:Well, it certainly looks like a "non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank". Arguably for the non-BLP issues for which it is cited, an appropriate source, though one could also argue for attribution reasonably.  Except that a number of sources report the same thing, and it doesn't seem to be controversial. I've added a few of the parallel supporting refs. As with articles on religion, it is of course to cover both (if the case) their thousands of years, and their more-recent "in the news" appearances. If more recent appearances in the news of other religions are reflected in the media, they should be reflected as well. Though of course on Wikipedia, there is no deadline.