is now actually smaller even with a template, while at the same time there is now more info because of the template. Thus, length should not be a question either. This should not be complicated. Thirdly, for the People's Republic of China number issue, what I changed was the statement from Angelo that 'most independent surveys have ranged from 20 to 30 million' as the 'most reliable numbers'. No one ever said they were surveys; they were the estimates that went with the same government's estimates nor was anything cited ever said that they were the most reliable. Additionally then, how would you ever get the significant word 'independent?' Angelo adds his spin to it and calls me POV? As for the other edits Angelo claims I abused, my response is,...well, I don't really have one. I am still trying to see what you find terribly uncomfortable with.Editingman (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editingman: do you have a source that states who / where the 100 million figure comes from? -- ran (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editingman it is a matter of POV since you have been adamant in pushing for the 100 million figure of Chinese Muslims in China. You have been pushing for this figure in other articles as well, ie. Islam_in_China#Number_of_Muslims_in_China and People's_Republic_of_China#Religion, so yes you have been pushing for your own POV in your figure of 100 million.

Furthermore I believe that you misunderstood the discussion about the templates, personally I feel that that the article follows the guidelines of a summary article better without the use of numberous templates, the arguement about the inclusion of other templates was to simply make a point how silly it was for you to keep on pushing for your template when there were no other templates there to begin with. You just choose to include a portal to Chinese Christianity in order to justify your own Chinese Islam template, no one asked for the templates to be included.

Back to the figure of 100 million, is there a reliable source for this information? Abstrakt (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:REDFLAG#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."

I do believe this claim of 100 million Muslims in China falls under an exceptional claim, and although the claim comes from a webpage [63] by BBC, there are no sources backing this claim, meaning the webpage makes no attempt to back its numbers of "100 million" so there is no way knowing where this number of "100 million" comes from, however the BBC source states that according to government figures, the number is around 20 million. Abstrakt (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also following up on what Angelo has provided, Editingman, it seems you are desperately trying to push for your POV in the figure of the Chinese Muslim population, after looking at the edits on the People's Republic of China article and seeing that you deleted sources as in this instance, [64].Abstrakt (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really want solve this bussiness by a fair way but Editingman is making very upset with his un-constructive edits in article of People's Republic of China again by a worse way: deleted my citation given of some Islamic websites [65] which are all agreed with the estimates of CIA, US Department of States there is about 20 - 30 million Muslims in China by his estimate of 100 million. Although the BBC also emphasized for his insisted 100 million Chinese Muslims: [66]

"Statistics are hard to find, and the number of Muslims in China today is somewhere between 20 and 100 million; it depends on whose figures you trust.

According to government figures, there are 20 million Muslims (1.4% of the population), 35,000 Islamic places of worship, and more than 45,000 imams in China."

That means the common estimates of many non-Chinese Government and Islamic websites agreed with 20 - 30 million Muslim in China, it is still higher than the official estimate but acceptable. There are 10 Muslim ethnic groups in China and if we count all is 100% Muslim so we will have only over 20 million Muslim, as of 2005 [67] and 96% belonged to just three largest groups with over million people each:

Ethnic group	Population
Hui	9,817,000 [68]
Uyghurs	8,400,000 [69]
Kazakhs	1,251,000 [70]
Dongxiang	514,000 [71]
Kyrgyz	161,000 [72]
Salar	105,000 [73]
Tajiks	42,000 [74]
Bonan	17,000 [75]
Uzbeks	13,000 [76]
Tatars	5,000 [77]
Utsul	5,000 (est.)
Tibetan Muslims	unknow
Total	20,330,000

Remember that is the total numbers of ethnic groups, not only religious adult population like other religions as Buddhism, Taoism or Christianity. So 20 - 30 million Muslim in China is very reliable and mostly accepted by non-Chinese Government organizations (CIA, US Department of States) and especially Muslim websites in/outside China. I also remarked that Hui people is considered as Han Chinese who follow Islam under ruling of Western Khans in Yuan Dynasty. Because both Han and Hui are totally similar from ethnic descent, culture, language (writing and speaking in (Mandarin Chinese), etc...but only different in religion and eating (don't eat pork but the Hui is still keeping the original Chinese cuisine like han people) [78]. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008 (UTC)