Talk:Growth of religion/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Growth of religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to be polished per WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOCRYSTAL

Latest comment: 7 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion

I think that this article needs to be deeply cleansed from unsubstantiated claims from news organizations, blogs, biased agencies promoting any given religious ideology, and other similar unreliable sources, and also redundant repetitions and wrong language, per the policy discouraging the use news organizations, the policy discouraging journalistic style, the policy discouraging acritical lists of statistics and the policy discouraging forecasts. Currently the article is an acritical list of "claims to be the fastest growing religion" as it was once titled. The quality since then has not improved, possibly it has worsened. Actually the article is so bad that I would suggest to merge it into "major religious groups" which treats similar games of statistics more accurately and from historical and cultural perspectives.

I don't want to attack him personally, but I note that most of the recent edits, which have contributed to worsen the state of the article, come from Jobas, who is not new to biased editing (to this and other Wikipedia projects) as it was detected in the past by other users. Another article directly affiliated to this one, "Christian population growth", has very similar problems (I would suggest an immediate merging into this article or into "Christianity by country").--151.36.36.57 (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of the sources of these articles are from Pew Research Center, several national Census, Eurobarometer and Encyclopædia Britannica then are some supported by The Guardian, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, BBC News, UNHCR, World Christian Encyclopedia, Arena - Atlas of Religions and Nationalities in Russia, reuters, (many of thes source are took studies form the Pew Research Center) Without addressing the references from books as Hillerbrand, Hans J., "Encyclopedia of Protestantism: 4-volume Set" etc. You deleted entire paragraphs backed with "the Pew Research Center" references.

Interesting that the supposedly new IP, claims that i'm not new to biased editing (to this and other Wikipedia projects: which one excally? please bring somee vidence ), and tellig false claims as my edit was detected in the past by other users - where and when ??-, Oh maybe you mean The user who has long history of sockpuppets (at least 100) and disruptive edit'.

There is alson a article called Muslim population growth is it also should be merging into this article or into "Islam by country"?.--Jobas (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been reading Wikipedia and following editors for a long time. I am not Anatha Gulati, and this could be easily proved. Incidentally we both noticed your unfair editing; this is the only thing that relates us. However, if you want to discuss about your unfair editing: the Pew Research Center, national censuses and ARENA, Eurobarometer and EB, are the only solidly reliable sources in your list (I have some doubts about the Pew Research Center, but I won't discuss it here); the problem is that you interpret them (making them say what they actually do not say, but you want them to say) and interpolate them with other, bad quality sources (tabloids and blogs), with the latter actually being the vast majority.--151.36.36.57 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "Muslim population growth": yes, it could (and maybe should) be merged.--151.36.36.57 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Still you didn't bring evidence for your false cliams, in many places The Guardian, and BBC News reference are addressed to the Pew study, and if you want to consider Pew Research Center as controversial it should apply in all artciles not just here. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and UNHCR, are widely used in wikipedia if is a bad sources then it should be apply in all artciles not just here.

You claim that i interpret them, that's also a false cliams. you removed the sentence: By 2050, the Christian population is expected to exceed 3 billion or By 2050 Christianity is expected to remain the majority of population and the largest religious group in Latin America and Caribbean (89%), North America (66%), Europe (65.2%) and Sub Saharan Africa (59%). even it provied by source from the pew study, can you show me where i interpret the sources here for example? (since you remove it).

You also remove the sources in selectively way, you only removed the sources from World Christian Encyclopedia from the christian paragraph, but it is been left in other paragraphs -the islam paragraphs for example-.

I'm not the only one who been edting in this articles, some of the sources that you removed, wasn't added by me.--Jobas (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor from WP:NPOVN) Jobas is correct that the original sources of information are reputable research organizations and, so, considered reliable.

However, the article has other NPOV issues.

The lead should be an overview of the entire content of the article as per MOS:LEAD. However, it is almost exclusively focused on Islam. This should be corrected by writing a proper overview.
The section on Islam is also much larger than other sections. I am not sure why. It is also excessively long to the point of being unreadable and uninteresting. In any case, as per WP:BALANCE, all the sections should be of roughly equal size unless there are good reasons to deviate from that norm.
The article title is misleading. The article is not really talking about growth of "religions", but rather growth of religious populations. All the populations are growing but some are growing faster than others. I think adding "populations" to the title will make it less threatening/alarmist. Or it could something even more neutral such as "religious demography" or "demography of religions."
The article can use some introductory discussion about the general issues of growth. For example, the 2015 PEW Report has an introductory section talking about factors affecting growth. Johnson and Grim also has a chapter on the factors. Some of that can be included.
It can also use some concluding discussion that talks about the consequences of the growth figures.

The article is currently rated B-class. If it is to go to GA level, these issues will need to be addressed. Since NPOV concerns are being raised, this may be a good opportunity to start thinking of revisions. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for giving your opinion, I do agree with most of your point:

the MOS:LEAD should focuse about other religions also. or just to talk generally without diving into the details.
Islam section been wrote by different users, many of it is part written also by the blocked user and his sockpuppets.
The artilce talk about both the growth of "religions", and the religious populations, but it could changed the article title to covert the content of the article.--Jobas (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The Pew Research Center's projects are backed by the John Templeton Foundation, an Evangelical Christian organization. It's seriously disturbing that its data (which is not based on surveys and in many cases decades old, as is the data for Russia or Belarus for example, and in many cases also exaggerates the number of Christians) has been adopted so acritically and extendedly in Wikipedia.

Kautilya3: this is not the only article that is infested by such problems of unreliability and acritical use of sources. Most of the other articles about religion statistics have similar problems. So, I think the best solution would be a concerted effort to rectify all such type of articles. An idea would be to set up a workgroup, maybe under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics, dedicated to check these articles.--151.82.40.213 (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows reliable sources to be WP:BIASED. Bias by itself doesn't make a source unreliable. You are welcome to mention the fact that the project was funded by the Templeton Foundation, and you can cover the issue in more detail on the Pew Research Center page.

A source becomes unreliable only if other reliable sources say that it is unreliable. In this case, such sources would have to be statisticians or demographers. Newspaper opinions won't be enough. Once you have such sources, you are welcome to take it to WP:RSN and ask if they are enough to declare the Pew results unreliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Pew Research Center is widely used in Wikipeida articles, and most of the articles about religion statistics use it. Till now is a reliable source here, so removing the source from the page is removing reliable sources.

The studies that was done by Pew Research Cente is backed by AmericasBarometer-Administered by the Latin American Public Opinion Project at Vanderbilt, European Values Study, European Social Survey (Administered by the European Values Study Foundation), Gallup World Poll, Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey. United Nations Children’s Fund, United Nations Demographic Yearbook, United Nations, World Religion Database: International Religious Demographic Statistics and Sources, World Values Survey. Values Survey Database, Generations and Gender Programme, French Institute of Public Opinion, Demographic and Health Surveys, Customized census data tabulations were provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Canada, Korea Statistics Promotion Institute (KSPI), Statistics New Zealand, Singapore Department of Statistics, Sri Lanka Department of Census and Statistics, and Office for National Statistics (United Kingdom). Estimates of the religious composition of European nations were made in collaboration with researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Kautilya3 All these are reliable sources that Pew Research Center use it in their studies.--Jobas (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like we have reached resolution. Please ping me if you need any more input because I am removing this page from my watch list. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Jobas: It is of no use that you keep listing institutions that apparently have given their approval to the Pew Research Center's projects. This doesn't make the Pew Research statistics updated. As I have already written, the problem is that in many cases they are not up to date, see for example the data for Belarus and Russia. The census 2011 for the former and the Arena Atlas for the latter, say that the Orthodox population is repsectively 48% and 41%... Yet the Pew Research Center's statistics say that they are around 70% Orthodox! Also, the problem with your edits is that you have been favoring the Pew data over the data from more accurate, or more recent, surveys and national censuses. I would like to known the opinion of Kautilya3 about this matter.--151.34.117.54 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Jobas is right again. Reliability is indeed decided based on what recognition they receive from other reliable sources. If they Pew results don't agree with national census results, then we have to mention both. That is what WP:NPOV tells us to do. If there is some other reliable source that discusses the disparity and gives us more information, then we can use that. We can't make up our own judgement as to who is right. We should not regard ourselves as experts here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Again false claims from you, I never favored one source - or Pew as you claims-, in the article Christianity by country as you can see both of the sources are mention for Russia (Arena Atlas for the latter and Pew) and Ukraine (Razumkov Centre from 2006 and Pew from 2010), since there the is no official census of religion in Russia and Ukraine while for Belarus there is only source mention which is the census 2011 (Pew is not even mentioned). But just to know; There is no official census of religion in Russia, and estimates are based on surveys only. In August 2012, ARENA determined that about 46.8% of Russians are Christians (including Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and non-denominational), which is slightly less than an absolute 50%+ majority. However, later that year the Levada Center determined that 76% of Russians are Christians, and in June 2013 the Public Opinion Foundation determined that 65% of Russians are Christians. These findings are in line with Pew's 2011 survey, which determined that 73.6% of Russians are Christians, with VTSIOM's 2010 survey (~77% Christian), and with Ipsos MORI's 2011 survey (69%). It is not our work to decided who is right and who is wrong.--Jobas (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Christian distribution update.png

edit war

Then you are interpreting according to your own view, when you say that "the findings are in line with Pew's 2011 survey". First of all the Pew data are not the result of a survey, but are a collection of data (sometimes from clearly defined sources, sometimes of obscure origin). (Second, its results refer to the year 2010, but this is an irrelevant issue.). Third issue: can you make clear what sampling methodology was used for the surveys you have cited? A survey is a direct analysis of a large sample of a population. How large is the sample of Pew, Ipsos Mori, VTSIOM, Levada, POF, etc? What type of populations have they interviewed? Where? Are their samples representative of all Russia like those of ARENA or they have surveyed random few people from western Russia (which is reportedly more Christian than the east)?

Since you continue to denigrate me claiming that I "lie" and say "false things", I'll demonstrate that you have been engaged in edit wars changing ARENA and census data with other, older and sometimes ungrounded, data according to your own preference. Just see the edit summaries of the maps on the right. And you also used dozens of sockpuppets on Wikimedia Commons for these edit wars trying to impose your views. You were also blocked there for 3 days in May 2014 and for 1 month in January 2016 for edit wars and vandalism. This demonstrates that here the liar and faker is not me.--151.36.49.214 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I discovered just now that another user before me, Juliandas51, noticed your tendentious editing only two months ago and reported his concerns in a discussion right above. He was blocked as a sockpuppet of Anatha Gulati, but he was absolutely right and clear in his observations. I start to doubt that all these users were "Anatha Gulati" as my edits too were rollbacked by an acritical user who suspected I was one of them. There's something definitely wrong going on here, as evidently clear and neutral users who respect the sources are banned and deceitful users who manipulate sources and write in bad English are permitted to continue their work. I would report the entire situation at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but as an unregistered user I am unable to do so. Kautilya3, the issue is far from being solved.--151.36.49.214 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Here we go the IP that i I never finished from his harrasment. The sockpuppets you mention on commons don't have contributions, Since you aware of maps of the Wikimedia Commons (from 2014), Now you make it clear that you are Ich Pilot who been blocked form Commons, with having also so many Sockpuppets. The same language, the same personal attack. The fact that this IP and Juliandas51 even knew of that Wikimedia Commons old thing and used it to smear me is telling alot.--Jobas (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not, by no means, Ich Pilot. I have discovered your history on Wikimedia Commons just searching through the edit history of your accounts. What is certain is that Ich Pilot, Anatha Gulati, etc. with all their sockpuppets, have been totally counterproductive, as they have created the pretext for your victimization that you have been exploiting to defend your unfair editing.--151.18.105.221 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

So that is your usual strategy? now you going in personal attacks by calling me liar and faker, or to smear me by bringing up issues from Wikimedia Commons back to 2012 (Sockpuppets with no contributions) or from 2014 (edit warning with blocked user!), which is totally irrelevant here since this English Wikipeida project not Wikimedia Commons. And interesting that you stalking me now, i'm mean what you would call looking in my contributions that back to 2007 or 2012 or 2014!.

For the maps (which is belong to Wikimedia Commons, not here), see the discussion that was revolving (it was in 2014 by the way) around the statistics before throwing accusations, Again when i said false claims from you becouse since in the articles that expressed concern on them, as Christianity by country counties as Russia and Ukraine (that you mention before) are sourced by both, Pew results and ARENA (In Russia casa) and Razumkov Centre from 2006 (in Ukraine case), While in case of Belarus (that you mention before) there is only one source mention which is the census 2011 (Pew is not even mentioned), Other countries sourced by national census and in some cases by Pew. So you'r cliams that i been favoring the Pew data in these articles are false. So how excally i'm favoring the Pew data in that article.

You still throwing accusations, If you had issues with Pew Research Center studies, try to find a reliable source consider Pew Research Center studies as unreliable, so you can bring it in Wikipedia:RSN, But till now the source is consider reliable in this project and it is widely used here.--Jobas (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Then, if the Wikimedia Commons' maps issue is really a thing of the past and you're now a neutral contributor, please correct those maps according to the findings of ARENA, Razumkov and census data respectively for Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.--151.82.108.101 (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment 151.36.36.57 is edit warring against several Wikipedians on this article and removing reliable sources that are used to reference several statements in the article, including those not covering Christianity. This unregistered user is admonished to discuss specifically what he objects to on this talk page rather than tendentiously edit. Remember, just because you don't like what sources say doesn't mean that they won't be included in the article. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 17:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do not see any edit war going on in this article.--151.34.117.54 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Growth of religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706164853/http://bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/5.3%20Hassall.pdf to http://bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/5.3%20Hassall.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209082606/http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk:80/encyclopedia/sub/geness.html to http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/sub/geness.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZ68H857ADsOp81TePJQmLhShESw
Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZ68H857ADsOp81TePJQmLhShESw
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/10/22/focus/9749626&sec=focus
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209094904/http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx to http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bu.edu/cura/faculty-staff/research-associates/dr-todd-m-johnson/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pewresearch.org/experts/brian-j-grim/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Growth of religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Growth of religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Growth of religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Projections on the growth of religion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The growth of religion article declares: "Such forecasts cannot be validated empirically and are contentious, but are useful for comparison."

I agree that the forecasts of specific religions can be contentious if fairly precise predictions are made.

On the other hand, Eric Kaufmann notes that demography is the most predictable of the social sciences.[1]

Kaufmann, who authored the book Shall the Religious inherit the earth?, wrote about religion growing in the 21st century:

"I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.

On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population.."[2]

Kaufmann makes a strong argument that religion is going to grow in its market share compared to nonreligion/irreligion. The article should note this matter.Knox490 (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Merging Request

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

The article "Far future in religion" does not sound like an article. So I think that might be merged with this article.

Soumya-8974 (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what the article is about. The article is about the far future (ie, beyond 10,000 AD) as predicted by religions. Serendi ^podous 11:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a crystal ball

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under "Non-religious", several predictions for 2050 are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have removed several hoaxes from the growth of Islam section which used "citations" that did not support some outrageous statements.

One was that "studies and reports" had shown that there has been more conversion to Islam in the 21st century (all 20 years of it...) than any other time in history (even more than when the first Muslims conquered Syria, North Africa and Spain). The cited link is a Pew report on the quarter of the American Muslim population who are converts, and the "read more" is a more generalist Pew survey on the entire Muslim population in the US, convert or not.

Using the same false reference, the article said that hundreds of thousands of Christians were converting to Islam in countries such as Afghanistan and Algeria where there aren't even that many to start with.

And a further hoax just afterwards claimed that 250,000 Jews converted to Islam in the 19th century (no citation). And then, a passage that made me conclude absolute bad faith said that 2.7 million Jews identify as Muslims. I read the apparent reference - it was about irreligion and did not mention Muslims at all! Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The hoaxes came from this edit [3] which appears to be a copy/paste of the section about the growth of Christianity, but with the names changed. Absolutely bad faith. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

User:Lempop2, I have noticed that you have reverted both User:Hugitt and User:ProcrasinatingReader on the article, removing a large quantity of information. Per WP:BRD, I am recommending that you discuss the changes with these two users here. I should note that I have issued a warning on your talk page for crossing WP:3RR. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, so much for that. You have reverted once again. Anupam^Talk 19:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

20,000 Muslim Conversion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Eliko007 I have tried to do some research about the claim of 20,000 Muslim converts to Christianity in the USA annually. It turns out that the claim mainly comes from missionary websites and the information originates from the research of Dudley Woodbury (his actual name is Dudley Woodberry). However, the original research from this scholar can not be found anywhere and missionary websites also fail to give even the name of the research. How reliable can this information be? --Verman1 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Last edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The last edit, is problematic for several reasons:

The main reasons, according to the study for why Islam is growing more than the other religions, is because of the young age and high fertility-rate of Muslims -check p.70-, while religious conversion has no net impact. So if he decides to make a religious comparison of growth between both faiths, then there are so many factors why Islam is growing more than Christianity: these factors includes high fertility, gaps between new babies and death, life expectancy, age structures (check here) etc., so why the cherry picking of factors?
The new edit does not give the whole image, and it gives the impression that Christianity is in absolute numbers decreasing due to switching out, which wrong; according to the same study, Christians will increase from 2.16 billion in 2010 to 2.9 billion in 2050.
Beside it's useless to mention the religious switching between 2015 and 2060 in the introduction. Who knows what happens in 2060? The study (from page 41 till 48), excludes China in the Christians switching scenario "Because of a lack of reliable data on religious switching in China", yet it adds ""Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated", and "While all religious groups in China could be experiencing significant change through switching, media reports and expert assessments generally suggest that the main effects are rising numbers of Christians and declining numbers of religiously unaffiliated people. The following sensitivity tests assume, for illustrative purposes, that switching is limited to this movement between the unaffiliated and Christians."
I think it's better to move this new edit inside the article, in the Christian section, to discuss these points rather than the introduction. And I checked the section and it's already mentioned the prediction of the in and out Christian switching.Eliko007 (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Eliko007's argument. The study gives three different scenarios about converting to or deconverting from Christianity, and it's place should be in the Christian section, not the lede. It's better to keep the lede to discussing what is the fastest-growing major religion in the world, and the factors behind it, rather than picking factors to make a POV comparison. Orientls (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The good man 232, the source cited 3.1, please check p.10 :"Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman – well above replacement level (2.1), the minimum typically needed to maintain a stable population." (check the source here [4]). The citation mentioned is from the previous source page 10. I see that you continue to edit, can you be more responsive?. Eliko007 (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Last edit #2

Latest comment: 3 years ago59 comments5 people in discussion

The good man 232, you are misrepresenting the citation:

The source does not state or make such claim that: "the religion that most gain through conversion is Islam"; this your own conclusion. See Wikipedia:Synthesis, look for a secondary source to do the synth for you. Insofar you do not have it, please refrain from doing that.
The source uses the word Religiously Unaffiliated not Atheism; this category includes atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion in surveys.
Also you ignored that the study excludes China in the Christians switching scenario (from page 41 till 48), "Because of a lack of reliable data on religious switching in China", yet it adds ""Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated", and "While all religious groups in China could be experiencing significant change through switching, media reports and expert assessments generally suggest that the main effects are rising numbers of Christians and declining numbers of religiously unaffiliated people. The following sensitivity tests assume, for illustrative purposes, that switching is limited to this movement between the unaffiliated and Christians." This note is important and should be mentioned in the section, because it may positively affect on the future growth of Christians, and may negatively affect the growth of Religiously Unaffiliated.
Please before any further editing, read the source well and read the information in the source. Eliko007 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The good man 232, can you post on which page the source claims that: "the religion that most gain through conversion is Islam".?. Eliko007 (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Here what the source say: "In many countries, it is fairly common for adults to switch from identifying with the religion in which they grew up to identifying with another religion or with no religion. But only in recent decades have cross-national surveys begun to measure individual changes in religious identity. The broadest analysis of religious switching published in recent years examined just 40 countries, primarily in Europe, using data collected between 1991 and 2001. The projections in this report go further, showing what the future religious landscape may look like if switching continues at the same rates recently observed in 70 countries, which are spread throughout the world’s major regions. Data on these switching patterns come from surveys carried out between 2008 and 2013 by the Pew Research Center and other organizations, including studies carried out under the auspices of the International Social Survey Program. This collection of data provides the most comprehensive picture available to date of global patterns of switching among major religious groups, including from having been raised in a religion to being religiously unaffiliated as an adult. Levels of switching are different for men and women. But at the global level, net movement due to the religious switching of men and women follows similar patterns. The chart below shows the projected total amount of movement into and out of major religious groups between 2010 and 2050 for countries with data on switching. The largest net movement is expected to be out of Christianity (66 million people), including the net departure of twice as many men (44 million) as women (22 million). Similarly, net gains among the unaffiliated (61 million) are projected to be more than twice as large for men (43 million) as for women (19 million). Muslims and followers of folk religions and "other religions are expected to experience modest gains due to religious switching. Jews and Buddhists are expected to experience modest net losses through religious switching."

CAN YOU SHOW WHERE THE SOURCE STATE: "the religion that most gain through conversion is Islam". Eliko007 (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The good man 232, the study excludes China in the Christians switching scenario (from page 41 till 48), "Because of a lack of reliable data on religious switching in China", yet it adds ""Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated", and "While all religious groups in China could be experiencing significant change through switching, media reports and expert assessments generally suggest that the main effects are rising numbers of Christians and declining numbers of religiously unaffiliated people. The following sensitivity tests assume, for illustrative purposes, that switching is limited to this movement between the unaffiliated and Christians." This note is important and should be mentioned in the section, because it may positively affect on the future growth of Christians, and may negatively affect the growth of Religiously Unaffiliated. Is there is a reason why blanked the paragraph?. Eliko007 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, The source says that there is a lack of reliable data for all religious groups in China, but you only wrote that Christians are the ones who lack reliable data. The good man 232 (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Because the study cited that scholars, reports, and expert assessments generally suggest that conversions to Christianity are rising and growing rapidly in China. This "rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated", this not the same case for other religious groups in China. It should be mentioned because it may positively affect on the future growth of Christians by 2050, and may negatively affect the growth of Religiously Unaffiliated by 2050. Also, stop accusing me of being a "missionary", I'm not even a Christian. Eliko007 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

agree with Eliko's argument. The China scenario should be mentioned. The study states that if China is included it may affect Christian growth positively and the unaffiliated negatively, and it could change the whole image; for example, Christianity may rank in first place in net gains through religious conversion. I don't see any reason to blank for the reason of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Also what the wrong with the source of The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion? It gives another reliable point of view and gives a balance for a different point views. It's definitely appropriate and relevant in the section of growth by conversion. The good man 232, you need to be more responsive instead of inserting questionable sentences. desmay (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Desmay:The China scenario was mentioned previously in another section, there is no need to repeat it again, and the source also says that there is a lack of reliable statistics for all religious groups there, not just Christians. The good man 232 (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrator note: I have locked the article for 10 days. Content disputes should be resolved on the talk page, not in article edits and edit summaries. You guys figure out what the text should say here. If there is agreement before the protection expires, ping me and I can unlock it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The good man 232 - It's still relevant context here. You are also repeating the same information about entering or leaving Christianity or Islam in every corner of the article. Why do you have an issue with China? The study focuses on Christianity in particular, as Christianity is growing in china rapidly according to some scholars as the study shows; this not the same case for other religions. You need to be more careful with your editing. Orientls (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Orientls If the context is relevant this does not mean that it is suitable for repetition. is the goal is to create Illusory truth effect? Nor does the source say that the reason for the growth of Christians there is conversion. Even that this study is based on unconfirmed and unreliable data, it is originally not worth repeating. The good man 232 (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, Orientls, Desmay, Eliko007,

1- I don't understand why you insist on repeating, the Chinese scenario was mentioned before, I do not understand the goal of repeating it again, is the goal is to create Illusory truth effect?

2- Source doesn't say that the reason for the growth of Christians on china is conversion, rather, it said the opposite, stating: "It is expected that there will be a net loss of Christianity due to religious switching."

3- Even that this study is based on unconfirmed and unreliable data, it is originally not worth repeating.

4- the current study did not mention that it excluded China, but rather said that there is a lack of reliable data for all religious groups there, because China does not conduct national statistics for all followers of religions in it, not only for Christians.

5- The source mentioned two scenarios, the main scenario said that there would be a slight decrease in the number of Christians in China to 2.4%, but Eliko007 did not write it. As for the second scenario said that if all atheists (who make up 57% in china) convert to Christianity before 2050, "extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated" But before mentioning this scenario, source said, "This scenario is unlikely,"but Eliko007 distorted it and wrote its place "the study cited that scholars, reports and expert assessments generally suggest". The good man 232 (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not a party to this dispute. I am here in an administrative capacity only. The only edits I have made to this article have been as an administrator, to remove plagiarized text and to add a protection tag. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, What about the third opinion in disputes? The good man 232 (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The good man 232 you are misrepresenting the citation:

Your claim: "It is expected that there will be a net loss of Christianity due to religious switching", is wrong. In absolute numbers, by 2050 the number of Christians will reach 2.9 billion (or 31.4%) compare to 2.3 billion in 2010, what the source state is that religious switching may have a negative effect on the future growth of Christians. There is a big difference between the two statements.
I suggest keeping the China scenario in the "Growth by conversion" section instead of the Christian section.
You need to read the study carefully, the study cited that:

"In China, about 5% of the population is estimated to be Christian at present, and more than 50% is religiously unaffiliated. Because reliable figures on religious switching in China are not available, the projections do not contain any forecast for conversions in the world’s most populous country. But if Christianity expands rapidly in China in the decades to come – as some experts on China predict – then by 2050 the global number of Christians could be significantly higher than projected, and the decline in the percentage of the world’s population that is religiously unaffiliated could be even sharper."

"As of 2010, China had an estimated 68 million Christians and 701 million unaffiliated people. Due primarily to differences in the age and sex composition of these initial populations, in the main projection scenario – which does not attempt to model religious switching – China’s Christian population is expected to grow slightly by 2050, to 71 million, while the unaffiliated population is expected to decline to 663 million".

While all religious groups in China could be experiencing significant change through switching,media reports and expert assessments generally suggest that the main effects are rising numbers of Christians and declining numbers of religiously unaffiliated people. The following sensitivity tests assume, for illustrative purposes, that switching is limited to this movement between the unaffiliated and Christians.

While it is clear that religious affiliation and practice have risen dramatically in China since the end of the Cultural Revolution, data on recent patterns of religious switching are practically nonexistent. Anecdotally, some newspaper articles and reports from religious groups have attempted to describe changes underway in China, but it is unclear how accurately these accounts reflect change underway at the country level. Still, some experts believe that China’s Christian population is growing, perhaps rapidly. Most notably, one of the world’s leading specialists on religion in China, Purdue University sociologist Fenggang Yang, estimates that the Christian population in China grew at an average annual rate of 7% between 1950 and 2010.

Because there is some evidence that Chinese Christians may underreport their religious identity on public opinion surveys, the Pew Research Center reviewed multiple sources to arrive at an approximation of the size of China’s Christian population.

he Spiritual Life Study of Chinese Residents, a 2007 survey by the Chinese polling firm HorizonKey, did ask some questions about childhood and adult religious affiliation. However, the categories of childhood and adult affiliation and practice are not fully compatible. In particular, the survey does not measure whether respondents grew up practicing Chinese folk religion. Furthermore, adult Christian identity seems to be underestimated by the affiliation measures, which would prevent accurate estimates of rates of switching into Christianity.

The biggest unknown factor, however, is China, the world’s most populous country. Because of a lack of reliable data on religious switching in China, none of the scenarios models religious switching among its 1.3 billion people. If there is considerable switching in China in the coming decades, it could lower the percentage of the world’s population that is unaffiliated and boost the numbers of Christians, Buddhists and perhaps other groups.

"the main scenario said that there would be a slight decrease in the number of Christians in China to 2.4%", wrong, again you are misrepresenting the citation:

Under that main scenario, 5.4% of China’s population and 31.4% of the world’s total population will be Christian in 2050. If China’s Christian population were to decline to Japanese levels (2.4% of the country’s population) in 2050, it would reduce the Christian share of the global population to 30.9%. On the other hand, if China’s Christian population was to increase to the level projected for South Korea in 2050 (33.3% of the country’s population), it would raise the count of Christians in China to 437 million and the share of Christians in the world’s overall population to 35.3%.

The source state that the scenario "if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050" is "may be unlikely", not your claim.

And if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050, China’s population would be 56.2% Christian (734 million Christians), raising the Christian share of the world’s population to 38.5% and lowering the unaffiliated share of the global population to 6.1%. Though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050.

The study does not make such a claim that potential Christian growth in China is based "on unconfirmed and unreliable data". Eliko007 (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You are reading elsewhere, the text that you wrote wrong is as follows:

extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated

But if you go back to the source, you will find it saying before mention this as follows:

And if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050, China’s population would be 56.2% Christian (734 million Christians), raising the Christian share of the world’s population to 38.5% and lowering the unaffiliated share of the global
population to 6.1%, though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050 Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the
projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated.

"that scenario may be unlikely" refers to " if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050", and not to "extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion". This another example showing a lack of reading comprehension. Eliko007 (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, Do not lie, I did not say that "that scenario may be unlikely" refers to "if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050". — Preceding unsigned comment added by The good man 232 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That what you said:

As for the second scenario said that if all atheists (who make up 57% in china) convert to Christianity before 2050, "extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated" But before mentioning this scenario, source said, "This scenario is unlikely,"- The good man 232

.Eliko007 (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

When the source said that "media reports and expert assessments generally suggest that the main effects are rising numbers of Christians and declining numbers of religiously unaffiliated people", It is not intended to belong to "extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated". They are both in different paragraphs. The good man 232 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Well does this contradict the sentence in the article? because the sentence is referring to "the study cited", not to the "scholars, reports and expert assessments". Eliko007 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

We could also change the sentence: "According to the Pew Research Center, if China is included on data or scenario it may positively affect on the future growth of Christians, and may negatively affect the growth of the Religiously Unaffiliated." to "According to the Pew Research Center if there is considerable religious conversion in China in the coming decades, it may positively affect on the global future growth of Christians, and may negatively affect the growth of the Religiously Unaffiliated". To reflect more on the content of the source. Eliko007 (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Do not try to evade the answer through other texts. The full text that you quoted says:

And if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050, China’s population would be 56.2% Christian (734 million Christians), raising the Christian share of the world’s population to 38.5% and lowering the unaffiliated share of the global population to 6.1%. Though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050. Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated.

And this text has never said "media reports and expert assessments generally suggest that the main effects are rising numbers of Christians and declining numbers of religiously unaffiliated people". The good man 232 (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, Okay, but we also have to add: "if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050" and "scenario may be unlikely". The good man 232 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Please try to read carefuly my comment, the sentence "extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated" is referred by "the study cited", not by the "scholars, reports and expert assessments".

While all religious groups in China could be experiencing significant change through switching,media reports and expert assessments generally suggest that the main effects are rising numbers of Christians and declining numbers of religiously unaffiliated people. The following sensitivity tests assume, for illustrative purposes, that switching is limited to this movement between the unaffiliated and Christians.

.

"if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050", is an extremist scenario to "offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050", it doesn't refer to the sentence "extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated", and it's unlikely to happen, explain why you think we have to add it. Eliko007 (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, Focus on the text, the text is divided into two pages, (at the end of page 56 and beginning of page 57). If you focus, you will notice that page 57 begins with a small letter (different not Different)That is, this is a continuation of the end of the previous page. The good man 232 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Why you have to add an unlikely scenario?, Contrary to this scenario, the study acknowledges that Christianity is growing in China due to religious switching and its potential impact on the global Christian population.

The sentence "Though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050" is referred to "if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity" scenario, not to "Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion". Eliko007 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, I told you to focus well. "Though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050" and "if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity" are the same scenario with "Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion", because all of these in the same paragraph, but "Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China..." did not have enough space so they wrote it on the page 57. Thus, the scenario becomes complete as follows: And if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050, China’s population would be 56.2% Christian (734 million Christians), raising the Christian share of the world’s population to 38.5% and lowering the unaffiliated share of the global population to 6.1%. Though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050. Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated. The good man 232 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No it's not, Sound to me like a lack of reading comprehension. Because the same idea is repeated on different pages, for example:

"In China, about 5% of the population is estimated to be Christian at present, and more than 50% is religiously unaffiliated. Because reliable figures on religious switching in China are not available, the projections do not contain any forecast for conversions in the world’s most populous country. But if Christianity expands rapidly in China in the decades to come – as some experts on China predict – then by 2050 the global number of Christians could be significantly higher than projected, and the decline in the percentage of the world’s population that is religiously unaffiliated could be even sharper."

Eliko007 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, You didn't explain why not. The good man 232 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I already explained why, it's an unlikely scenario, why we need to add, it may never happens.
If you having a series issue with that sentence, I could change to: the potentially expands rapid growth of Christianity in China, as some experts predict; "could significantly higher the global number of Christians than projected, and the decline in the percentage of the world’s population that is religiously unaffiliated could be even sharper" by 2050. Eliko007 (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you didn't understand me well, I mean that "Though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050" and "if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity" refers to "Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion", because it is in the same paragraph, so the same scenario. The good man 232 (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in going in Byzantine discussion, the study mention on different pages, that the potentially expands rapid growth of Christianity may increase the global number of Christians by 2050, I proposed changing the sentence to: the potentially expands rapid growth of Christianity in China, as some experts predict; "could significantly higher the global number of Christians than projected, and the decline in the percentage of the world’s population that is religiously unaffiliated could be even sharper" by 2050. Based on this page 187:

"In China, about 5% of the population is estimated to be Christian at present, and more than 50% is religiously unaffiliated. Because reliable figures on religious switching in China are not available, the projections do not contain any forecast for conversions in the world’s most populous country. But if Christianity expands rapidly in China in the decades to come – as some experts on China predict – then by 2050 the global number of Christians could be significantly higher than projected, and the decline in the percentage of the world’s population that is religiously unaffiliated could be even sharper."

Do you still having an issue with that sentence?. Eliko007 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm having a feeling that we are having here a series lack of reading comprehension, the unlikely scenario doesn't refer to the potentially expands rapid growth of Christianity in China nor the potentially increasing in Christian numbers, otherwise, the study will not adapt or mention that on different pages, So are we done with that point?. Eliko007 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, You don't explain why "Though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050" and "if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity" don't refers to "Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by The good man 232 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I explained that you just refusing to read my comments, the unlikely scenario doesn't refer to the potentially expands rapid growth of Christianity in China nor the potentially increasing in Christian numbers, otherwise, the study will not adapt or mention that on different pages for example on page 187. Eliko007 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It's very clear that an unlikely scenario is referring to the sentence "if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050", by referring to it as "that scenario":

And if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050, China’s population would be 56.2% Christian (734 million Christians), raising the Christian share of the world’s population to 38.5% and lowering the unaffiliated share of the global population to 6.1%. Though that scenario may be unlikely - Obviously, it refers to the previous sentence -, it offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050.

. Eliko007 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, I mentioned to you earlier why they put it on a different page, they put it on a different page because there wasn't enough space on page 56. Proof of this is that they began page 57 with a small latter. The good man 232 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No it's too much for me, I will ask help from another admin to explain to you, this a series of lack of reading comprehension.Eliko007 (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If the text like that, it will give different meaning?

And if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050, China’s population would be 56.2% Christian (734 million Christians), raising the Christian share of the world’s population to 38.5% and lowering the unaffiliated share of the global population to 6.1%. Though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much Difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050. Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated.

Eliko007 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007 give evidence that "Though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050" and "if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity" don't refers to "Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by The good man 232 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

OMG, if "Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion" is an unlikely scenario, then why on earth, the study keeps repeating that scenario on different pages such as page 187?. Also, it's very very clear that unlikely scenario is referring to the sentence "if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity" because it's impossible that every single unaffiliated Chinese will convert to Christianity, but on the other hand, the potentially rapid growth of Christianity in China, it may happen, the study cited in the previous paragraph that "some experts believe that China’s Christian population is growing, perhaps rapidly", now you see now the difference?. Eliko007 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, you said that "Though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much Difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050" refers to "And if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity", So how did you know the intended growth is here "Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion" is growth by conversion? The good man 232 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because it's under the title "The Potential Impact of Religious Switching in China", where the whole section discusses the potential impact of religious switching in China. If this potential Christian growth is not by conversion (for example young age or high fertility-rate), then why on earth they write this scenario under the title "The Potential Impact of Religious Switching in China", and if you bother yourself and read the study well, you will notice the scenario of the growing Christian population in China based on other factors – which does not include the religious switching –, based on that, China’s Christian population is expected to grow slightly by 2050, from 68 million to 71 million.

As of 2010, China had an estimated 68 million Christians and 701 million unaffiliated people. Due primarily to differences in the age and sex composition of these initial populations, in the main projection scenario – which does not attempt to model religious switching – China’s Christian population is expected to grow slightly by 2050, to 71 million, while the unaffiliated population is expected to decline to 663 million.

Eliko007 (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, Not necessarily that if the title contains a religious conversion, it is impossible to mention other factors, especially since it did not speak about China in detail before. If you read this section, you will find that he has used the word conversion, but it is unlike previous times he use the word growth this time. The good man 232 (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:I just don't like it?, the study clearly cited that according to the main projection scenario (for example young age or high fertility-rate, etc) -excludes religious switching- China’s Christian population is expected to grow slightly by 2050, from 68 million to 71 million. So explain to me now what are the factors for the potentially rapid growth of Christianity in China?.

As of 2010, China had an estimated 68 million Christians and 701 million unaffiliated people. Due primarily to differences in the age and sex composition of these initial populations, in the main projection scenario – which does not attempt to model religious switching – China’s Christian population is expected to grow slightly by 2050, to 71 million, while the unaffiliated population is expected to decline to 663 million.

Eliko007 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, Remember that data on religious groups in China are few or unreliable, so it is likely that more than one scenario. The good man 232 (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

While all religious groups in China could be experiencing significant change through switching, media reports and expert assessments generally suggest that the main effects are rising numbers of Christians and declining numbers of religiously unaffiliated people. The following sensitivity tests assume, for illustrative purposes, that switching is limited to this movement between the unaffiliated and Christians.

It's clear that the study suggests the potentially rapid growth of Christianity in China is may be due to religious conversion. Clearly, your arguments are based on Wikipedia:I just don't like it

Also you did not answer me, if the study clearly cited that according to the main projection scenario (for example young age, fertility-rate, migration) -excludes religious switching- China’s Christian population is expected to grow slightly by 2050, from 68 million to 71 million. So explain to me now what are the factors for the potentially rapid growth of Christianity in China?. Eliko007 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I answered you, I suggested keeping the China scenario in "Growth by conversion" and removing that content from the Christian section. I also suggested to change the text to: the potentially expands rapid growth of Christianity in China, as some experts predict; "could significantly higher the global number of Christians than projected, and the decline in the percentage of the world’s population that is religiously unaffiliated could be even sharper" by 2050. But you don't read, that reflect also why you misrepresenting the citation.Eliko007 (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you please read my previous comments, again I suggested keeping the China scenario in the "Growth by conversion" section and removing that content from the "Christianity" section, it's more appropriate. Are we done with that issue?. Eliko007 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Advice: I recommend you to read the citations and editor comments carefully, before jumping to false conclusions or repeating the same questions. Eliko007 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, ok, I agree to keep china scenario in growth of religion section in exchange for making these edits. Have we reached an agreement now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The good man 232 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't understand what you saying, what you mean by "exchange for making these edits". Eliko007 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, I mean the edits which you mentioned it:

keeping the China scenario in the "Growth by conversion" section and removing that content from the "Christianity" section.

change the text to: the potentially expands rapid growth of Christianity in China, as some experts predict; "could significantly higher the global number of Christians than projected, and the decline in the percentage of the world’s population that is religiously unaffiliated could be even sharper" by 2050. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The good man 232 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but before, we need to get a consensus, so be patient please, we will wait for another few days for the opinion of the other involved editors. Also, in case we get a consensus, I will be responsible for editing the previously proposed edits, no need for another Wikipedia:Edit warring.

Also next time, read carefully the citations, all your arguments show that you misrepresenting the citation. Eliko007 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, ok, but no need for another editor, we have reached an agreement, so let's go to the admin who protected the page and tell him that we reached an agreement, because he said that if an agreement is reached, I will remove the protection on the page. The good man 232 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No, we need to get a consensus, there been other involved editors, this not just disagreement between me and you. be patient please, wait for another few days for the opinion of the other involved editors. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. Eliko007 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Tomorrow I will rewriting the text, and I will propose it here, if we get a consensus, then we will ping the admin so he can unlock it. Also, do you promise to read carefully the citations instead of involving in edit warring?. Because all your previous arguments show that you misrepresenting the citation. Eliko007 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, ok 👍. The good man 232 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at the citation and when it refers to the "unlikely" scenario of all the unaffiliated in China converting to Christianity, it absolutely is not saying that Christianity is not rapidly growing there. There are plenty of citations discussing the explosion of Christianity in atheist China. desmay (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Protected again

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This time for longer, and I can escalate to indefinite protection if the disruption doesn't stop. A Wikipedia article should have some semblance of stability. This doesn't. No sooner did the prior protection lift than the article became unstable again.

Work out the text you can agree on, with citations, and propose it here. Ping me and I can add it to the protected article.

And comment on content, not contributors. Name-calling and personal attacks are unacceptable and will lead to accounts being blocked. I have removed the most recent engagement that had more to do with the editors than the content. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request - capital

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Growth of religion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The second occurrence of World Christian Encyclopedia has a lower case 'w', which should be capital. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Two clerical changes:

Fix the double definition error for the named reference "Europe: Integrating Islam", which is defined twice but separately.
Change the short description to "Development of various religions within society" (add an s after religion, remove the trailing period).

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 09:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Done the wub "?!" 14:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)