Talk:Christianity by country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Problems with table

I recommend that certain aspects of the table should be changed:

1. The first column of the table is "Region", but the table isn't organized by region nor do the links in that column go to articles about Christianity in those regions. I think the "Region" column could be dropped entirely.
2. The second column is titled "Country", but all the entries in that column begin "Christianity in ..." (Christianity in Afghanistan, Christianity in Albania, etc.). Here I think that the column entries should just be the country names, but with piped links to articles about Christianity in that country where those articles exist. For example, the second entry could be [[Christianity in Albania|Albania]] displayed as Albania.
3. Not only are the data in columns 3 to 5 unsourced, but some of them don't match up mathematically. For example, Algeria is shown with total population of 32,531,853, a Christian percentage of 0.4%, but only 13,012 Christians. 13,012 Christians in a population of 32,531,853 would be 0.04%, not 0.4%. Angola is said to have 9,456,395 Christians out of 11,190,786, which would be 84.5%, but the table says 90.5%. --Metropolitan90 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As time Allows I shall check the maths for accuracy :) Smeggypants 23:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with each of Metropolitan90's suggestions -- "as time allows." :-) Timotheos 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

France

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Religion Roman Catholic 83%-88%, Protestant 2%

But this Article says 66.2%.--195.3.113.39 10:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited it. --195.3.113.38 18:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

according to belief in god map, linked below it couldnt be higher than 40% --Aryah 13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweden

Is it correct to say that 92% of the Swedish population are Christians, when only 23% believe in a god?

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf

--The monkeyhate 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so 23% of the poplation believe in god, but that also includes muslims and jews. You cannot be called a christian if you don't believe in god. The number of jews is Swedem is very small, but the number of muslims is bigger. According to Islam in Sweden, 1.1 to 4% of the Swedish population are muslims, which means that the number of christians in Sweden is between 22.08% and 22.747%. I'm gonna put the number at 22.5%, which may not be exactly correct, but it's far closer to the actual number than the previous figure of 92%. --The monkeyhate 19:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted the Figure for Sweden and based it upon an approximation from the Eurobarometer 2005 ( see reference on page ). Smeggypants 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

According to the Eurobarometer 2005 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf - page 11 ONLY 38% of people believe in god, and this figure includes non christians. The figure of 71.6 of christians in the UK is highlty innacurate. As an inhabitant of the UK I can vouch for this by expeirence too. The figure for the UK needs to be more accurate. Smeggypants 15:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Only 38% of people in the UK believe in God and as it's impossible to be a Christian if you don't believe in God I have edited the figures for the UK. Taking into account other Religions I think a fair approximation is 35%. Although based upon experience there is a lot of people out their who belive in God but don't beling to ANY organised religion, even 35% is pushing it somewhat. Smeggypants 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How can an EU questionnaire be held as gospel truth, while the official UK census' is cast aside? (It suits the EU's means for people to be secular). This aside, I have viewed the source and have come to the conclusion that it cannot be taken as more accurate over the UK census. The UK census is carried out by persons within the UK. This questionnaire was put together by asking a few thousand people their beliefs: the UK census asks the beliefs of all 60 million UK citizens. Until you can further (and falsely) "justify" the usage of EU data over UK Government approved data, I am going to change the numbers back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.241.147.55 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I have put back the Eurobarometer Poll approximation, but left the UK census figures according to point 5 on the page which states ... 5] If there is any doubt as the figures, a range of figures may be listed, as long as there are sources for both figures. The reader can then be referenced to both figures and draw their own conclusions. Anyone acutally living the UK will know from experience that the population doesn't consist of 71.6% christians, and that the census was filled in for cultural or ancestoral reasons. I fixed your erorronous reference and fixed your typo of 76.1% as well. It is not for wikipedia to decide whether the EU wants the region to be secular btw Smeggypants 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for listing both and for correcting my typo. I know a lot of people simply list "Christianity" for cultural reasons, but of the religious in the UK, the vast majority are christian. As for the reference to EU secularism, I merely intended to point out that the EU survey (or "approximation") can distort facts to show false "favour" towards the EU. (As shown by the fact that no matter how many surveys are done, in euro-skeptical societies, the slight majority always seem to want more integration with the EU (hmmm...coincedence, I think not)). To clarify though, the EU point was not a personal attack on yourself (Smeggypants) or wikipedia in any way, shape or form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.128.55 (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

European numbers

What's the source of this data? I don't know about other continents and regions but especially in Western Europe these are blatantly wrong. E.g. Belgium is supposed to have over 80% Christians? Ignoring the simple fact that Belgium does NOT record data about your religious denomination, these figures are exagerated. Church attendancy is between 4 and 11%, and even if we add people that see themselves as "christians" but do not attend church, you can never reach 80%. And I suppose this is the same for all (Western) European countries. I suppose the data comes from survey's, polls, etc.... but these are often incorrect due to wrong methodology and in my opinion are not to be trusted. ps: I' ve been looking for better data, apparently in '01 a researchprogram conducted by several universities recorded 47% catholics in Belgium. I'm going to try an dfind the original research but since even the US uses these numbers and refers to this research, I think it's more accurate. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51543.htm Maraud 15:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - look for instance here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism and particularly at the 'belief in god' map - its clear that the number of christians in belgium for instance cannot be higher than 60% max. And for my country, Croatia, it says max 80%. And this is precisely in accord with publicly known data here - nobody ever claimed more than 80% christians in Croatia... I dont think so high numbers could be found even if every person ever baptised is considered a christian, whether he/she thinks of oneself as such or not.. And the numbers are suspiciously high quite frequently - ~99% percent figures are relatively common, and pretty suspicious... --Aryah 13:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

according to this [1], survey requested by the european comission, done in the early 2005, 52% of citizens of the 25 members of European Union said they believed there is a God, which is clearly a necessary (according to the Nicene Creed) , but not even suficcient condition for someone being considered christian - this should be diminished by the percent of for eg muslim population - islam by country states 3.13% muslims in central and western europe. So, less than 49% population of European Union could be christian. This means, taking the data of population of european union from the article about european union, that there are less than 224 milion christians in the EU25. If one adds the numbers given here, on the other hand, one gets: 373 779 964 - if I counted correctlz - an amazing discrepency really! Individually also, discrepencies are huge - for example, in this table, 87% of France is supposedly christian. On the report requested by the EC, there is certanly less than 34% christians in France. Belgium - this 89.3% ; the report - certanly less than 43%. United Kingdom - 71.6% here; <38% in the report. Denmark here 84.8% the report <31% . In fact, there is not a single european-related number thats quite higher than the ceiling number given in this report, and quite a few that are incredibly greater. In european union alone, there is at least 150 million christians (or 32.78% of the entire population of the union!!) too many counted here. And thats not even looking into those interesting 99% numbers given for some countries across the world. --Aryah 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The number for Denmark, 84.4%, is the number of members of Christian churches, in particular the state church whose members account for about 80% of the population. But of course it can be discussed how many of these members are really Christian. Many people are members due to family tradition etc. without considering themselves religous, but still they pay taxes to the church.--C960657 16:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Pat Robertson, here: [2] is taken as source??? Now way could this be used as a reliable or authoritative source: WP:RS --Aryah 20:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pat Robertson is a well known Christian Fundermantalist. The page specifically disallows propoganda figures. Smeggypants 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem, guys, is obviously how incluisve the definition of Christian is. If someone regularly attends church and believes, they obviously should be included. But what if they attend church only out of compunction, and really subscribe to another belief system? What if their ancestry is Christian, but they don't believe or attend church? (as is very common in parts of Europe). In the United States, an atheist from a Christian family is not considered Christian, but in the Middle East, the title remains because of ancestral differences with Muslims. I have done my own extensive research on the subject, and have discovered that different researchers use different standards. Even the figures on cia.gov rely on different sources, and are clearly not consistent. --Patstuart 20:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Source?

What is source of the information? It should be stated at the begining of the article, as in other articles dealing with "religion by country". User:abdullah_mk

(several trolling comments removed - please see WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith) Patstuart^talk|edits 01:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it uses a compendium of sources. If you see a figure that looks wrong, I suggest doing research on the major pages (e.g., https://cia.gov, http://adherents.com), and including the figure, along with the source. If you get a big range, do what I did with China, and show that range. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone clarify the figure of total Christians, Last time i checked Christianity were 1.9 billion around the world, and thats of 2001 cencus, how come its still is 1.9-2.0 billion, ??

Christian Propaganda

This entire article seems to be Christian propaganda. Surely, an article on the percentages of any religion worldwide is a useful thing, but all of the numbers seem inflated and biased. Especially that color coded chart by percent. Europe is highly secular with a lower percentage believing in God than it shows are Christian. It should be noted that there is such a thing as 'Cultural Christianity' where people say they are Catholic or whatever denomination because it's what their family is, but they really don't hold those beliefs or attend worship. By this article, one would think Christianity is far more dominant than it actually is.--Daniel 21:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

These figures sure are extremely innacurate. I've lived the UK all my life ( 46 years ) and it's absolute nonsense to suggest that over 70% of the population are Christian. These figures are down to traditional labelling and are at complet disparity with fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.195.246 (talk) 19:25, January 14, 2007

Please see the note at the top of the page. This has been discussed often: it depends on one's definition of Christian. If you mean born again, then no, it's not 70%. If you mean a cultural Christian (i.e., celebrates Christmas, gets wed in a church, etc.), then it's probably above 70%. My experience is that this is probably a self-identification on a survey: "what religion are you?" (people choose non-religious a fairly low percent of the time, like 15%). -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You cannot base being a Christian on what are now largely secular events such as Christmas and getting wed in a church, and it's nonsense to suggest that people who 'do' christmans or get wed in a church are automatically Cultural Christians. It's tue to say that people 'inherit' a religious label and its obvious that is what's led to the mideleading figures in the 2001 UK census. however the Eurobarometer survery indicates taht only 38% of people in the UK actually believe in God. And you cannot be a Christian and not believe in God. the figures for teh UK at least need changing to a more accurate estimate. Smeggypants 16:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the numbers are blatantly false. There are ways to inflate the numbers, but they have no place in this article and even if they were all applied it is just not possible to truthfully state that 90-100% of swedes are christian. Sweden is my home country, and the christians are maybe 5%? 10%? If you're really generous you might say around 20%, and that's pretty much counting anyone who ever said at all that they believed in gods. Even if you go out of your way to fake the numbers and use the official membership figures of the Church of Sweden, which are not related to actual religious affinity for historical reasons, you end up with 78% or so. Counting all who confess to any ambrahamic religion or are members of any abrahamic religious organisation you probably end up around 80%. You still have 10% to go. The 90% figure is false, and quite possibly propaganda. Even if you count what was mentioned elsewhere on this talk page as "cultural christians", you don't get much higher. Although perhaps 80% is a plausible figure for how many people celebrate christmas, in reality this is due to the word "Christmas" being used as a synonym of "Yule", which is what most swedes actually celebrate. The name of the article is 'Christianity by country', and the article should be about religion, not about fuzzy categorisation of cultures, unless it is made clear that it shows cultural influence, not religion, meaning that the same 80% of swedes who are culturally christian are also culturally norse, adhere to norse traditions as well as to christian, and in speech make perhaps as many cultural references to norse mythology as they do to christian mythology, even though most of them believe in neither mythology. I suggest we mark this article as disputed. Updatebjarni 02:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree that tyhe article be marked aws disupted. Smeggypants 16:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I wholly disagree with your disputed tag. These own countries report numbers in the higher range, and almost every survey done says that someone is Christian by their own designation. Inferring if someone is a Christian by some extrapolation of someone's definition of God in a Europe-wide survey is very original research like. The Evil Spartan 18:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

anti-Christian propaganda

Cmon!!! This article is anti-Christian propoganda!!! Delete it, or put the correct figures! The arguments drawn here can be used against all religions, who said that there 99% percent Muslims in Afganisatan? Only 5% pray every day!? The same situation is in Morroco for example, if you gonna use such arguemnts then let edit the "Muslim by country" artcile and say that there only 200.000 Muslims around the world, it will be fare. I have come from Muslim country (Uzbekistan), it says that there are almost 85% Muslims, but as what i see is about 5-10%, about 3.000.000 people. on other hand try to ask English man/woman who they identify themselves as... 90% will replay Christian.

CHANGE THE FIGURES!!!

There is no anti-Christian propoganda at all. On the contrary...This page has been improved considerably recently . You talk of 'correct figures'? Well there were a lot of unsourced figures on this page which have now been improved to show sources. The figures were inflated ( and unsourced ) to begin with. There are still a lot of unsourced figures, but at least the page now is a much more accurate representation of Christianity in the World. Can people please not change figures arbitarily and add ridiculous numbers to the totals. I've only just recently properly added up the columns. They were wrong for a long time.

btw - I recently updated the Region Section -- Christianity In Africa and the correct figures showed a marked increase in the number of christians in that Region that were disaplyed before. Thus making any accusations of propoganda nonsense. The idea is for the figures to be as accurate as possible, not inflated or deflated for political reasons. Smeggypants 23:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems clearly that the figures you are using are just part of anti-Christian propaganda

The opinion you have is unbelievably strange - people might not attend the service (not-practicing Christian) but that does not make them less of a Christian, they confirm that in hundreds of poles.

Now lets move on to sources, you starting to use EUROBAROMETER as a source (in WHICH I couldn't find any information you stated as a source) Moreover page 11 only give an answer on question "DO YOU BELIVE IN GOD", not are you Christian and furthermore the replays "I believe there is a God" and "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" if joined together will double all the percentag you have put for european countries. An exmaple is Sweden, you have stated that 18% percent are Christian (BASED ON WHAT?) but following your idea, more than 50% "believes there is some sort of spirit or life force" so they can be clasified as Christians as it is thier way of beleiving?! The same situation pretty much with all other countries.

So far your this article seems to be wrong, it is better for you to leave editing this article to those who has much more open-minded opinion and does not hate Christians for some reasons.

Hating Christians?? What are you talking about? This article is much more accurate now. Before I cleaned it up most of the figures had NO SOURCE and were highly inflated. Most of the figures didn't even add up properly. The whole article was a mess.

The Eurobaromter is the most upto date European source of Religious Beliefs. The figures they replaced had NO SOURCE. You cannot be Christian if you don't believe in god. Further you cannot classify someone as Christian simply because they believe in some spiritual life force. Europe is well known for it's secularity and the Eurobarometer figures are much more in line with reality. Previous figures showing that European Countries were over 90% Christian had no source and were completely unreal.

Is it not better to have an article that is accurate rather than showing inflated figures? Smeggypants 15:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok lets, make it clear, the only source you accept is Eurobaromter? Why not Britannica? Why not adherents.com? Why not other sources? Let's make two tables one with use of Eurobaromter (which is the only exist now) and another with other sources, then the article will be much more reliable and more accurate. My main argument is that Eurobaromter do not set the question "Are you Christian?", so it shouldn't be used as the only source, if it can be used at all in this article. So i propose to make two tables one with use of Eurobaromter and another with use of other sources, which would actually answer the question – “how many Christians”, not “how many believe in god”. Otherwise this article seems very ANTI-CHRISTIAN!

Once again you CANNOT be a Christian if you don't believe in God. Christianity is not the only religion which requires a belief in God. Therefore by sheer deductance the numbers of Christians is going to be LOWER than the figures for believing in God in the Eurobarometer. Once again these figures have replaced figures that had NO SOURCE. There are STILL figures in the table with NO SOURCE. Why aren't you complainign about those. The fact you keep screaming 'Anti-Christian' suggests your rhetoric is biased. You cannot quote figures from Aherants.com which have no proper source.

"Ok lets, make it clear, the only source you accept is Eurobaromter?" - That is not true. It is in absence of any other sourced figures. Stop screaming "Anti-Christian" and come up with proper sourced figures if you have any disputes. I will delete any figures that aren't properly sourced in accordence with the remit of the page. Smeggypants 19:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am repeating you THAT Eurobaromter did not ask people whether they are Christian or not, moreover as i said above, the results of the research has shown that majority of all Europeans answered that they "believe in god" or "some kind of spiritual force", both those answers might confirm their affiliation with Christianity and YOU CAN NOT ARGUE AGAINST IT! IF you want absolutely correct figures then use the source which would ask people the question "Are you Christian?", it is absolutely imposable to discuss this topic with you as your opinion not only one sided - Anti-Christian, but it also seems that you are not competent in this area.

"Once again you CANNOT be a Christian if you don't believe in God." - majority of the Europeans "believe in god" or "some kind of spiritual force" add it up and you will get approximate figure of Christians in the Europe.

The table which was in this article before are much more closer to the reality then the one created by you.

"5.If there is any doubt as the figures, a range of figures may be listed", as long as there are sources for both figures. Please do not remove the Eurobarometer figures. ADD your figures as requested by the page. It's ridiculous to say that someone who doesn't believe in god is a Christian. Oh and will you please sign your comments as requested by Wikipedia to respect he talkpage guidelines. Further... Stop screaming "Anti-Christian" Are you some kind of Pro-Christian propogandist? Smeggypants 21:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

CIA Factbook 1

Not all the figures in the CIA factbook are sourced. The US Administration is also heavily Christian biased. If the CIA factbook figures have a source such as a census then fine, but it's wrong to assume all figures in the factbook are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeggypants (talk • contribs) 18:46, June 4, 2007

In fact, Smeggy, the CIA factbook is considered probably the best in the world for this type of thing, easily on par with anything put together by something like the BBC. Seriously. Please don't remove the figures again. Iin any case, the CIA factbook has been run independently of anything done by the Bush administration, and its figures have remained steady since before November of 2000. In any case, do you really think the EU isn't anti-Christian biased? The Evil Spartan 17:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

EPP-ED is the largest party group in the EU parliament with 278 of 785 MEPs, or 35%. This is the conservative christian party group, and they would presumably be pro-christian as opposed to anti-christian. Regarding sourced figures, a piece of original research, such as a survey, has no sources to list. Its methods and collected data are what are subject to scrutiny. A further aggregation of such research, on the other hand, does have to list its sources. When it comes to the CIA factbook specifically, it may be that it is considered generally reliable. However, what that means is simply that it generally has reliable sources for its data. It is not infallible, however, as I can quickly verify - it claims a 100% religiousness (>87% christian) for Sweden, my own country. To claim that 100% of the Swedish population is religious is much like claiming that there are nineteen fingers on the human hand, if I may be so humorous. For whatever reason it was stated, it is just not true, and this is verifiable. It is a fact that christians are a subset of people who believe in god, so the number of christians is not larger than the number of people who believe in god. If you wish to include also those who believe in other spirits or life forces, then you may create an article along the lines of Religiousness by Country or similar. It is not possible to deduct that these people are christians. Now when it comes to propaganda and people's intentions in this article, can we try to be civil and keep our heads cool? Please assume, as I do myself, that the other authors of this article have the best intentions and are trying to produce correct numbers. Examine the numbers and correct them if they can fairly be shown to be unreliable or spurious. Identify your own opinions and do your best to prevent them from showing in your edits. Honesty goes a long way in making peace. Updatebjarni 02:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Considered by who? You? Look most of the figures in the Factbook have a SOURCE. For example a Census. The figures for Dennmark have no source. I am happy for CIA Factbook figures to be included if they have a source. Surely Figures should come from surveys which show peopel ahve been asked their beliefs. And I've no reason to believe the EU is Anti-Christian. Why should it be, Please provide evidence of this Smeggypants 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the EU is any more anti-Christian than the CIA pro-Christian. I admit as much. As for the factbook, you can read about it here: The World Factbook: it's a well known source, much like CNN, BBC, etc. But in any case, may I point out that your sources, from the "Eurobarometer on social values", have nothing in the way of asking people if they're Christians. It asks their view on God, and you intuit from their answers that "God may be a vague being", that they can't be Christian. Nonsense. In any case, I'm serious, ask about this at the village pump - the CIA factbook is considered quite reliable, as a source in itself. To claim a source doesn't have a source is nonsense, especially a high level source like this. Then we could claim that nothing is reliable, because the source of the source of the source doesn't have a source. The Evil Spartan 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not 'nonsense'. No one without some very obtuse agenda would seriously say a Christian would say they didn't believe in God. it's also not nonsense to cliam a source doesn't have a source. The CIA Factbook DOES list sources such as a Census for most of it's data. but for example Denamrk where has it got it's data from? It hasn't listed ANY method of retrieving that data. Smeggypants 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are missing my point. The CIA factbook, in and of itself, is a realible soure. Even if they don't list their source, it is guaranteed to be reliable. In fact, the very top of the article lists it as reliable, you will see. The Evil Spartan 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not missing your point. I'm disagreeing with your point. "Even if they don't list their source, it is guaranteed to be reliable" How? why can't they show a source for the information? After all sources are shown for some of the figures. There's no reason to suggest the figures from the CIA Factbook are no more reliable than figures from anywhere else unless there is a source listed. Sourced figures from the CIA factbook can be verified e.g. if the factbook shows a census or other survey as a source. Please show evidence that unsourced figures from the CIA factbook are gaurenteeed to be reliable? I won't hold my breath :) Smeggypants 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a seperate sub section explaining the figures published by the CIA factbook. This allows people to reference the percentage shown in the factbook and, fairly, explains that the figures are unsourced. At least this way the column sums are correct and the CIA get's it's spotSmeggypants 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

CIA Factbook 2

"fixing saudi arabia - it's irresponsible to put a figure at 0%, even if it's small, we should be including small communities (e.g., .05% in North Korea)) "

Well you did insist the CIA factbook was a reputable source! Now you're admitting the CIA factbook irresponsible is in places. Do we also claim the 100% figure for the Vatican ireresponsible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeggypants (talk • contribs)

Bad example. There aren't any non-Christians living in the Vatican and you know it. If we were talking about the Muslim seat of governance, I would understand. However, even Saudi Arabia specifically admits on their own webpages that there are small Christian communities there - the 100% refers to native born, and it's being rounded. Look, I've had friends from Saudi Arabia, and even they say there's more than 0 Christians there. I also noticed that you neatly refused to use the same standards for Panama (100%) as you did for Saudi Arabia - a small oversight, I'm sure. The Evil Spartan 00:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, of course I know that at least some Christians are resident in Saudi. I've worked in the middle east ( UAE )and even been to Saudi so I know the area reaqsonably well. I am not going to revert back to the zero figure for Saudi. I am happy at the crrent figure, failing any better sources. But perhaps it does make the point to you that the CIA Factbook isn't as reliable as you have previously been proclaiming. I am actually pleased that most of the figures are sourced from the factbook now, as it shows just how innaccurate the world total figure of 2.1 billion estimated by the Factbook really is. And why it's not appropriate to cite it as the main source of the world total. I ma happy for it to be put n the page under the 'other estimates' section though. It's important to let readers know that commonly known figures aren't necessarily correct when some research is actually done. At laest out fighting as achieved something positive. A more accurate figure for the total number of Christians in the world. Maybe we should both fight over the Islam by country Page when we've finished with this one. Do you have the same passion for that page? ;) 90.242.39.46 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Have these surveys been done in every single country in Europe? or just Roman Catholic; Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc?

I could walk up this street of around 60 houses and find maybe 2 peeps that go to church. Three if you count the vicar That's nowhere near 90% is it? 3 out of approx 240 people, that's around 1% I'd wager most of the streets round here (probably your way too) are exactly the same. It's a blend of council and private houses too so we're not as if we are in purgatory or anything. A full house at our local chuch hasn't happened ever and we've been here since 1970 Now is that a fair representation of the streets of Manchester? My girlfriend is Roman Catholic. She never goes to church, neither does her family. They don't pray, they don't do any religious twaddle at all. So what is a Christian anyway? You have the label "Christian" and little else. It's a "what the hell shall we call these people" label. It's just that, a label. Infidels would be just as valid I guess And who on earth believes what the CIA say anyway? How dare they use a title like Factbook. Spourious sources produce spurious documents. I would take their "facts" with a pinch of salt.

Religious Sites

Religious sites are NOT considered reliable sources of infomation for obvious reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeggypants (talk • contribs) 18:46, June 4, 2007

They may or may not be. Sometimes individual governments will play down figures in their own country (e.g., the figures from the Chinese government would be too low, as they're well known to try to play down the size of religion in the country; the same is similar with Afghanistan), and would be just as bad as any religious website. Non-religious sources are preferred, but where there is a question of variation, both could be listed. Also, certain private sites may be better than others. The Evil Spartan 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments above are allowing people to include biased figures. You are saying that if someone questions a figure becuase it doesn't fall in line with their agenda they may publish a figure that is in line with their agenda and source it to some Christian or other private site. This is the exact problem which happened with the Russian entry. Someone with a Pro-Christian agenda published figures from a Catholiuc Website because the figures exaggerated the Christian population of Russia. And this is exactly why I deleted the entry. Even you agreed the entry should be removed in the end.

We cannot allow sources from private or Religious Websites under any circumstances. Any proper data will also be available from official sources anyway and that's where it should be sourced from. Even Adherents.com isn't a reliable source. There is much data on there which isn't verifiable.Smeggypants 22:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I simply disagree. To make a cut and dry statement that no religiously affiliated figures are allowable is to paint it in too wide a brushstroke. Many of these sites aren't quite so bad - the Catholic Encyclopedia is in fact usually fairly accurate. Rather, we must sort them out on a case by case basis - to use good reasoning. The Evil Spartan 23:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said any proper unbiased surveys will have data available from non religious sources anyway. While some religious sources may indeed have accurate figures there is a simply a conflict of interest that devalues the wiki page. Even if, for example, a fundamentalist like Pat Robertson or John Hagee did a massive survey that was accurate it simply couldn't be allowed because no one would take it seriously. The catholic religion is not without reputation either. They have a very bad relutation in the UK.

And where is your qulaification to make statements like 'the Catholic Encyclopedia is in fact usually fairly accurate' ?? How do you know this? Smeggypants 00:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot give you a source for this; it is only my own personal knowledge, though it's currently a moot point as it's no longer in the article. However, this statment you just made is very concerning to me: The catholic religion is not without reputation either. They have a very bad relutation in the UK. You should be careful - this kind of statement could easily be what gets other people to think you have an anti-religious bias. (I'm not Catholic BTW, though my father and his family are). The Evil Spartan 00:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic church has a bad reputation with both religious and non religious people in the UK. Even some catholics themselves don't like how their church is run.It's nothing to do with my views. My views have no bias against or for any belief system. I'm just telling you how that Church is percievd by some in the UK. No doubt some people will 'shoot the messenger' and accuse me og being anti-christian. Like the previous user that is their problem. You seem like a fair and intellegent chap so please don't fall into that simple mindset trap of judging me because I openly talk about issues. And don't forget that the userboxes on your userpage show some religo-political leanings which most people over here in Europe would consider to be very fundamentalist. When I came across this page I could se that it was in need of a big clean up and further sourcing of figures and that is why I am here. However it is becoming increasingly clear that religious passions are trying to bias this page. Only the other day I had to revert the totals becuase someone had decided to add another 500,000,000 to the total. I belive it is good that someone like me is willing to regularly watch over this page. Left unchecked it is clear it will go astray again.Smeggypants 01:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

that's good, please do. I've watched over it for a while, and seen tons of edits that shouldn't be there (e.g., one Middle Eastern IP lowering figures here, while increasing Muslim figures in countries like Bolivia which have probably less than a thousand Muslims). I've also seen it go the other way around. But I suggest you try to assume good faith more often: for example, calling a small figure change unsourced and incompetant is quite unnecessarily WP:BITEy to an IP. In fact, there's probably a source saying that somewhere, and the IP was just too inexperienced to include it (it happens all the time). The Evil Spartan 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

Evil Spartan... I am simply trying to clean up this page to be accurate and fair, using the best data available. Before I made some efforts to clean this page up it was qutie clearly weighed in favour of a Christian Bias. Most European countires simply do not have a Christian populous of > 90% or even >80% . Sure the Eurobarometer may be an approximation ( and I have indicated it as such ) but it's a lot more accurate than some of the unsourced figures it has replaced.

Despite ridiculous accusations being a Christian hater by another non registered user ( who neither signs his talks or specifies his edits ) I have no bias towards ro against any religion. For example I cleaned up the Christianity in Africa table in the region section and it turned out to show a lot more Christians that it originally did.

There does seem to an agenda from some editors to inflate the figures whereever they can. I am just keeping an eye on this to keep teh page as accurate as possible Smeggypants 18:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you are a Christian-hater. That user is incorrect. That makes this quite frustrating, as you are clearly editing out of good faith (something I can't say for many other people who edit articles). However, I strongly disagree with you, not because I have an agenda to push, but because nearly every major source on such issues does figures differently than you are interpreting here. They go by survey result: do you call yourself a christian?, and often get figures in the upper 60's to low 90's for European countries; your figures, however, are listing Sweden at 24%, UK at 35%, etc. and at that by your definition of Christian, not theirs. And, in any case, I would ask you to assume good faith when it comes to there being an agenda; please don't assume anyone else has an agenda any more than you do (this seems to be a problem: people often assume each other have agendas).

As for the Africa thing: you can go back months, and you will see IPs frequent this page and change figures (indeed in an agenda way), sometimes out of vandalism, sometimes out of an agenda. However, when individual figures are updated, sometimes the overall figures are missed: this is probably just an oversight.

As for replacing unsourced figures, I don't have a problem with that. However, removing sourced figures presents a problem with me. The Evil Spartan 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the European Union Survey.... Evil Spartan, from you user page ( Pro Bush, Republican, pro Life, etc ) I can see you are most likely a Christian American. Nothing wrong with that of course. However please understand that Europe is not like America. It is a very secular region. Religion plays much less of a part of life than it does in the USA. The Eurobarometer figures make perfect sense as good approximations for any european without a pro christian agenda. Note: It is NOT my definition of a Christian. I ask you this... Can a someone be a Christian and not believe in God? Even the Tearfund Survey, which IS pro Christian found that around 60% of British people had nothing to do with the church. If you were European youd appreciate the validity of the figures

I assume good faith where I see good faith. The user in question was screaming and shouting. That is not good faith.

The african thing.. Yes I understand what you are saying. Incidentally also I took the trouble to total the figures for both population and number of Christians in the main table recently. It's astounding that people jump in and edit the table incompetantly. the entire page was in need of an overhaul. I believe ( odd disputes aside ) that the page is much more accurate since I have taken time out to attend to it.

There are still a lot of unsourced figures in the page. I have spent a lot of time changing them for sourced figures. A little number beside the figure linking to a website does not mean the figures are properly sourcved however. Smeggypants 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my study (and I have studied a lot), people use the word Christian very differently per nation. In some nations, such as Spain, quite nearly everyone self-identifies as a Catholic, yet, paradoxically, many of them are Atheists (it is a thing of cultural pride). Of course, this is ridiculous, yet their self-identification is what is important. Other people, such as many Africans or Japanese, will call themselves Christian, yet retain their ancestral beliefs in a form of syncretism which seems to belie most Christianity. In the United States, where I live, the word Christian itself (not surprisingly) has two meanings: 1) cultural Christians, who occasionally attend church, but whose belief can often be weak or nonexistant, or 2) believing Christians - people who actually believe in its doctrine. For example, my own father is a perfect example of the first - he was born and raised Catholic, but he doesn't much believe it. Yet he still identifies as Christian - and, because that's how most surveys do identity, that's what should matter.

In any case, Western Europe and the former USSR are both obviously quite secular, moreso than anywhere in the Americas (Latin America included). Most of modern Western Europe still identifies as Christian whereas it's mostly cultural (at best), while most in the former USSR have given up on any sort of Christian identity whatsoever. The Polish (who hated the Communists) seem to be an exception.

Finally, the African thing... sometimes these figures are actually based on totals given on the cia website, so they don't necessarily fit up with ours. The Evil Spartan 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I well aware of the Cultural-Religious thing. This isn't limited to Christianity. Many people will tick muslim on the census form, yet they won't believe in Allah and will drink alcohol. In the UK 2001 census 71% of people ticked Christian on the form, yet hardly anyone is a practising Christian. around 66% of people aren't bothered about the church in the slightest. And most people don't believe in god.

Where I disagree with you is including people who identify with a certain religion becuase of traditional or cultural reasons.

It doesn't give a proper picture of the demographics of REAL christians. i.e those who do believe in god and who do practice the faith. Take Denmark for example. In the real world it's absolute nonsense that 97% of the population are Christian. Those kind of figures just don't happen in democratic countries. Yet we have to publish some unsourced figures that says 97% of the population are Christian becuase someone in a CIA office found these figures from 'somewhere', yet couldn't list a source for them. Those are the sort of figures you will find in dictatorial theocracies like Iran. At least let's show some common sense here. ANd isn't it an insult to real christians to include someone who doesn't believe in god as a christian simply becuase their grandfather was a Christian.

This page is never going to have any real value as long as people are counted as Christian for the wrong reason. Maybe the table should be expanded to have more columns. So that the number of cultural Christians can be listed and the number of real Christians can be listed? Smeggypants 01:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a very limited amount of studies doing such research, only in a few countries (I seriously doubt you'll find that kind of study for Denmark, let alone countries like Zambia). It seems to be fine just the way it is. The Evil Spartan 23:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources From Religious Websites

The page clearly states

3. Links to websites clearly promoting a specific religion are not reliable sources

I think it is very fair to disallow source that come from Religious Websites. There is obviously a high chance of Bias.

Today I have attempted to revert a source for Russia linking to a Catholic Website entered by a user with a clear pro Christian bias. I have not reverted at this time to allow th point to be discussed here. I will eventualyl remove this source as it contravenes the sensible guidelines for unbiased wiki pages.

The problem here is that Catholic encyclopedia is not necessarily out to inflate statitistics- in fact, I may point out that Russia is largely Orthodox, not Roman Catholic anyway. I believe this refers to more of something like "Jerry Fallwell said..." or "Sheikh so-and-so said...". In any case, upon further review, this figure may be a bit high for Russia - I'll go ahead and remove it. However, I'm not sure we necessarily wish to remove all religious websites out of hand: it's just that they're less preferrable. The Evil Spartan 20:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Column Totals

Evil Spartan. The totals should equal the sum of the columns. I have now corrected this. Please don't start an edit war by reverting. Thankyou. Smeggypants 18:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any problem with the totals being the accurate totals listed at the cia.gov website? Look, I kept your lower percentage total in there; if you wish to include both, do so, but please don't delete the updates. The Evil Spartan 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no valid source for the upper total. Please don't cite the CIA Factbook, just becuase it shwos a number doesn't mean that is properly sourced. In fact is seems the fact book contradicts itself.

If you want to update the planet's population by eacgh coutnry then do so, but chagne the individual countries. You are now editing incompetently. The world population shows at 2005. and the totals should show the SUM of the columns. if you insist on showing a figure of 2.1 billion then show soruced figures for each country. I have every right to correct the totals to add up correctly. I shall now correct them agiain. If you continue to revert them I shall report you Smeggypants 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

For the 800th time, cia.gov is the best site out there for such things. The Evil Spartan 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The columns should add up. Smeggypants 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, man, I've been meeting you half way on just about every issue so far, and you have yet to budge an inch on anything I do. I try to round off figures (because, frankly, calculating country population to the nearest man is nonsense), and you revert me. I try to update the world population, and you revert me. You try to claim that the CIA isn't a reliable website (and if the New York Times or CNN or BBC cited a figure of 80 million, would you think that reliable?). And yet I have removed the extra Russian figure at your request, and I've even allowed your completely original research extra link (mind you, a link which doesn't even use the word Christianity) - which I probably never should have allowed in the first place. Are you going to meet me half way, or are you going to just revert every time I try to do something? I really do apologize if my tone is bad, but I'm becoming more than a bit frustrated here. The Evil Spartan 23:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also becoming frustrated. You must realise, with all respect, that Wikipedia is a worldwide Encylopedia and the CIA has no particular reputable authority just for being the CIA. The CIA is the American Central Intelligence Agency. It has by default politcal bias. However... If the CIA publish a figure which is SOURCED, I have no problem with it being listed as a source here. However some of the figures in the CIA book are NOT sourced and therefore cannot be reputably reliable.

Further.... The Totals are a SUM of the Columns. If you want to see 2.1 billion as the upper figure then that must be the sum of the figures ( Using the upper variation ) in the column. As of writing the population column is listed as being 2005 and the total is 6,315,111,914 NOT 6,600,000,000 - If you want to update ALL the population figures to 2007 then do it, but please make sure the total equals the sum of the column. The same goes for the number of Christians. The columns add up to 1,710,683,794 - 1,834,746,326 NOT 1,800,000,000 - 2,180,000,000. Why do you insist on entering totals which are WRONG?? Smeggypants 01:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable sources

I propose that any sources should point to a proper survey or census or poll. In particular there has been some contention over the validity of the CIA Factbook. There is no reason why a figure should be considered reputable siunmply becuase it is in the CIA Factbook. The CIA Factbook continues many figures that are unsourced. Further the CIA is a politically biased organisation and as such cannot be trusted unless it can provide valid sources for it's data. The same goes for the BBC website. Just because a figure is on the BBC website it doesn't mean the data ca be trusted. Figures should have sources.

Therefore I propose quite fairly that the following line on the page .....

4. Many official sources are considered more reputable than others (e.g., http://bbc.co.uk or https://cia.gov are considered reputable, while a personal webpage is not).

be changed to ......

4. Sources should link to actual polls, surveys or censusus.

Wikipedia is supposed to be politically unbiased. We cannot allow politically biased websites to be reputable per se. At this time I shall leave the original line as is and allow reasonable time for discussion. Smeggypants 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. We're not going to throw out our most reliable sources. How in the world are you going to claim that BBC and CIA, which are considered the best sources for survey information in the world, are biased? The Evil Spartan 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the issue. I'm not saying ban the use of the BBC or CIA Factbook. I am saying that the figures from these sites are ONLY reliable if they have a source. You have once again made the column totals incorrect due to unsourced figures. The 3RR rule doesn't apply in this case as this could be considered vandalism. The columns must add up. Smeggypants 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

JRWalko just added a reference to a Religious Freedom Report from the USA Department of State as a source of information regarding figures for Poland. However, the report in question appears to be merely a presentation of data from a 2005 Annual Statistical Yearbook of Poland, and no information is presented to help one find this statistical yearbook. I looked for it on the same website, and the only mention of it seems to be that same Religious Freedom Report for Poland. A brief Google also yielded nothing, presumably because I need to be searching for the Polish name of the Yearbook. Since that Yearbook is the source of the new figure entered, that figure can be considered unsourced until the Statistical Yearbook can be located. JRWalko, you appear to be Polish, perhaps you could help us search the Polish government webpages? Updatebjarni 23:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have copied the reference from another article because the report was based on the Polish census which I've seen. The link to the report seems to be dead at the moment [3]and I don't see a new one on the Central Statistics Office of Poland which is in English so feel free to give it a try if you want[4]. I have Poland's main site citing 95% [5] but again it's not the official report I had in mind. I'll try to find out where the report is from WikiProject Poland.

This page has a link to a document entitled Concise Statistical Yearbook of Poland, 2006, on pages 248-249 of which is some information about reiligious denominations. However, it is noted in the document that the data is based on the number of baptisms only. It looks like there could be some census data here, but I'm afraid it looks pretty Polish. Updatebjarni 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Until then I think the CIA Factbook will do, it currently says 89.8%. I think recording numbers of people practicing is statistically absurd seeing as that kind of information is difficult to asses and I very much doubt you would find any government report from Poland showing less than 96%. As far as sources go I see no reason the CIA can't be a reliable source. It's probably more reliable than others out there, certainly more than the UN stats divisions. JRWalko 02:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The CIA might well be reliable in many cases, but it does sometimes choose not to reveal its sources, in which case it is not to be considered reliable. Updatebjarni 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

About the problem with religious christians vs cultural christians, this is my view: I'm baptised, purely by tradition. I'm not christian, not even culturally. This is the case with many swedes, even those bearing the very common first name "Christian". Yet baptism is the source for the figure on cultrual christians in Poland. The interesting information, the information that a person looking up this article is likely to be looking for, is the distribution of the christian religion across the world. The number of people who hold the christian faith, shown by country. There is, I suppose, such a notion as culturally christian, but it is very inclusive and varies much between countries. What might be considered culturally christian in one country might not in another, because of different cultures and traditions. My point here is that it can not be considered informative to have numbers showing the percentage of cultural christians in different countries when that number is not comparable between the countries or determined consistently. The figures become not a representation of the distribution of christianity throughout the world, but each a small portion of a description of the culture of its country. The description of the cultures of the world's countries is better handled by the respective articles than by a list of figures for "christianity" in a table. Even if this number were meaningful, it would still not be a useful description of the culture of the country on its own. That renders the article rather lame. Updatebjarni 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that many Poles are closet Protestants but certainly Christians. I don't know how many people in recent years have become agnostic or atheist but it certainly wouldn't be 25% of the population. I disagree with you on the issue of cultural Christians. I'm American and though my own beliefs are not ones I share with the Catholic Church I would certainly say I follow its teachings with regards to non-religious matters. This is just my opinion but I think Christianity is very much a mindset and not just a set of beliefs. In surveys I would select Christian as my religion because something like Atheist isn't a better representation of what I believe. Perhaps if one was asked to rate their belief on a scale we'd have more accurate results but it's not practical to deduce how many people believe how much. Poland for one is an extremely homogeneous country and you'd find that every home has a cross in it and every person belongs to a parish. Whether they pray or not I don't know but they still remain part of that Christian culture. JRWalko 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the most Christian missionaries

The line ....

"The United States currently has the most Christian missionaries around the world, followed by South Korea."

... is not relevent to the article. I propose it be removed.Smeggypants 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

While not directly addressing the figures, I can't understand why it's a problem. It seems fairly relevant to me. The Evil Spartan 23:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well why not put Country X has the most bishops, or Country Y has the most Christenings. This page is a list of Christians per couuntry. how can you claim a statment that the USA has the most Missionaries relevent? Smeggypants 00:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Because missionaries are indicative of the amount of zeal in a population (i.e., not just cultural Christians). Missionaries are, whether for bad or good, often considerd to be the cream of the crop, and they are also vital in creating other Christians, which makes them influential. The Evil Spartan 23:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This page isn't about how zealous the religious population of America is, it's a list of the number of Christians by country. I shall in due course remove this line. It has no place in this page, but out of curtesy I shall levae the discussion to run for a while longer 90.242.39.46 00:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rounding Figures

I agree that as everything as an estimate a number like 425,433,677 is meaningless. But then so a figure like 425,000,000 is just as meaningless. So.... Evil Spartan if you MUST enter rounded off figures in the table can I ask you do so in the totals only. The reason for this is that rounding off individual figures and also the totals will make for double error. Thanks :) Vexorg 16:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. It will also make it easier when updating figures: a change of 5000 people here or there won't require doing a ton of math all over again. The Evil Spartan 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

The number of Christians should not be counted on the basis "you believe in god or not" , this article shows the number of those who are Christians, and it is not correct to use EUROBAROMETOR as it answers rather different question. There is a special terminology for it, practiced Christians and not practiced, both of them Baptized and thus are Christians, even if they do not go to Church. This way is commonly used by professionals, as well as in other articles here, for example Islam by Country - count their numbers on basis that if you born in Muslim country - you are Muslim.

I should say we should not use Eurobarometr here, we it is wrong to use it in this article. I will be complaining about this to further levels, until this missuse of source will be stopped.

I also suggest until this unsolved we have to state at the front page that EUROBAROMETR answers different question not "are you christian or not, we should explain this to visitors.

Furthermore, for the last month this article become poorer, as it not only contradict with respected encyclopedias such ads Britannica and Encarta but also use improper sources for the article.

Actually over the last month or so this article has become much improved. many uncoured figures have been repalced by sourced figures. The figures have also been totalled up probably. Many people come aqnd change figures for coutnies without bothering to change the totals or region tables. The Eurobarometer Poll has hgihly increased the accuracy of figures for European countries. Some of the figures previously quoted in the high 90s were quite fictional. Vexorg 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, in what way it was improved? The main source Eurobarometer does not answer the questions set by the article, this is not only mislead the users but bring down the reputation of the Wikipedia. Andrey109

You call CIA figures – uncoured figures?

I have added on front page that, this article uses Eurobarometer as a source, please do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.170.76 (talk)

I've been trying to say this for a long time. I personally believe this constitutes original research - I've opened an RFC as a result of this conversation. The Evil Spartan 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I'm formally opening up an RFC on this page. I wish to get greater community consensus on the listing of figures. Problems that have been brought up (all of which can be found further up the talk page) - though there are others:

1. Should this source be used: [6] (see page 11). The source explicitly states nothing about Christianity, and the figures are derived from the assumption that I believe in a God constitutes a Christian, whereas I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force or anything else does not. Several editors have argued this constitutes original research.
2. Should the World Factbook be considered a reliable source in and of itself, or does this source need to quote other sources, and is it inherently unreliable because it's a US agency?
3. To what extent should figures from possibly biased sources be included? Is the Catholic Encyclopedia's inclusion of Russian Orthodox figures unreliable? If there are official governmental sources, but there is reason to believe the government may have an agenda (e.g., it is a communist nation), should these sources be considered reliable? The Evil Spartan 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As a continuation of the above discussion I think that a national census is the only reliable source of religious data. We are not a department of theology and as such it is not our job to determine who is a Christian. I am not aware of any Christian Club membership cards or any kind of criteria that would tell people whether they are Christian or not. Since there is no original research it is only appropriate to include data from national statistics (which we can only hope to be true).

The article is correct in noting the numbers are only approximations as should remain as such. I think the "International Religious Freedom Report" is a good source because it is authored by a secular government agency and based on national censuses. As such the CIA Factbook is also a good source but I think it should be used in the absence of other data or as part of a range. Perhaps another column should be added to include notes on each country. JRWalko 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to RfC from Christianity and Religion WikiProjects:

1. I would not use the EU source, as it does not specifically indicate that the listed "believer" is necessarily a Christian.John Carter 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The EU Barometer is about as accurate as you can get. Any unbiased European will tell you that the figures derived from the Eurobaromter are much more alogn the liens of reality than some of the ridiculously higher figures published before in this article. Arguing that someone can be a Christian when they don't believe in god is quite frankly stretching credibility too far. The Eurobarometer figures should be left in. Alongside other sourced figures id necessary, as is already with some countries Vexorg 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

2. I would not question the reliability of the World Factbook on the basis of its being a governmental agency. The members of the US government it is prepared primarily for need accurate, not partisan, information. Having said that, I wouldn't object to other, additional, sources for such information. John Carter 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not questioning a source simply becuase it is a government agency is folly. Governments from all countries aren't known for their unbiasedness. The CIA world factbok can easily be questioned on it's accuracy. Firstly it is compiled by a politically and undoubtably religiously biased organisation, the CIA. Secondly, a great deal of the figures in the CIA factbook are unsourced. Some of the figures in the CIA factbook are sourced, e.g point to a census or other survey, and in which case I have no problem with them being included Vexorg 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

3. I am a Roman Catholic, stated for purposes of full disclosure. Regarding the larger question of reliability of Catholic and governmental sources, I tend to think that the Catholic Encyclopedia can be used as a source here, as it is generally counted as being a reliable source. Of course, if other, more clearly independent and disinterested, sources produce different numbers, I would very likely opt to use those sources as well. Sources from governments whose statements can be reasonably seen as perhaps misrepresenting information on their own internal populations would I think count as sources which could be included, although I would also like to see information from other, more independent and possibly disinterested, sources included as well if such are available. John Carter 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia is regarded as a reliable source by who? Roman Catholics? It's not instilling trust in the reader if sources are published from clearly biased sources.Vexorg 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

( in answer to The Evil Spartan who has since removed his comments ) Please don't start questioning good faith. I can just as easily do the same based upon your Userboxes. Your allegiances are hardly those of someone who would fairly question the CIA factbook. The US Establishment has Christian bias. That is well known throughout the world. However it is correct to assert that no sources are wholly reliable. Even censuses don't really tell the full story. Even non religious people will state a particular religion in a census based upon ancestory. We have to work with what we have got amd the Eurobarometer is no more inaccurate than teh CIA factbook is. The page is NEVER goign to be properly accurate, but at least as it is now it is showing a fair and reasonable representation of the distribution of Christians throughout the world Vexorg 22:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

( in answer to The Evil Spartan who has since removed his comments )I'm not sure you're cut out for this. You question my good faith above, and becuase I fairly respond you start losing it!! Don't hide behind Assume the assumption of good faith when bad faith is explicit. Please act civily in this talk page. I am here to discuss the issues not defend myself against your tantrums Vexorg 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

( in answer to The Evil Spartan who has since removed his comments ) Please do not remove my comments. Thankyou Vexorg 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

An Answer to Vexorg

Secondly answers to some double-standard opinions of yours:

1-Eurobarometer shouldn't be left in, as majority of Europeans, call themselves Christian, probably only because of their historical roots. What you are trying to do is answer whether this Christian practiced his faith or not. It obvious that this is what you are trying to answer, but it is not right article to answer your question, create other article for it, something like "Number of Christians who go to Church" of something. AndreyX109

It is not about whether someone practices his faith or not, it's about whether someone is a Christian. Where you practise your faith or not, you cannot be a Christian if you don't believe in god. This table is about the number of Christians in the world. NOT the number OF people with Christian AncestorsVexorg 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

2-If to follow your idea, half of all articles should be deleted, because majority of them use government agency sources, which are usually unsourced, mainly because they are actually those who carried out the research, and it is pointless to have a source in their articles. AndreyX109

No we shouldn't delete everything that is unsourced, becuase then there wouldnt' eb ANY reference at all. Please note that teh CIA Factbook DOES sourve some of it's figures, and that is fine. I am happy to leave unsourced figures from the CIA Factbook in the table, where there is no alternative. but the reader should be made aware that the figures are not sourced.Vexorg 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

3-Can you anyhow proof that Catholic Encyclopedia biased source? Support your words with arguments, otherwise your words look like "old ladies gossips about their sons wife’s". AndreyX109

Circular argument. Please prove that the Catholic Encyclopedia is unbiased? The page says "Links to websites clearly promoting a specific religion are not reliable sources " for a reason.Vexorg 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Eurobarometer - inappropriate source?

It shouldn’t be used in this article, for those who wish to answer the question, “how many Europeans believe in god” another article should be create and they can freely use Eurobarometer as their main source.

For this article, only source which answer the question “how many Christians” should be used. If this advise is not followed, we would need to take further action to stop inequality caused by the lack of understanding of the topic by some authors. AndreyX109

I agree, the entire note about sources section is POV. It should be noted that the issue is controversial but an evaluation of sources is not needed. The CIA factbook is an unreliable source? Give me a break. If we can't believe an agency whose goal is accurate information for policy purposes then I suppose no source is admissible. If you believe the CIA is out to conduct information warfare to somehow overstate Christian numbers then an encyclopedia isn't a good place for you.

The Eurobarometer doesn't even address the issue of Christianity, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE. As I've stated somewhere in this whole mess it is not our job to assess how much of a Christian someone is. If they check off the "Christian" box on their national census then it's more than enough proof for this article. The US state department clearly stated that their information is based on a national census. Case closed.JRWalko 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually no it's NOT case closed. Many censuses don't ask about religious affiliations. A lot of the figures in the CIA factbook are NOT sourced adn certainyl not from censuses. If you actually LOOK in the CIA Fsctbook where the figures are sourced from a census it is CLEARLY stated. Many figures in the CIA Factbook have no source whatsoever. You have to respect those people in the world that don't blindly follow the CIA. People caliming that someone can be a Christian without believing in God are not putting forwards a decent argument. The EuroBarometer figures are more accurate than unsourced figures from the CIA Factbook. People who actually live in Europe and have real experience of thes countries acn vouch for that anyway. Vexorg 04:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be an argument there unless you want to go asking local florists just how many people bought palms for Palm Sunday.

We should just use a comprehensive source on the issue and not one page from one report. JRWalko 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For a lot of countries there isn't a proper suorce anyway. Compiling an accurate set of figures is always going to be difficult, but at lat let's have figures that a] actually refelct reality and b] have a source.Vexorg 04:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I support JRWalko's argument, that we should use comprehensive source and not one page from one report, which even do not answer the question set in the article, moreover am not sure that Eurobarometer even have a word Christian in it. So we should not have any arguemnts on.

CONCLUDED Eurobarometer is inappropriate source! Andreyx109

It is NOT CONCLUDED the Eurobarometer is an innappropraite source. The Eurobaromter asks about belief in God. One cannot be a Christian if one doesn't believe in God. Do you want a table that is innacaurate sand includes people who do not beleive in God? I'm sure you don't. IN fact it is n doubt disrespcetful to Christians to include people who dont' believe in God in the table. Wha you seem to be failing to see is that for many countries there isn't a proper census report or survey.Vexorg 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe in god in normal terms, but hell, if you do not think that I am Christian! I do not know who is then and try to proof me otherwise! I am and everyone have its own way of believing, and you can not decrease the number of Christians only because they have their own way of believing. This dialogue must be stopped, you do not understand the basic points, and trying to argue using your own assumption and report which did not set the target to identify the number of Christians, thus, could structure its question in the way that could provoke to answer NO to their question about believing or not believing in god. Andreyx109

Eurobarometer - appropriate source?

part1

The Eurobarometer is an appropriate source. Why? Because, although an estimate it is far more accurate than the previous unsourced figures that were published on this page. You cannot be a Christian if you do not believe in God. Vexorg 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

anyhow but it is inappropiate source, only just becuase it does not adress the question asked! This disscusion should end, and the use of Eurobarometer in this article should be stopd ASAP.

Vexorg, you can not prove its accuracy in terms of answer to question asked here. CIA or Britannica are far more accurate ,thus, numbers taken from Eurobarometer should be changed where possible to the appropriate numbers from an appropriate source, like CIA or Britannica. Andreyx109

Andreyx109, You cannot make statements that the CIA Factbook is more accurate when many of the figures in the CIA factbook are not even sourced. Where are the sources for these figures?, What survey did the CIA base those figures upon? We don't know. They could just be a guess. The Eurobarometer gives detailed sources and demographics for it's survey. We can maek a very good estimate of the number of Christians in the European Countires based upon the Eurobaromter. Note teh Eurobarometr figures are stated as being an approximation. They are the best figures we currently have.Vexorg 16:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Either you do not understand what this article is about either you have some negative behavior towards Christianity as a whole. What is it? Andreyx109

I will not be drawn into such patronising accusations. Please act in a civilised manner Vexorg 17:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In this topic you are aggressively arguing for negative sides of CIA and at the same moment do not notice that half of articles on religion use it as primary source. You can not estimate number of Christians by using one page of the report which even did not try to answer the question about number of Christians! The minimum requirement here is basic, show me that the report setting the target to answer the question "how many number of Christians are there", would Eurobarometer do it or any other report - does not matter. Otherwise stoped pretending that Eurobarometer is good source, Eurobarometer does not fit into the requirements of this article Andreyx109

I am not aggresively arguing for anything. The tone of your reply above seems rather aggressive if anything and you would do well to assume good faith. Please read this page before continuing your arguments . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith WP:AGF I am fully aware of the purpose of this article and I am only interested in it being as accurate as possible.

Further you would do well to research the edit history of this page. You will see that I have actually edited a lot of figures and sourced them to the CIA Factbook. This is for two reasons. 1] There is no other figure to draw upon, and 2] The CIA Factbook lists a source. I shall however re-state... you cannot blindly rely on the CIA Factbook as being accuarate simply becuase it is the CIA factbook. It doesn't matter how many other works use it as a source. The page allows for a range of figures and in some cases the Eurobarometer figure is listed alongside another figure. Again, I remind you to WP:AGF ThankyouVexorg 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There are at least four possible source we can use instead of Eurobarometer: CIA, Britannica, Encarta and 2006 Report on International Religious Freedom - and it would be enough! All those sources draw their result from the official census, or Church records, which are actually have an answer to the question "How many Christians are in the world" in comparison with Eurobarometer which answer different question and was not design to show the number of Christians! Following this idea, we can edit the article and primarily use those four sources, if any of the sources listed above lack information for a particular country, Eurobarometer could be used. It is pointless to argue here, that Eurobarometer providing better information than four very respected sources. It will be foolish.Andreyx109

This page is actually the most accurate it has ever been. To remove the Eurobarometer figures and replace then with UNSOURCED and vague figures from works like Encarta would be lowering the quality of the page. Encarta , which I've just looked at, is even more vague than the CIA factbook and, im many cases, is in disparity with the CIA factbook. Encarta isn't a reliable source of Christian adherence at all. You are incorrect when you say "All those sources draw their result from the official census". They do not! Except in a few occasions where official census data on religious adherence has actually been asked. The UK is one example and the census data is already in this page. It would certainly be foolish to replace sourced data with unsourced data. The page explicitly forbids that anyway, and for good reason. Vexorg 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This page provides users with wrong information, by drawing information from the source which did not set the target to answer the question on the number of Christians! You are the one who is trying to fool people by providing them with information which tells reader about whole different topic, moreover you are arguing by using your own assumption and by doing so trying to moderate opinion of huge number of people living in Europe. I've to repeat YOU: That Eurobarometer was not designed for the purpose you trying to USE IT! It does not answer the question on number of Christians! It was not DESIGNED FOR IT!Furthermore, it is countless time now when you are blaming RESPECTED SOURCES, such as Catholic Enc, ENCARTA and CIA without any facts, by supprting your arguments on your own set of IDEAS and personal feelings, that is not the best way to ARGUE, provide facts, which would prove the faults of those SOURCES. You are also trying to do is to argue that one page of one report on whole different topic can compete with SOURCES which employ hundreds of experts to comply the information from hundreds of different source. Authors MUST NOT USE Eurobarometer here until you (or someone else) can prove that Eurobarometer report had a purpose to show the number of Christians in Europe. I do not know how you gonna do it, but please do it, until then all Eurobarometer source will be substituted onto other sources which might be not as recent as Eurobarometer however they were designed to answer the question set in this article. Andreyx109

You must understand his page is more accurate than it's ever been. The Eurobarometer 2005 report has been a huge help in achieving a better qulaity for this page. Firstly may I, for a second time, remind you of WP:AGF I am concrned about the accuracy of this page only. Accusing me of, in your words, 'trying to fool people' not only trangresses WP:AGF but is completely false - There is a proper link to the Eurobarometer 2005 survey and nothing is hidden from the user. So for the 2nd time can I ask you to stop making FALSE accusations that are in violation of WP:AGF

You said "You are also trying to do is to argue that one page of one report on whole different topic can compete with SOURCES which employ hundreds of experts to comply the information from hundreds of different source." So where are these hundreds of different sources? There aren't any are there? because if there were the CIA Factbook and the Encarta Enc would list them ( which in certain cases it does. these are already in teh table here Don't you understand that most countries have not had censuses.

you also said.. "you are blaming RESPECTED SOURCES, such as Catholic Enc, ENCARTA and CIA without any facts" - This is a false accusation. I shall explain again in case you didn't read it the previous times... The CIA Factbook and Encarta only source their figures in a few cases. This is usually based upon censuses. I am happy for these figures to be included in the table. HOWEVER, and please understand this, most of the figures in these books have NO SOURCE. There is NOTHING to erify where this infomation has come from. You use the phrase "RESPECTED SOURCES" - This means NOTHING. All you are doing is using Argument From Authority. Which holds no value. Read abotu it here ... Argument_from_authority - Particularly note this ...."If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism." Please also note "If there is any doubt as the figures, a range of figures may be listed, as long as there are sources for both figures. " - The inclusion of the Eurobaromter figures can still exist where there are other sources, and indeed on the page it does. In fact it's good to show a range of figures as all figures are estimates. However can cannot allow unsourced figures to take precedence over sourced figures. The Eurobaromter figures will stay.Vexorg 20:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So, where's the source for this CIA figure? It's incredibly high, unrealistically so. I'd be much more inclined to go with a survey that is sourced in the area being described. Now, were we to go on the UK Census, we'd see a marked increase in the number of Muslims, Jedi, etc and a decrease in Christianity. According to the 2001 UK census, only 70% identified themselves as Christians:

"The 2001 Census collected information about ethnicity and religious identity. Combining these results show that while the population of England and Wales is more culturally diverse than ever before, White Christians remain the largest single group by far. In England and Wales, 36 million people (nearly 7 out of 10) described their ethnicity as White and their religion as Christian." (Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1086&Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank=326 ). That's from the Office Of National Statistics in the UK, and as such is an OFFICIAL statistic. This is a lot more reliable than what appears to be a guestimated statistic from the CIA. It's worth noting too that this is how many people IDENTIFIED themselves as Christians. This therefore includes those who are not practising Christians but have been brought up as one, or those who identify with Christianity simply because it's dominant. The number of practising Christians is almost certainly a lot lower, but this is something that's very hard to verify. This page: ( http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 ) seems to be the definitive source of relgion/population data in the UK.82.27.16.31 13:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So, Vexorg, what you are saying is that Eurobarometer is the only source we can use, that is funny! I will ask you again to proof anyhow, that Eurobarometer had a purpose to answer the question on the number of Christians, if you can not do that, we'll stop the conversation! I propose that we must primarily use official census, not list of sources and Eurobarometer, official census (like in case of UK) is good enough to be listed on its own, However, on the countries where no official census is available we would use a list of sources, including Eurobarometer. Moreover, the total figure is defiantly wrong, as i understand it shows the minimum and maximum number? The maximum number should be at least over 2. billion not 1.8, it should be corrected ASAP.Andreyx109

The official census from the UK is listed. However it is out of date and really not representative of the number of Christians in the UK. The Eurobarometer Poll is much more recent and asks the people whether they believe in god or not. You obviously cannot be a Christian if you don'tbelieve in God. In fact the Eurobarometer Survey is also borne out by the Tearfund Survey. The Tearfund Survey is a Christian based survey and found that 66% of people in the UK have nothing to do with the Church. Which corroborates what the Eurobarometer Survey says. Therefore it is a good that the UK figure showsd BOTH Eurobarometer and the Census Figures.

You say "The maximum number should be at least over 2. billion not 1.8, it should be corrected ASAP" ASAP? On what basis? None in fact. The Totals in the table are the sum of the figures. Is there a problem that the number of Christians in the world is only 1.8 Billion?

To start adding out of date figures which both have no source and don't reflect the reality of the situation will only mislead the reader. We're never going to get an exact figure, but surely you want the article to be as accurate as it can be?Vexorg 17:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to say that official census is out of date? HA, it becomes funny, you are blaming all possible source for "not being accurate" except Eurobarometer do you have something agains real, larger number of Christians in the World? I HAVE TO REPEAT YOU Eurobarometer was not designed for the need of this article! Your words are nothing, but your own assumption! Eurobarometer might be more recent but it was not designed for this purpose, and it seems that you certainly have something against the Chrisitanity by arguing for Eurobarometer accuracy, I did not ask you to proof the Eurobarometer relevancy to this article by or own words, but, by official statement which could answer my and other people doubts regarding possibility of using such report in the field which it does not belong to! The use of Eurobarometer DO MISLEAD THE USERS as it does not provide relevant information, and so far you can not proof that it does.

The number 1.6 billion is the lowest possible you can get to, and 1.8 is a median number, however you are (those who calculated it, i assume that was you) hiding the real figure about 2.2 billion by manipulation of different sources and calculating techniques, by doing so you false the readers of the Wikipedia. I want it to be accurate and represent the real figure, not the figure which some biased authors want to be shown, even thought they do not have a proper source to show this figure.Andreyx109

You seem to be ignoring WP:AGF - May I remind you for probably the 3rd or 4th time now that you should assume good faith. Furthmore shouting in bold isn't necessary. A census of 2001 is out of date on all counts, not just figures on religous adherance. All a census of 2001 shows is the statistics of 2001. Therefore your comment of "HA, it becomes funny" doesn't make any sense apart from to throw insults.

In response to your lack of assuming good faith ( again please read WP:AGF ) can I also point you to WP:NAM - The tone of your responses indicate stress. The use of Eurobarometer does NOT mislead the readers of the article. The article explians the basis upon which Eurobarometer is used. Furthermore the Eurobaromter 2005 goes to great lengths to explain it's coverage and methods of survey. So contention of misleading the user is completely erronous. You must remember that there are NO census figures for most European countries regarding Religious Adherence. It would be insulting to christians to suggest one could become a Christian without believing in god. The Eurobarometer not only reflects what any non biased European would experience as being about how many Christians there are in the region it is the only survey of relevence. In fact in some cases the Eurobarometer estimates coudl be considered generous. Only 5% was taken off to represent those believing in other faiths which have a God. In reality the number f Christians is probably even lower.

There is no real figure of 2.2 Billion to hide. Once again the Total Figures in the table were not arrived at by "by manipulation of different sources and calculating techniques" as in accordance with your erronous accusation. They were arrived at by actually summing the figures for the individual countries. If you dispute this then please add them up yourself to verify. The actual totals were a little higher, but another user decided to round them off to the nearest 10,000,000 or so. personally I would have preferred the more accurate higher figures, but it's no biggie as it's a good estimate anyway.

Lastly I may remind you ( again ) that the article is much more accurate than it previously was. Many of the figures were completely unsourced and simply unreal. I may also remind you that I have inserted many CIA FActbook figures myself, evn though they are unsourced. Simply becuase there is no better alternative. This isn't ideal and as and when more accurate sourced date becomes available to me I shall edit the page to be even more accurate. I do assume good faith on your part but your argument has no solid basis. You certainly have no credible basis for there being 2.2 billion christians in the world. Even the CIA Factbook doesn't estimate there to be that many. You have no basis that 1,6 billion is the "Lowest you can get" and neither do you have any basis for 1.8 billion being a "median number" - Are these the numbers you would like it to be? I ask again... Why would it be a problem if there were only 1.6 - 1.8 billion Christians in the world? Vexorg 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

part2

- Vexrog, Do not worry about me being stressed, it is not the thing you have to worry about.

- The thing you have to worry is , that it is only you under different nicknames Smeggypants and Vexrog who is actually arguing for the use of Eurobaromter and that rising following issues:

A) You not following AFG - as you are using the source which was not designed to answer the question asked in this article, and by doing so you harm the reputation of the wiki and fool people with incorrect information.

B) You are against use of any source which proof the real number of Christians, about 2.1 billion. Including the sources which are respected worldwide, such as CIA, Britannica etc. You are stopping opinion of majority in favor of your won opinion.

C) You are trying to think for billions of people and decided on their behalf whether they are Christians or not.

D)You turning down all compromises offered to you, from not one other author but many, and thus, do not allow to achieve consensus among authors.

E) You are the one who by tyranny and false arguments making this article not only useless but also misleading.

F) You are manipulating the figures and trying to show the lowest number of Christians possible.

It is possible to continue this list for longer, but i am not sure that it will help, just because i am sure now that you have a lot of anti-Christian feelings in yourself and thus you will do all you can to downsize the importance and number of Christian community. I just wondering what is your religion? how could it make you so biased towards other religionsAndreyx109

Just to note the above by Andreyx109 is considered to be, in places, a Personal attack. Andreyx109, please read WP:NPA and please stop usign personal attacks.

I have assumed good faith with you for a long time now. but your false accusation show evidence of not assuming good faith. For the FIFTH TIME I refer you to WP:AGF I will not respond to your BASELESS and NONSENSE accusations. You arguments are based upon Argument_from_authority at best and are baseless. You will note that contrary to your nonsense accusations of being anti-christian I have used figures from the CIA Factbook myself. So please enough of your false accusations already.

My only agenda here is keeping the page accurate. I'm not the only one who has cited the Eurobarometer. Look up this page!!

BAD FAITH from USER Andreyx109 - Andreyx109m you are showing blatent evidence of bad faith. Wikipedia asks you to assume good faith WP:AGF - you are ignoring this. If you continue to assume bad faith without any evidence I shall report you. You have accused me of being anti-christian because I won't use CIA Factbook figures. Yet I HAVE used CIA FActbook figures. There is the edit history to PROVE this. You are ignoring that and assuming bad faith. You are accusing me manipulating the figures. This is completely untrue. Check the figures yourself. So please stop assuming bad faith and making false accusations.Vexorg 22:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The article become absolutely useless, as majority of the information was deleted (info on countries), figures are not correct (do not show the high number) and sources are wrong (Eurobaromter do not state that is show number of Christians) – the article is not improving but rather becoming weak and useless! - do you call it improvement?

QUESTIONS TO VEXROG:

A) Why do you resist the opinion of majority? I do not understand why have you privatized this article? And why are you trying to use your own assumption to moderate opinion of millions of European Christians, includig me?

B) No, I have not accused you of not using CIA but rahter CIA, Britannica etc. However, yes, you are using CIA. but in case of Europeans countries only as secondary source in conjunction with Eurobaromter.

C) You are deleting the sources which ONLY YOU DO NOT ASSUME CORECT i presume, for example figure on Africa (total), Britannica states much higher figure, but someone always deleting it. Why and who does it?

D) Please, remember that it not your own personal article and you do not have the right to privatize it and use your own assumption to decide that:

1) Catholic encyclopedia is biased (posts above)

2) Official statements are our of DATE ( UK Cencus)

3) Britannica, Encarta and others sources are bad as they do not provide source, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO they are sources themselves. (Posts above)

4) Accept mainly and primarily Eurobaromter as a correct source for Europe.

CONCLUSION

I am waiting for you to respond to the questions asked in this post, as well as many of my questions above, do not avoid them please and respect the opinion of other users who believe that CIA, Britannica, Encarta and Religion Freedom report are more reliable sources than Eurobaromter - which even do not have purpose to answer the question regarding the number of Christians.Andreyx109

You continue to talk of a majority which doesn't exist. Your argument's are baseless and false and at best use Argument_from_authority. And furthermore you have continued make personal insults WP:NPA and accusations which are insulting and false, even though I have asked you time and time again to assume good faith WP:AGF I have fairly given you proper reasons why the Eurobarometer is a good source of figures. There is NO misleading of the reader as you have falsely claimed. The article is the best quality it has ever been. Plase accept that! This is going nowhere therefore I am not going to waste anymore time on you. Vexorg 13:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Census

This article in the New Stateman discusses the discrepancy between the old Census figures and the British Social Atttudes survey statistics: http://www.newstatesman.com/200509190017

Now look at the findings of another important piece of official research, the British Social Attitudes Survey. It reported that 41 per cent of the population had no religion in 2001, as against the 14.8 per cent who told the census takers they weren't religious. This is a fantastically large discrepancy. They both can't be right, however creatively you play about with the margins of error; and the evidence suggests that the Office of National Statistics blundered. Another study from the same year, by the Home Office, found that religion came ninth on a list of what mattered to the public. (Only 20 per cent said it was important as against 71 per cent who said their family was their first priority.) And the Swedish-based World Values Survey reported in 2000 that 55 per cent of people in Britain said they "never" or "practically never" attended church. Only France was more irreligious.

I could go on, but a simple question makes the point: if the 2001 census is right, why are so many churches closing and so many sober Anglicans warning that the Church of England faces catastrophic decline?

At the root of the problem with the census is the question that was presented to households: "What is your religion?" As Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society said, it was "imprecise to the point of being unprofessional". What did the census want to discover about the British: whether they had a religious upbringing or a vaguely religious culture based on going to the odd wedding and funeral?

Kimi 217.38.66.31 14:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting findings there Kimi. Have you also seen the Tearfund Survey entitled Churchgoing in the UK ( April 2007)  ? The Survey can be read here http://www.tearfund.org/webdocs/Website/News/Final%20churchgoing%20report.pdf . It should be noted to prospective accusers of anti-christian bias, of the like we've recently seen from user Andreyx109, that Tearfund is a Christian organisation.

The Tearfund Survey, which has in introduction from Lynda Barker from the Church of England, says...

Two thirds are out of touch with church

"Two thirds of UK adults (66%) or 32.2 million people have no connection with church at present (nor with another religion). These people are evenly divided between those who have been in the past but have since left (16 million) and those who have never been in their lives (16.2 million). This secular majority presents a major challenge to churches. Most of them - 29.3 million - are unreceptive and closed to attending church; churchgoing is simply not on their agenda."

The Tearfund survey was published in April 2007. Very recent. Even more recent than the Eurobarometer 2005 Survey. However it's interesting to note that the findings of a Christian Organisation in 2007 pretty much correspond to the findings of the Eurobarometer in 2005. Therfore as far as the UK is concerned, evn though the 2001 cencus figure is a] out of date, and b] doesn't paint an accurate picture, it's pretty fair that both the Eurobarometer and 2001 Census figure is shown. These surveys have much more value than some vague out of date figure printed in the CIA Factbook and various encyclopedias that have NO verifiable source. One cannot legitimise a well know encyclopedia simply becuase it is well known. This is known as [Argument_from_authority] and carries no weight.

To improve the article even further it would be good if editors could find even more proper surveys, so less is relied upon non-sourced,unverifiable, vague, out-of-date figures Vexorg 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

TOTAL FIGURE

If to add up the figures the total will be,

low figure is 1638424929 - 25%

high figure is 1851148612 - 29%

I've rounded it up, so the high is now 1.850.000.000 and the low is 1.640.000.000. Andreyx109

Yes I originally put the accurate figure, but our Friend The Evil Spartan rounded them down. I would prefer the more accuate figure Vexorg 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By Region

Europe is missing. Please add Europe 24.166.188.29 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes a few regions are missing. WHen I get time I will create them. Anyone feel free to do so though, including your goodself :) Vexorg 17:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bangladesh ?

The figure of Bangladesh is just wrong. The source provided is Charisma Magazine [7]??, what the heck is that?. Why not take the Government census data. According to 2004 Bangladesh Government Data, 0.3% of Bangladeshis are Christians. Source: [8]. I have edited the figure and placed 0.3% as thats the accurate data than some Magazine data. Thanks. --Itsalif 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

well spotted! Thanks for updating Vexorg 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

World Population ?

According to UN, World population Prospect and several other reliable sources, the total population is over 6.6 billion. Sources [9]. [10]. --Itsalif 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably is over 6.6 billion by now yes, but the totals in the table are the sum of the columns and the year of population estiamte is referenced at the top of the table. Remember also that just about all of the figures for the percentage of christians are also very old too. Some as far back as 10 years. I agree that the table needs updating to reflect 2007 but mixing old figures and new figures is only going to make the table even more innaccurate than it is. Thanks :) Vexorg 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected numbers

There was s slight mistake as one «0» (zero) was missing (Ukraine) thus, the total high number was incorrect, I’ve corrected the mistake and now the total numbers are:

High: 1904699808 Low: 1646752412

The percentage comes to:

High: 29.82% Low: 25.78

As agreed here before I’ve rounded the numbers up, and the results are:

High: 1,900,000,000 Low: 1,650,000,000

Percentage:

High: 30% Low: 26%

AndreyX109

Albania

In the CIA factbook it states that 30% of Albanian are Christians, I agree that no country can be 100% religious, but why should be number of Christian downsized because of it? It could be other religions which are present in Albanian who less religious? Thus, the number of Christians should remain 30% not 25%,AndreyX109

erronous logic. all religions should be downsized. :: - The source isn't reliable anyway "^ There are currently no reliable numbers, the last serious research about religion in Albania was in 1930s " Vexorg 22:16, 7 August ::2007 (UTC)

You can put the number proportionally, so if you assume that 5% population is not religious, then, Take 5% from 30% of Christians, and 5% from the 70% of other religions present in Albania. ( Gowever, I assume that it is an original reserach - your own opinion)

Finally, you have to look around to other religion articles, because, following your assumption about accuracy logic those articles are absolutely inaccurate.

It is clearly unfair to edit Christianity by Country article by such unjustified and unreasonable methods, without noticing that correlated articles in religion theme, not only contradict some points made here, but moreover are using sources which you Vexorg trying to forbid to use (or call them biased) in here and vice-versa.

Thank tou

AndreyX109

if you wish to be more "accurate" then put the number adherents of other religions lower, as it more sensible, then putting the sourced figure of 30% down to 25% which is not sourced at all, provide a good source and we'll talk about it.

deleted the tag which stated that this article "does not provide any sources" - it was not appropriate here anymore, due to the fact that overall this article is quite well sourced (except few points such as Albanian for example, where Vexrog states 25% without providing any reference).AndreyX109

actually the article isn't that well sourced at all. Most of the figures are arbitary figures from the CIA factbook or the Religious freedom report ( both USA documents which are hardly unbiased ) and have no actual source.Vexorg 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions!

Hi everyone!

I am managing the articles of Buddhism by country (with User:Bikeable);List of religious populations and a little of Christianity by country (with User:Vexorg) and maybe I hope in near future,I can contribute for projects of another religions as soon as possible!

The first;I think we need to update new census of July 2007 from source from http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl which is I think is the most exact!And total population of the World as July 1,2007 is 6,671,226,000.I made it for Buddhism first!

The second;I think we should make the new style for all article of any religious populations by country (Buddhism by country; Islam by country; Hinduism by country) just like Christianity by country did with minimum percentage and maximum percentage from many sources (government,CIA,etc...).But in my mind and mostly people we all know the populations of Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Hinduism could estimate nearly right but with Buddhism,it is very HARD!Some sxample:

1. Christianity in France (51%-85%), Belgium (38-84%),etc...
2. Buddhism in China (21.3%-80%), South Korea (27-48%),etc...

How do you think about my suggestions?

And I want to invite User:Vexorg (Christianity), User:Opticals and User:OsamaKBOT (Islam), I with Clay Collier and User:Bikeable (Buddhism);etc...to found "The Union of Wiki Project Religions".So I want to hear your opinions and replies about that!

Contact me about that on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#Some_suggestions.21

Thank so much!God bless all of you! Angelo De La Paz 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No grounds for deletion

---

From....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Proposed_deletion

• If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.

In line with the above I'm going to remove the tags. There are NO grounds whatsoever as has been pointed out. Let's make better use of our time than wasting it on this.Vexorg 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Official reply from Eurobarometer

A few month ago I have sent an enquiry to the Eurobarometer Team ( Eurobarometer@ec.europa.eu ) regarding the possibility of using Eurobarometer for determination the number of Christians (or any other religions) in Europe. Today I have received the reply from them:

Dear *********

The question quoted in page 11 of the report of the Eurobarometer on Social Values, Science and technology 2005 does not answer the question of determinating the approximate number of followers of Christianity or followers of other major religions in Europe. It cannot be used for this purpose.

We are very sorry for this late reply.

Best regards, EB TEAM

I hope Vexorg will not argue with the opinion of those who carried out the research, and the Eurobarometer figures will not be used for an inappropriate purpose. AndreyX109 09:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

None the less the Eurobarometer Poll reflects the reality of the situation in Europe and it is important to show this. If you remove the Eurobarometer figures then you must remove the CIA Factbook fugures also as most of them are not sourced ( and not without the realsm of being politically biased ). The way the article is now the reader can see the disparities and make their own minds up. CIA Factbook figures have no more precidence. We should leave both figures in. What would you prefer, that many countries simply have "no reliable data" shown in the table? The reality is that for many countires there is no proper data. The current article at least gives some indication.Vexorg 18:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I can not agree with you, i believe that Eurobarometer Poll does not really show the reality of the situation in Europe.

CIA Factbook on other hand is used by majority of other articles in religion theme of Wikipeida and to forbid using it here because its believed that it is biased, is a bit unfair. It opens a question: Why other articles use CIA as primary source? As well as adherents.com and other sources which are not that trustworthy.

But, i understand your point and i am sure that we can still use Eurobarometer Poll. I propose to create an additional table, "Christianity in Europe", which would show the number of Christians in European countries, it would have two types of figures, one sourced from Eurobarometer Poll and another figure from other sources which we would find? How does it sounds? AndreyX109 09:01, 03 October 2007 (UTC)

THe Eurobarometer Poll is much more accurate than figures in the CIA factbook. Figures for 90% for many countries are simply unrealistic. One of the only accurate figures for Europe is that of the UK 2001 census, but that is for 2001 not for 2007. Regarding the CIA factbook, you are using an argument of Appeal_to_popularity which is a logical fallacy. Just becuase the CIA factbook is used often it doesn't make it more accurate.

The Eurobarometer Poll asks real people about their religion and the Eurobarometer poll cites it's method of source and it's source in great detail. The CIA Factbook does not. There is no need to create an additional table for Europe. And if we did why would the figures be different than in this article? There are no accurate figures for ANY coutnry in the world. So what are we left with? The CIA factbook is the most comprehensive publication on religious adherence, but most of it's figures aren't sourced. And you cannot discount that it has the bias of the USA's Central Intelligence Agency. Furthermore a lot of the figures in the CIA book are out of date. Religious adherence is on the decline in many countries. Then we have the Eurobarometer Poll, which for european countries is actually close to reality as any non-biased resident of Europe will tell you. And it's only 2 years old.

I don't see what the problem is? The current table shows a range of figures where there is more than one source, and this is clearly indicated in the Article. Until all countries conduct proper census's on religious adherence on a regular basis we will never have an accurate table. What we have IMO is the best we can do until then.Vexorg 03:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You see you can say and think whatever you want about the Eurobarometer Poll, however it is used for inappropriate purpose in this article and I do not want to mislead the users anylonger. I have offered you the alternative to create an additinal table, you do not want this? Its fine then. I am going to start deleting Eurobarometer Poll figures in the next few days. Please do not try to prevent it as i have all the rights to do this.

If you wish to delete The CIA Factbook on the basis that it is "biased", go on bring me some of evidence for it( as i did for Eurobarometer Poll) , and i'll agree with you then. AndreyX109 09:01, 05 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vexorg, Eurobarometer gives a precise idea about the belief systems in European countries. Some of the CIA Factbook's figures are ridiculous (such as the 87% Christian Sweden). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.60.56 (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AndreyX109, while you have every right to edit the article, then so do others. I have to say I don't like your tone of blackmail when you say... "I have offered you the alternative to create an additinal table, you do not want this? Its fine then. I am going to start deleting Eurobarometer Poll figures in the next few days." - This is NOT a good attitude of a Wikipedia editor. You are also acting irrationally. Where is your logic? If the Eurobarometer Figures are misleading in this article ( which they are most certainly not ) then they will also be misleading in a table that is for Christianity In Europe. The current article is NOT Misleading. There are a range of figures precisely to cater for the range of figures from different sources and the Eurobarometer figures are the most accurate n reflecting religious adherency in Europe. This has been discussed in great detail before, and the current article is a result of this. Please don't excalate this to starting edit wars.Vexorg 02:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what I see so far:

- First argument, CIA is being biased – is not proven. correct me if i am wrong.

- Secondly the situation in Europe is your own opinion and nothing else except an original research (isn't it?), which can not be supported by any poll, which asked the question are you Christian or not?

- Thirdly, the CIA fact book as far as I know shows figures of those who are Baptized, they are nominally Christians, although might not be practicing.

- Fourthly, , Eurobarometer team has stated that it is inappropriate to use Eurobarometer Poll for determination of Christians in Europe.

Vexrog, please don't star an edit war. I do not want this, i want this article to be correct.

Regarding the using Eurobarometer in Christianity in Europe. My logic is, first, it is solely European statistics, which does not provide any valuable information about Christianity, however for comparisons reason, we can include it solely into Christianity in Europe, as an alternative view for comparison reasons. Moreover Eurobarometer will be used in a best way if used in the article which show the statistics of those “who believe in god and who doesn’t” Eurobarometer was designed especially for it and it is ridiculous to use it in order to determinate the number of Christians. I repeat it was not designed for this purpose. Is this so difficult to understand? AndreyX109 18:31, 07 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrey, you're wrong. I'm baptized and bureaucratically registered as Catholic, but I'm not Catholic nor "nominally" Christian. I'm not Christian at all, I'm Neopagan.

"Vexrog, please don't star an edit war. I do not want this, i want this article to be correct." - if you want the article to be correct, or at least as correct as it will ever be, then please leave it as is. The issue os the Eurobarometer has been discussed to death already. It reflects a much more accurate position on the number of Christians in Europe than the CIA Factbook does. It's a not so much a question of the CIA Factbook being biased, it's a question of *where* is the source for the factbook figures. At best it uses the logical fallacy of Appeal to authority. Further, you say you want the article to be correct, and then you want to leave the CIA figures in??? That just doesn't makes sense.

Please remember this also.... I believe the CIA Figures are incorrect in a lot of cases. They are ridiculously inaccurate for some countries. However I am NOT promoting that the CIA figures should be removed. I am promoting that BOTH the CIA figures and the Eurobarometer figures should stay to give the reader a picture of the problem with compiling these figures in the first place. Removing the Eurobarometer figures would leave the widely innaccurate figures from the CIA Factbook. I cannot allow that. Now please be fair and leave both sets of figures as curtesy to the reader.Vexorg 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Answers on some of your question are in my previous post, please have a look at them.

Vexrog, i am willing to find a compromise, thus, i am trying to offer something which would leave the article correct at the same time without involving the poll which was not designed to answer the question on the number of Christians in Europe. On other hand i feel that you are not even trying to find a consensus.

I can agree to leave the Eurobarometer, but only if an additional "% - believe in god" column will be added, and in this column we would add the Eurobarometer percentage. The total number in this case will reflect both variants as an alternative view on the situation.AndreyX109 15:11, 09 October 2007 (UTC)

Europe Figures ( cont. )

AndreyX109 says"On other hand i feel that you are not even trying to find a consensus" - This is not the case whatsoever, I have stated my views on the article regarding the figures for Europe and the Article in general. Without wishing to repeat this time and time again....My wishes are for the article to be as accurate as possible given the problem of not having any accurate figures. To spell the situation out again.... 1] The CIA figures have no source and for many coutnries in Europe are simply absurd. 2] The Eurobarometer figures are sourced and give a much more accurate representation of the situation in Europe, however they give an implication. 3] This means we have two sets of figures, neither of which can give solid proof of adherency. The way the article is currently formulated the reader can see that there are problems with finding any reliable sources and can also see the range of figures. The article clearly states the caveats of both sets of figures. In view of this there is no need to change the article. No one is being misleaded and the reader can make his/her own mind up. Vexorg 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How can you speak about figures being correct when those who carried the Eurobarometer research have stated the it is inappropriate to use it for this purpose? All your arguments are your own opinion - nothing more than that, you can not proof any of them. Give me some proof and we'll carry on the negotiations. So far however i am going to start deleting the Eurobarometer figures, if you'll start re-editing my changes i am going to take further actions.andreyx109 09:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The CIA figures have no source. Why are you not removing those figures as well then? The article 'as is' is the best it can be under the circumstances. Why should I allow the article to be made inferior simply because you have some big personal problem with showing a reasonable indication of how many Christians there are in Europe? Vexorg 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vexrog, If you would spend a bit more time on the investigation of your claims, you would be able to find this on CIA web site:

"What is The World Factbook’s source for a specific subject field? The Factbook staff uses many different sources to publish what we judge are the most reliable and consistent data for any particular category. Space considerations preclude a listing of these various sources."

CIA does not state the source exactly for this reason, moreover, if you look at the CIA FAQ you will see the following: in order for information to be published in CIA they require a sources to be presented as support for the made claim, so every information you see on CIA has the sources which are not listed for the reason above.

I do not have any personal problems with reasonable indication of how many Christians there are in Europe as long as the source provided is answering the question on the number of Christians, and as long as it was designed to answer the question about the number of Christians. Eurobarometer was not designed for this purpose and moreover does not have any answers on question about the number of Christians.

Vexrog, if you could provide me with any proof that CIA does not have any sources and just put the figures from the top of the head, that is fine, we'll be deleting this as inappropriate. So far i am seeing only your own opinion without any hard proof, and it is going on now for a long long time. This is waste of the time to argue with you, when you’ll have a proof for your claims we’ll carry on the negotiations. I am sure that we could work together in order to improve the wikipedia articles. andreyx109 14:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Eurobarometer figures Again

Eurobarometer figures were removed, in the near future i am aiming to support each existing figure with additional reference from the source which was designed to answer set question. andreyx109 22:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Eurobarometer figures were put back. This has been discussed at huge length before. Please don't reduce the quality of the article. People can see both sets of figures.Vexorg 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

IF you continue prevent me from removing an inappropriate source from this article i will have to go for a futher action, which is - Discuss with third parties. You have privatized this article and i am not going to agree with that. I have the official replay from Eurobarometer where they say that it is inappropriate to use it for Christian estimates, you on other hand keeping throwing arguments which are nothing more than your own opinion, (i.e CIA – factbook – biased) andreyx109 23:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at huge length before. The article allows for disputed figures and there is no misleading. by censoring your are removing the ability of the reader to make their own mind up. Do not accuse me of provatising the article when YOU are doing just that. Please do not devalue the article.Vexorg 22:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Oh and further, this is wikipedia not CIA. If we can't have a balanced article and leave it to be based upon CIA figures then we may as well delete the whole aricle. Most of the figures in the CIA article are NOT properly sourced. Are you going to write 'no available data' in most of the table?? Vexorg 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Where possible i will put the International Freedom Report figures, as well as censuses and figures from an appropriate sources. CIA fact book have source for all their figures read their FAQ. You arguments are only your own opinion andreyx109 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

1] My arguments are NOT only my opinion. Others have joined this discussion and agreed. 2] The CIA does NOT have any sources for it's religous data unless specfied. I just checked the FAQ. Please don't tell untruths.Vexorg 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

3RR

andreyx109 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Please stop reverting. I have warned you of the 3RR Rule now. Logging out to hide behind an IP Address is not helping eitherVexorg 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

andreyx109 Please don't be childish by posting the exact same 3RR warning message on my page. I have left it there as record of your behaviour.Vexorg 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

The only person who says untruth is you - READ CIA FAQ - I have quoted it for you above.

Your do not want to find a compromise - I have offered number of options.

your arguments are weak and without any hard proof. - CIA - being biased, no source, Eurobarometer is appropriate

You have privatized this article - preventing me from doing any improvement.

You have anti-Christian opinion - Always using the lowest possible figures on the number of Christians in this article

Vexorg, i will report you as biased author, you continually vandalizing this article and preventing me from getting the correct figures shown.

My arguments are NOT only my opinion. Others have joined this discussion and agreed. – You are not being honest. Have a look at the top: only few people discussed it here, and majority were against using the Eurobaromter. It is you under two different nicknames who continuously arguing for using this inappropriate source. andreyx109 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly.... Please Assume Good Faith and QUIT the Personal Attacks!! ... WP:AGF WP:NPA - I am not with an Anti-Christian opinion. Secondly.... I have said no untruths Thirdly.... I am not privatising the article. I am simply preventing you from raping the article of figures that YOU seem to have a big deal about. The Eurobarometer figure shave been there for months. Fourthly.... I am not under two different nicknames Fifthly.... Biased and vandalism. Nonsense. Sixthly.... I have read the CIA FAQ. NO sources and no you haven't quoted it above. Lastly.... I'm not preventing you from putting correct figures. I'm preventing you from removing figures. You don't even knwo the orrect figures. None of us do. Don't forget the 3RR rule and please calm down.Vexorg 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement over using The Eurobarometer

1 Eurobaromter figures are wrong, and it does not matter whether they have been here a long time or not, i was waiting for an official reply from Eurobaromter team, i got it, they said it is inappropriate to use it here (read their reply above).

2 Again you are saying untruth, you have two nicknames one is Vexrog and another Smeggypants , and majority of messages in this discussion on Eurobaromter topic posted by this two users and that is you under two nicknames.

3 I will repeat it here again, read the CIA factbook FAQ, and also you can read the opinion of other editors about CIA FACTBOOK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CIA_-_The_World_Factbook

4Remember the article policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Neutral point of view in my opinion you are not following any of these two.

5 Finally, it is kind of funny, as soon as I said last night that you are only adding the low figures, you started to add high numbers as well, it is some kind of progress, however, “last night edits “ will not help you to cover-up you anti-Christian behavior.

P.S. Please do not change the name of this section. Andreyx109 08:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

2 Stop accusing me of untruths! I Do NOT have two nicknames. I have ONE name. Vexorg. I used to be Smeggypants, but it was deemed inappropriate by one administrator and I had to change it. 3 Why do you keep repeating "read the CIA Factbook FAQ?" however many times I read it it still doesn't give sources for the figures. I have also replied to your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CIA_-_The_World_Factbook talk section. You say "also you can read the opinion of other editors about CIA FACTBOOK" - Yes I read it and ONE Editor, not editors said the CIA Factbook was reliable. Just because someone says something is reliable does not make it reliable. The CIA Factbook figures are no more reliable than the Eurobarometer figures are. 5 I will remind you AGAIN to follow WP:AGF & WP:NPA and STOP accusing me of Anti-christian behaviour. Why is wanting to make for a more accurate article anti-christian? I am adding extra figures from the CIA Factbook to show the range of unsourced estimates. I have have put high figures in before. Please stop accusing me of bias and untruths you have no evidence for.Vexorg 17:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Source dispute WP:3O, Eurobarometer

I am responding to the request for a third opinion regarding the ongoing source dispute for this article. As there are two different sources under examination, I will be addressing them separately (see also Talk:Christianity_by_country#Source dispute WP:3O, CIA World Factbook). There are additional issues involved, to be addressed in a third section (Talk:Christianity_by_country#Source dispute arguments in article).

I find nothing whatsoever in the cited source[11] giving figures for total number of Christians or % of population.

Much of the discussion in support of using this source follows logic along the lines of "although an estimate it is far more accurate than the previous unsourced figures that were published on this page. You cannot be a Christian if you do not believe in God."Talk:Christianity_by_country#part1 The source does not contain an estimate of Christianity, it is one editor's estimate, based on the source. The definition of Christianity used is not sourced, it is the editor's definition.

Another argument raised to support this source is a statement that other sources -- especially the CIA World Factbook -- are inaccurate. This is wholly immaterial. Whether or not another source is reliable says nothing about the source we are examining.

Additionally, there are repeated references to personal experiences and impressions in the discussion. Anecdotes may certainly inspire you to doubt or trust reports from various sources and to investigate possible bias in a source. However, your personal experiences have no weight here.

Finally, it is argued that the data conflicting with this source is wrong. However, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."WP:V

In short (ha!), I find that the current use of Eurobarometer in this article is:

1. Original Research "The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you." (The source does not make the same claim as the data cited to it.) The source simply does not say what it is claimed to say. The editor's estimate is based on the source, but that opinion is not verifiable and is not found in a reliable source.
2. Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

Mdsummermsw 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Source dispute WP:3O, CIA World Factbook

I am responding to the request for a third opinion regarding the ongoing source dispute for this article. As there are two different sources under examination, I will be addressing them separately (see also Talk:Christianity_by_country#Source dispute WP:3O, Eurobarometer). There are additional issues involved, to be addressed in a third section (Talk:Christianity_by_country#Source dispute arguments in article).

Most of the dispute on this source has been based on two claims:

1. The CIA World Factbook is wrong. I find this argument to be wholly inappropriate. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."WP:V
2. The CIA is a biased source. I will revisit this later.

I am choosing to start on a more basic question than whether or not this is a reliable source: Does the source say what the article says? In many cases, it does not.

The source is currently cited 131 times. I have no intention of checking all of them. Here are a few examples, however:

1. North Africa; Christianity in Algeria says: 33,333,216; 0.25%; 83,333 (population, % Christian, # of Christians). The source, however, says "Christian and Jewish 1%". As cited, it does not have the population figure (that's in the same source, but a different citation). It does not say 0.25% Christian, I will allow that it says <1% Christian. The number of Christians is not in the cite, and is a calculation using the population figure and the unsourced 0.25% to come up with an unreasonably specific figure.
2. Angola has a population figure that the actual citation shows is a July 2007 estimate, combines "Roman Catholic 38%, Protestant 15% (1998 est.)" to produce "Christian 53% (1998 est.)" (it would be pretty strict to say that is synthesis), then mutiplies the 2007 estimate with the 1998 estimate to get a truly meaningless (but exact) number (6,499,706) for the third collumn. This is synthesis, and an example of why it's a bad thing.
3. Argentina says "94% (less than 25% practicing)", though the source says "nominally Roman Catholic 92% (less than 20% practicing), Protestant 2%, Jewish 2%, other 4%". One assumption here is that none of the "other" 4% are Christian. Going from <20% practicing of 92% Roman Catholic to <25% practicing of 94% Christian is baffling. 20% of 92% is 18.4%, so (ignoring the problem of significance of the tenths), we have <18.4% are practicing Roman Catholics. Since we've already assumed (baselessly) that the only other Christians are the Protestant 2%, we have <20.4%. That can't be it. Maybe we're assuming that the 20% is not 20% of the 92%, but that its 20 of the 94% (20% practicing and 74% non-practicing)? That would give us <20% practicing Catholics and up to 2% practicing Protestants for a figure of <22%, but could be <20% if none of the Protestants practice, but we say <25% to be safe, I guess. That is not verifiable.
4. We should have a real problem with American Samoa, because the source says "Christian Congregationalist 50%, Roman Catholic 20%, Protestant and other 30%", meaning our synthesis would yield 70.01% to 100%, depending on how much of the 30% "Protestant and other" we assume is "Christian". American Samoa isn't in the article. While the inclusion or exclusion of individual nations and states can be debated, it's part of the reason this synthesis doesn't work: "The American Central Intelligence Agency Factbook [50] estimates the percentage of people in the world to be Christians at 33.03% which would put the total number of Christians based upon the 2005 population above at 2,085,881,465. However it should be noted that there is no source for this figure. Note the disparity with the summation of the individual figures in the table even though a good proportion of those figure are also taken from the CIA Factbook ( some of which are also not properly sourced )."Christianity_by_country#Other_Estimates
5. The article puts Belarus at "85% (approx)" based on the source's "Eastern Orthodox 80%, other (including Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim) 20% (1997 est.)". While the article missed the fact that this data is a 1997 estimate, the editor made an estimate based on that estimate. Legitimately, this could range from 80.01% to 100%, the non-verifiable method for this synthesis is then multiplied by the July 2007 population estimate to produce 8,266,015 Christians. Incidentally, the article linked to from this section of the table, Christianity in Belarus, claims (very poorly sourced) that 1.7 million are Catholic, saying its 17% of the population, which would give us >97% Christian. Then it gives us 5% Protestant, for >102% Christian. I guess >-2% of the population is Jewish or Muslim. It's as valid as any other synthesis, and just as verifiable.
6. Belgium is 84%, based on "Roman Catholic 75%, other (includes Protestant) 25%". Why? Heck, why not.
7. Time to take a stand: are Mormon's Christian? Well, the United States entry says yes. CIA's "Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)" is reported as 78%. Presumably, Protestants, Roman Catholics and Mormons are Christians. Jews, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. are not. Now we know.

In essence, very few of the countries listed make explicit claims of percentages of Christians. None give specific numbers. Few give any indication that the population figures are from dates close to the religion figures.

In short (ha!), I find that the current use of the CIA World Factbook in this article is:

1. Original Research "The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you." (The source does not make the same claim as the data cited to it.) The source simply does not say what it is claimed to say. The editor's estimate is based on the source, but that opinion is not verifiable and is not found in a reliable source.
2. Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

Mdsummermsw 15:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Source dispute arguments in article

I am responding to the request for a third opinion regarding the ongoing source dispute for this article. As there are two different sources under examination, I addressed them separately (see also Talk:Christianity_by_country#Source dispute WP:3O, Eurobarometer and Talk:Christianity_by_country#Source dispute WP:3O, CIA World Factbook). Here I am addressing additional issues involved.

Large sections of this article are not about the topic, but are about how to edit the topic, or are a result of the on-going debates:

1. This footnote to the intro to the article belongs in the article, if anywhere: "Differences are due to several factors, such as missionary (or governmental) bias, stronger or looser definitions of Christian, and data sampling methods." However, it also demands reliable sources. As is, it has to go. Other footnotes have similar problems.
2. Image:Christianity.png purports to show "worldwide distribution of Catholic (yellow), Protestant (purple) and Orthodox (cyan) Christians relative to the total population." This description cites three colors, while the map shows perhaps a dozen shades of those colors, various combined colors, plus white. We are not told what the various shades colors represent, nor what source(s) came up with the divisions Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox. And "'Orthodox' is assumed to be 'non-Catholic non-Protestant Christian'." And the source for the data? Three wikipedia articles, without dates. Given the frequent revisions to wikipedia articles and the mish-mash of sources, this map is misleading, at best.
3. Image:Christianity percentage by country.png is no better. Though it gives a full legend, it is sourced from Eurobarometer and the CIA World Factbook. As I've discussed, these sources do not provide the data this map purports to show. I strongly suspect the map is actually based on the data shown in wikipedia which is cited as being from these sources when it is not.
4. Sources used in the table is not an appropriate section for an encyclopedia. It is clearly about the dispute. It is little more than a half-hearted attempt to explain that an editor disputes the use of data from a source that does not always cite its sources and that some figures shown are not from the source (they're an editor's synthesis of the Eurobarometer study's figures and the editors opinions).
5. Inclusion of statistics should be on the talk page or commented out. It has no place on the actual article page.
6. As previously noted, the "Other Estimates" section is a synthesis of various other sythesi/synthesises/whatever. It is also part of the argument. The only portion of it that has any place on the talk page is "The American Central Intelligence Agency Factbook [50] estimates the percentage of people in the world to be Christians at 33.03%." Other sources sould certainly be added for differing figures and the Talk Page might see some discussion of possible bias in one or more of those sources.
7. I've already discussed some of the problesm with the "Statistics" section. A few more issues. Minor ones first: The regions are someone's creation (unsourced). The population figures are unsourced (they seem to come from the Factbook, but it is not clear). Some of the figures are estimates, some are from surveys, some are census figures; the varying reliability of these sources indicates some identification of the origin is needed. The Christian total collumn is unsourced (it seems to be synthesis of the two preceeding figures). Here's the major problem: by putting all of these figures into one table, the average reader will likely assume that the figures for Afghanistan answer the same question as the figures for Zimbabwe. They do not. Many are based on polls, with varying choices available or open-ended questions with interpretation of the answers being made later. Are people who self-identify as members of religion X "Christians"? That's a question a reliable source needs to answer before we put that answer in wikipedia. Are people listed by a church of X as members "Christians"? Same situation. People's answers will vary based on the options allowed, as well. Some members of religion X might list themselves as being members of a related group, others might select "other-Christian" (if it's offered), still others might select "other" or "no answer". Compiling data from sources asking very different questions is a bad idea. While adherents.com is not a source (rather, it's a place to use to find sources), it does one thing right, it reports the data available, without expanding it to fill in their blanks.
8. The "By Region" section might be useful, but it is currently a synthesis of the synthetic figures in the first table. There is no protection against figures changing in the first table without this table being adjusted. And the calculations are synthesis. It needs its own source.

Mdsummermsw 16:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mdsummermsw's Third Opinion - comment by Vexorg

Thankyou user:Mdsummermsw so much for taking the time for detailed third opinion on the dispute regarding the figures shown in this article. :) I agree with your points and my answer is the following.... I appreciate the problems with both the Eurobarometer and CIA Factbook figures. Both sources cannot be taken as an accurate number of Christians. However for most countries there are no proper sources of the number adherents to specific religions ( These problems also apply to Islam by country, Buddhism by country, Hinduism by country, etc ) This means if we played it exactly like the Wikipedia Rules the articles would constist of tables of statistics where most entries would contain an entry like No Available Data We must consider what's best for the reader. Personally I believe it is better to show the reader some figures which show a range of estimates, rather than no figures at all. With the important proviso that the reader is properly informed that the range of figures are not properly sourced and are only estimates. The article currently does this and this is why I am defending the inclusion of both the CIA and Eurobarometer figures along with a proper explanation of their caveats. Yes I persoanlly believe that the eurobarometer figures reflect the amount of Christians in Europe far more accurately than the CIA Factbook Figures ( some of which are ludicrous ), however as I have said I believe it is better to show a range of figures to let the reader make up his/her own mind up rather than have no figures at all and leave no indictation of the amount of Christians/Muslims/Hinuds/etc in each Country. There isn't enough to data to provide for a proper article and by this it should be deleted. The article was put up for deletion recently and the general consesus was not to delete. I agree for the reasons I state above and further having nowhere on Wikipedia where people can at least see an indication of the number of religious adherents by country would be devalueing Wikipedia. I believe we should not rape the article of one set of unsourced figures and simply leave another set of unsourced figures. I believe it is better to leave as as and as proper source figures appear then update the article as necessary. Vexorg 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mdsummermsw's Third Opinion - comment by Anderyx109

Thankyou user:Mdsummermsw

1. I see that you understand the main problem with the Eurobarometer, it is true that there is not a word about Christianity, however user Vexor continually arguing for using it here because he thinks that figures are right without any support for his arguments.
2. There are also could be some problems with CIA factbook, however at least it is answering the question on the number of Christians, whereas Eurobarometer does not.
3. There are enough data and sources available for this article to create a realistic image of Christianity in the world, but because of anti-Christian behavior of the user Vexrog majority of those source by his opinion are not "trustworthy", the only trustworthy source for him is Eurobarometer which even does not answer the question set in this article, but user Vexorg believes in it as in holy document, mainly because it shows the lowest figures he could possible find.
4. With regards to Vexorg words above, where he says: We must consider what's best for the reader. Personally I believe it is better to show the reader some figures which show a range of estimates, rather than no figures at all. I am expecting him in near future to publish statistics on Elephant population in Africa - by country, he will then argue that in order to be a Christian you have to be an Elephant. He believes that by doing so users will have a wider range of figures to compare.
5. I personally believe we should not mislead the user by using figures on completely different topics and arguing for them by creating our own definition, like user Vexrog did in this article.
6. What we must do however is to use sources which are answering on question on the number of Christians, and which are trustworthy sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, CIA factbook, International religious freedom report and National Census figures. By doing so we would have at least 2-3 sources for each figure, with the minor difference between numbers. However, this is forbidden to do in this article as user Vexrog believes only in holy Eurobarometer - as an etalon of Christian estimates although authors of Eurobarometer research said that is inappropriate for this purpose.
7. Because of user Vexrog we can not substitute inappropriate Eurobarometer figures by even two others figures from very very very respectable sources. Andreyx109 08:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I will ask you AGAIN to stop making allegations of Anti-Christian behaviour!!! WP:AGF WP:NPA - Do I have to report you for this?Vexorg 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC) What makes the CIA FActbook 'trustworthy' ?? - For most of it's figures it does NTO cite any sources. The same goes for the International Freedom Report and Encyclopedias like Encarta. YOu are using the logical fallicy of Appeal to Authority with these publications. I have NO PROBLEM with census figures, even though some of these figures are old and out ofdate due to the dynamic nature ofVexorg 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Andreyx109 consistently refuses to believe that the CIA figures are, in the majority of cases not sourced and there fore cannot be held as a reliable source.Vexorg 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Vexrog, please don't make me laugh so much again! As always you are criticizing all the possible source – from: Britannica (no sources) – to: Census (too old). I know that you only believe in holy Eurobarometer - but DO NOT FORGET - Eurobarometer IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS ARTICLE (i can forward you the e-mail from Eurobarometer TEAM confirming it).
2. Moreover Eurobarometer states: Four in five EU citizens have religious or spiritual beliefs. In fact, over one in two EU citizens believe there is a God (52%) and over one in four (27%) believe there is some sort of spirit or life force. - It is only by CREATION of your own definition you have downsized the number of Christians..
3. Overall you did all you could to maximum downsize the number of Christians in the World overall and in Europe especially. Andreyx109 10:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest with your lack of WP:AGF & WP:NPA will you! Is there something wrong with you? Vexorg 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Explicitly: re Eurobarometer

To ANY editor(s) supporting the use of Eurobarometer in this article: I am seeking an answer to this two-part question, and no other:

How are the figures (cited as from Eurobarometer) derived from the figures in that source? Example:

Belgium 38% (approx)

BE;

I believe there is a God: 43%

I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force: 29%

I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force: 27%

DK: 1% (cut off on PDF)

What is the source for that method?

Please note: I am NOT looking for your reasons for believing that this source is reliable or how it compares to any other source. Mdsummermsw 14:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Approximation was made by taking the figure of those who believed in a god and deducted 5% based upon the reasonable assumption that Christianity was the big majority for European countries. I have made the effort to make sure the reader knows the Eurobarometer figures are an approximation based upon the number who admit to believing in a godVexorg 21:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you take the percentage cited for "I believe there is a God" and subtract 5 -- x% becomes (x-5)%, not x% becomes (x% - (5% of x%)). So 85% would be 80%, 15% would be 10%. Correct?

Also to confirm: this method is your idea, not from some other source. Correct?

Mdsummermsw 16:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes correct in both instances. Vexorg 17:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Explicitly: re World Factbook

To ANY editor(s) supporting the use of World Factbook in this article: I am seeking an answer to this two-part question, and no other:

How are the figures (cited as from World Factbook) derived from the figures in that source? Examples:

Albania 27% (approximate)

Albania; Muslim 70%, Albanian Orthodox 20%, Roman Catholic 10% note: percentages are estimates; there are no available current statistics on religious affiliation; all mosques and churches were closed in 1967 and religious observances prohibited; in November 1990, Albania began allowing private religious practice)

Belarus 85% (approx)

Belarus Eastern Orthodox 80%, other (including Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim) 20% (1997 est.)

Belgium 84%

Belgium Roman Catholic 75%, other (includes Protestant) 25%

What is the source for that method?

Please note: I am NOT looking for your reasons for believing that this source is reliable or how it compares to any other source. Mdsummermsw 14:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As I am actually interested in this article being improved rather than culled to fit a biased view I shall attempt to answer. The figures in the article derived from the CIA Factbook in the cases you state above, and others, have obviously been arrived at by a guesstimate. Persaonlly, in the same way as the Eurobarometer figures, I prefer there to be these guesstimates than no figures at all. As long as the reader is fully informed that the figures are guesstimates of course. Vexorg 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. However, that does not explain how the figures were derived or provide a source for the method. - Mdsummermsw 20:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Monaco

The first source for Monaco does not give the figure cited (22.5%). It actually does not give a number at all.

The source says:

"...population of approximately 32,100. Catholicism is the state religion, and most of the approximately 7,200 Monegasque citizens living in the principality adhered to that religion..."

7,200/32,100 is 22.4%, but that's the percentage of the population that are citizens. "...most of the...citzens living in the principality adhered to (Catholicism)." Mdsummermsw 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Further Arguments...

I have moved the following two exchanges from the section Explicitly: re Eurobarometer in order to not clutter up proper resolution with tedious circular gainsaying which is not getting us anywhereVexorg 14:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Vexorg, all this figures in this article are your own opinion, your own assumption, your own definitions, your own consideration, your own approximation - to sum up this article is nothing else BUT your OWN opinion - without any supporting evidence, except the Eurobarometer which is inappropriate for this ARTICLE even the authors of Eurobarometer comfirmed it. Andreyx109 09:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have stated the reasoning behind the use of the Eurobarometer figures. Please refrain from repeating yourself 'ad infinitum' and making yourself look unbalanced. I am trying to have a sensible and adult resolution to this dispute. Instead of constantly accusing me of WP:AGFand hurling WP:NPA because it doesn't fit in with your world-view, why not answer the question(s) set out by Mdsummermsw in Explicitly: re World Factbook below ?? Vexorg 13:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed ....

Mdsummermsw I notice you are replacing references with a [citation needed] suffix. While this is technically correct it renders the figure completely meaningless. Fro example EAST TIMOR 93% anyone can simply replace the figure for East Timor with a random percentage and add citation needed. What's the difference between EAST TIMOR 93% ] and EAST TIMOR 1% ???? I disagree with this approach. While the CIA Factbook and Religious Freedom Reports do not source their figures, the reader can at least see where the figure has come from. Vexorg 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

East Timor, Eritrea, Guatemala, Iran, Lesotho, Niger, Panama and Cyprus did not have sources listed. All I did was add the {{Fact|date=March 2008}}.

Mdsummermsw 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. There are CIA Factbook figures for these countries though. Surely better then a completely meaningless figure?? Vexorg 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

East Timor - Not listed.

Eritria - "Muslim, Coptic Christian, Roman Catholic, Protestant" (no numbers).

Guatemala - "Roman Catholic, Protestant, indigenous Mayan beliefs" (no numbers)

Etc. I guess that's why they had different sources before. I haven't looked for all of them in Factbook, though. As I've previously noted, I will not be synthesizing figures. - Mdsummermsw 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Eurobarometer RfC

Hi, I am an uninvolved party to this article, but it is quite clear to me that the use of the Eurobarometer figures in this article is both logically flawed and contrary to Wikipolicy for the following reasons:

1. The poll asks about belief in God, not religious affiliation, yet it is used here as evidence of numbers of adherents to Christianity. That is original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
2. The editor in question has acknowledged that he has not even used the figures from Eurobarometer, but has made adjustments based on his own personal opinion. That is original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
3. The highest percentage figure on the scale (95%) belongs to Turkey, a country where less than 1% of the population is Christian. This wide disparity demonstrates that the Eurobarometer figures provide no reliable indicator of numbers of Christians.
4. It is wrong to assume, as stated in the article, that “someone must believe in God to be a Christian.” Many people will answer these questions differently; for example, a good deal of atheists and agnostics still consider themselves Christians (or Muslims, Jews, etc.) culturally or by birth. This is well illustrated by the figures in the chart for the United Kingdom: over 71% describe themselves as Christians, whereas no more than 38% describe themselves as believing in God.
5. It is wrong to assume that the poll figures used even reflect numbers of people that believe in God. The question posed was: “Which statement comes closest to your beliefs?” So positive respondents would include many agnostics, people who would like to believe there is a God but are not sure and/or people that think that God is more likely to exist than not.

I hope this helps. I understand that Vexorg thinks the CIA Factbook figures are no better, but it is a published source that refers to numbers of Christians, so its use here is compliant with Wikipolicy. It is important to keep in mind the core content policy of verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

I hope this helps. -- Really Spooky 21:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. You'll also note that Turkey doesn't use the Eurobarometer figures in this article because it is an Islamic country. the 71.6% figure for the UK was taken in 2001 while the 38% figure was taken in 2005. The CIA factbook figures are in most cases not verifiable either. It doesn't matter if the it is 'published'. Anyone can publish a figure. And there is nothing to suggest that the CIA is a reliable source. To suggest such is POV. CIA factbook doesn't conform to WP:RS Vexorg 22:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I realise that the Eurobarometer figures have not been used for Turkey in this article. It is, however, illustrative of the problem. Many European countries have substantial Muslim populations and/or people who believe in God but profess no religion at all or who don't profess to believe in God but consider themselves to be Christians culturally or by birth. There is simply no direct or reliable correlation between someone saying that "'There is a God' most closely reflects my beliefs" and being a Christian.

I also realise the figures for the UK are four years apart. But surely you do not suggest that more than one third of all Christians lost their faith in God in that time span?

As to the CIA factbook, it does matter if the figures are published, because otherwise they are unverifiable and do not belong on Wikipedia. When you say the CIA factbook figures are not verifiable, you are misunderstanding WP:V. It is the information in the article that must be verifiable against a published source, not the information in the source itself. Otherwise there would be infinite regress and no information could be included at all.

Whether the CIA factbook conforms to WP:RS or not, however, is immaterial to the question of whether the Eurobarometer figures are being used properly in this article. The Eurobarometer figures contain no information about numbers of Christians per country. -- Really Spooky 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

( most of )The figures in the CIA factbook contain no verifiable and reliable information about the number of Christians per country either.Vexorg 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Russia is another example of the lack of any reliable correlation between belief in God and professed Christianity. The very same poll which gives the figure of those who consider themselves 'Christians' in Russia (78%) also shows that only 31% believe in God! Which is actually not very surprising when you consider that a majority of Russians are atheists although most consider themselves to be Christians culturally or by birth, e.g. because they were baptised as children or because they believe the 'religion of the Russian people is Christianity'. -- Really Spooky 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note: whether or not Eurobarometer is being used correctly in this article is completely unrelated to whether or not World Factbook is a reliable source. - Mdsummermsw 16:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it is against Wikipedian rule to use Eurbaromter in this article, however user: Vexorg does not follow this rule. Regarding the CIA factbook, although it might not be the best source of info, however it is respectful and trustworthy source and provide information on the topic which is represented in this article, and Eurobaromter don’t in any way, even the Eurobarometer team had confirmed it. Andreyx109 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Who says the CIA Factbook "is respectful and trustworthy source" ?? You? There are many who wouldn't consider an organisation like the CIA to be trustworthy at all. However the point is that the CIA Factbook does NOT source it's figures. They are not verifiable amd could easily be fabricated. Many of the CIA figures are simply estimates, as are those of the USA Dept. International religious freedom reports. Estimates. the Eurobarometer figures are also estimates. My contention is that it's better to have a range of estimates ( with full disclosure of their beign estimates ) than no figures at all. No oen os being deceived here.Vexorg 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vexorg, I will repeat. Under WP:V it is the information in the article that must be verifiable against a published source, not the information in the source itself. Otherwise there would be infinite regress and no information could be included at all. -- Really Spooky 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

no that isn't the case. The CIA factbook publishes figures that aren't verifyable. They could have been made up. It's NOTHING to do with infinite regress. Verifyable means ending up at a Poll or census. Some of the figures do end up at a poll/census. And yes you're right, technically there is no information at all..Vexorg 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if the CIA factbook information did not comply with WP:RS, however, that is no justification for using the Eurobarometer figures. The Eurobarometer figures contain NO information about numbers of Christians per country, and using your own personal (and faulty) method to 'extrapolate' that information is unacceptable per WP:OR. -- Really Spooky 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using the CIA figures as a justification to use the Eurobarometer figures and I never claimed that Vexorg 19:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Article is now becoming a bit pointless

Even though the edits made by Mdsummermsw are technically correct, and if we follow this line there are further removals to make, the article is now becoming pointless. We will end up with hardly any figures at all. OK, so be it if that's what people want. The article with it's estimates was a much better indication of how many Christians there are per country. The totals added up to roughly what most peopel would expect. Now we're going to get a total that is nowhere in the right ballpark. Vexorg 19:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to look for more sources with information on numbers of Christians per country, not to make one's own speculative estimates. The source material for the article may be thin at present but that is no reason to abandon it. -- Really Spooky 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In an ideal world your 100% correct and I would also like to see a full table with proper sources. Unfortunately in the majority of cases there aren't any sources. Only wild and unverifiable estimates. A few of us have been looking for proper sources for months. The reason the Eurobarometer and CIA Factbook figures were left in there was to complete the table and give at least some indication of the number of adherents, even if they were estimates. This has been my contention all along.Vexorg 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it took me about five seconds to find a source on Google, namely encyclopedia.com[12]. If you enter any country in the search box, it gives you articles on the topic from dozens of online encyclopedias. At least one of them, the 2005 World Encyclopedia (published by Oxford University Press), contains figures for numbers of adherents for various religions in each country. -- Really Spooky 09:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And where are those 2005 World Encyclopedia figures sourced from? They are probably circular references thsee encyclopedia makers are using from each other simply becuase there aren't any, not unlike the CIA Factbook. Encyclopedias like to be conmplete, and not have "figures not available" for most entries. None the less I did as you suggested and entered some countries at random and could only find surious figures that had no source or were estimates. Like I say a few of us have tried to find sources for months. I mean proper sources, not googles to yet another spurious estimate of dubious or no source. As proper piolls and censuses are done and published in the future I'm sure the article may become more complete.Vexorg 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Vexrog, it is ridicules, why should the world known encyclopedias and their reputation be questioned by you? What do you have against them? What you are saying here that you do not want to trust them because they do not provide sources? the Eurobarometer is a poll itself, which has asked well, a fraction of European population, but I am not going to discuss the statistical methods they have used, but, it is obviously that the Eurobarometer is not more respectful or accurate, (if can it be used at all in this article) (in the field on number of Christians per country) than any of the encyclopedias I have listed weeks ago . I believe that authors of those encyclopedias rigorously tested the information they have provided there and your arguments are nothing, but, your own opinion.

On another hand your arguments for using the Eurobarometer in this article are even more ridiculous, what are they?

1. Your definition : 'that in order to be Christian you ought to believe in god' who made you think so? Who gave you the authority to create such definition?
2. The next argument ‘it is more accurate’ it is easy to test this, lets take the standard approach and test your theory by comparison to other the researches on the same topic? I am well aware that non of the polls which are exist at the moment will be similar to the results you brought from Eurobaromter.

I guess what you gonna say is that you do not trust any other polls and encyclopedias? well it is your problem then! You are allowed not to trust but you do not have any evidence to proof their inaccuracy.

Finally, I totally support the way the article is being edited so far. Andreyx109 20:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Vexorg, I find your position confusing. First you complain about the lack of information in the article and removal of the Eurobarometer figures because they give the article 'at least some estimate' (even though they contain NO information whatsoever about Christians per country), and then when you are pointed to encyclopedia references that DO contain figures on numbers of Christians you object that they are unreliable. What is it that you really want?

I must say, however, that when you reject the encyclopaedic sources you are demanding a higher standard than that required on Wikipedia. You say that the source must also cite its own source. And what if it did? Using your logic, would not that source then be open to question too? That is what I mean by infinite regress. Or is it that you accept nothing less than raw polling data? But then how do we know whether the counts were accurate? Or that they weren't biased? Or that they weren't the result of a flawed methodology? Many countries don't even conduct any polls or census of religious affiliation, so an estimate is the best we will ever have. The point is that the estimate should not be one made by Wikipedia editors, because that is original research.

The standard on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability in the sense that the information included in Wikipedia must have already been published in a reliable source. I suggest you read WP:RS. I think it is uncontroversial that most encyclopedias qualify. -- Really Spooky 02:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Really Spooky says "Many countries don't even conduct any polls or census of religious affiliation, so an estimate is the best we will ever have." - Yes exactly. So why should one estimate be accepted over another one? There is no logical reason why an estimate made by Encyclopedia X should be anymore accurate than anyone else's estimate. To believe so is pure Appeal to authority. Because there are no polls or censuses in msot countries then obviously the figures these encyclopedias use are either 'stolen' from each other, made up or gathered from other dubious sources( sources which wouldn't pass a Wiki test ). Why shouldn't an encyclopedia provide a source. They obviously must have one if they are 'reliable' so why don't they provide it? Further, ( apart from the necessary funds ) what's to stop me from publishing an encyclopedia containing all sorts of statistics which are nothing mroe than my own guess and then qulaifying it to be a reliable source. Unfortunately I don't have the resources of the US government to do such a thing. Oh and if can quote WP:RS at me I can quote WP:IAR - WP:RS says "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." - Well in the case of religous adherency figures they don't have any facts to check. Again you have to be sensible when citing well known Encyclopedia X. If encyclopediaZ has reliable data on Religious observence then there will be a source for it. Asource which can be cited. Such as a poll or census. Vexorg 02:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Oh and there isn't 'infinite regress'in this case. The Encyclopedia cites it's verifyable source ifit has one. As in a poll or census which IS a source of information. End of story. Of course you could be pedantic and individually interview each of the people who entered the poll/census to make sure of their answer, but I think we're entering into the realms of sillyness with that scenario. Anyway an encyclopedia isn't a source of information it's a storage of information.Vexorg 03:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You could certainly publish an encyclopedia if you wanted to. However, it would not necessarily be a "reliable source.

The information in wikipedia must be cited from a reliable source: "works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If source X has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it does not matter whether they say where their data came from or not. If it is verifiable, presented NPOV and accurately cited to a reliable source writing in direct relation to the subject, we are done.

Mdsummermsw 04:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes but when the there aren't any surveys for religious adherence of Country X it doesn't matter if Encyclopedia Y has a reputation for fact checking or not, there are no facts to check. If there were then we would have the details of the actual survey that encyclopedia had checked it's facts on.Vexorg 01:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Taking a source that speaks to the number of people who say they believe in God and using it (with or without a homemade adjustment) to state an "estimate" of the number of Christians in a country is original research: it is not verifiable, it does not cite a source in direct relation to the subject. Whether or not the figures are "what most people would expect" (or "give some idea" or are "correct" or provide a "reasonable estimate" or...) is moot. It does not belong in wikipedia.

Unless and until Eurobarometer says something specifically about Christianity in various countries it is not a source for this article.

The same goes for some of the figures that had been cited to the World Factbook. Taking "X% Roman Catholic, Y% Methodist, Z% Jehovah's Witness, Q% other Christian" and using it as a source for "X+Y+Z+Q% Christian" is dubious. Multiplying that figure by a population figure to supply a number of Christians is original research. There are expected error rates in any poll, survey or census. You cannot add two figures that are, say, +/-3% and get a new figure that is +/-3%. It isn't necessarily even +/-6%. A polling figure that says "43% Roman Catholic with a margin of error of +/-3%" means there is a 95% chance the real figure is between 40% and 46%. Adding four such figures together gives you a number that is (roughly) 81.5% likely to be within a compounded margin of error (whose value depends on underlying data we simply do not have). 81.5% accurate is statistically worthless. Further, X,Y,Z and Q are rounded. 43.2% + 12.2% is not 55.4%, it's 55%. A population figure of 37,155,563 does not mean that anyone thinks that is the real number, it is the midpoint of the error range. Multiplying it by the X+Y+Z+Q figure, wrongly stated to the first decimal gives us a number that is, roughly, 77% likely to be within the compounded margin of error (which would likely be in the neighborhood of +/- 10 to 25%) PLUS errors from incorrectly carrying over four insignificant decimals. In short, for roughly one fourth of the countries, the figure given would be off by more than 10 to 25%. For one sixteenth of the countries, the figure given would be expected to be off by up to 32%. For one country in 64, we'd be off by up to 40%.

There are reliable sources out there that give figures. They all determine their numbers differently. Some ask "Are you a Christian?" Some use church membership numbers. Some ask "What religion are you?" and so on. Presenting all of these together in a table that invites comparing country A to country B is dubious. We need to draw clear lines, state documented discrepancies and avoid, at all costs speculating and estimating. "At all costs" will mean leaving a good number of countries blank.

Mdsummermsw 04:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand the maths :) - I was aware of the caveats of the Eurobarometer Poll. however I was also aware of the caveats of works like the CIA Factbook, adherents.com, etc which in general aren't sourced. Eurobarometer was simply providing the reader with a range of estimates and blance against the estimates of the CIA factbook. Also these caveats of both CUA factbook and Eurobarometer were clearly stated in the article so that the reader wasn't misled. Anyway I don't have a problem with the article as it is now, even though I preferred a complete table of estimates. What I do have a problem with is people saying publication X is a reliable source simply because they say it is a reliable source. Anything that relies upon the logical fallacy of Appeal to authority only shouldn't erally be in articels of this sort as it opens up the floodgates for personal and poitical bias.Vexorg 01:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1