Talk:Islam by country/Archive 1

message: Why is this cult allowed?It eliminates other religion followers ,once it's followers achieves critical mass.India is the largest muslim population unofficially.there are illegal immigrants from pakistan ,bangladesh in India.21% of India Population is islum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.2.249 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Have a look on this numbers:
7 	Nigeria 	64,385,994 	45% 	Iran 	98% 	67,337,681
8 	Iran 	64,089,571 	98% 	Algeria 	99% 	32,206,534
What is the real population of Iran?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.167.9 (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Something is wrong

message: The source for most of these stats is CIA Fact Book. That's where I got this data initially. 
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
Later, the rest of the stats were filled from 
http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_321.html#2058 OneGuy 19:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: *Just out of curiosity, where did the Japanese percentage come from?   760,000+ Muslims in Japan look like a pretty huge number. PMLF 19:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Immigration not a conversion might be a factor. I know a few Muslims on the internet who claim to be from Japan. Most of them are immigrants from Pakistan, India or Middle East OneGuy 05:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan

message: By the way, PMLF, can you post the source for 0.03% Muslims in Brazil? I was unable to find the 2000 census result on the internet.  OneGuy 18:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil

message: For or a comparison see User:OneGuy/Christianity by country  OneGuy 20:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity

message: I changed many of the percentages to US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004 . 
These reports are more up to date than both CIA factbook and adherents.com. I also found them more accurate. If anyone finds an error (in most cases a typo with percentage), let me know OneGuy 04:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any explanation for the large (75%) change in the Serbia and Montenegro? Does the new list exclude Kosovo? - SimonP 04:30, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
75%? It's 5% and was taken from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35482.htm
The Muslim faith is the second largest in Serbia and Montenegro, with approximately 5 percent of the population, including Slavic Muslims in the Sandzak, and ethnic Albanians in Montenegro and southern Serbia.
OneGuy 04:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: changed percentages

message: That was bad :) The above link I gave clearly says that Kosovo was excluded and the rest of the population is 5% Muslim OneGuy 06:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Montenegro's 2003 census, almost 70 percent of its population is Orthodox, 21 percent is Muslim, and 4 percent is Catholic. OneGuy 21:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbia and Montenegro

message: Puerto Rico is not an independent country, and therefore shouldn't be given special treatment. Maybe I can make some of the accompanying text small. So it doesn't screw up the tables. WhisperToMe 05:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Puetro Rico is part of the USA, and maintains a semi-sovereign status. —thames 23:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico 

message: The map on this page fails to show France, Guyana, and Suriname all of which have a Muslim population of over 10% and is confirmed. 
Confirmed you say? Please provide proof of the "confirmation" - you would seem to be in possession of information no-one else on the entire planet has. 90.242.28.201 03:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: About Anon Editor's revert.  If there is controversy give a source for the 1-1.5 million because that is a huge difference from 27,000.  So, give a reliable source for alternative population counts.  Using "unofficial estimates" is far too vague, so, just cite it. gren グレン 03:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you might not think the statistics are true, but I am sure that various community leaders whether they be Muslim, Catholic or Jewish have a rough idea about how much of the populace is in their community. Also discussion does not count as an article. Think of discussion as a forum discussing the actual article. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil-2 

message: What precisely is the necessity of these Islam by nationality articles? It is the only religion that gets this special treatment by Wikipedia (the Christanity one doesn't dedicate near enough dialogue to come close - and every other religion is ignored).
At best these articles should be reintegrated into the cultural segments of their individual nations and the larger data should be integrated into the Islam article - rather than maintaining this larger seperate structure. However some of this information is completely useless and should be disgarded if it cannot demonstrate a real and concrete impact on the nation in question e.g. Puerto Rico.
-----
Well, you can start your own page dedicated to enlightening people about Christianity in every nation of the world. No body is stopping you from doing that!!
-----
There is an article about Christianity by country.  There is a separate article about Catholicism by country.  There is an article about Lutheranism by country.  There is an article about Jehovah’s Witness by county.  I stopped checking after that.  Just another ranting moron who cries when factual normative statements are made that encroach on his pathetically narrow world-view.  Try Free Republic’s website so you can insulate yourself with others who will only discuss world matters in terms of Daniel Pipes’ “clash of civilizations” wet-dreams.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.73.15 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose? 

message: Where do the figures come from? I remember reading somewhere that Bangladesh had a greater Muslim population than Pakistan (though those figures could be out of date, as Bangladesh's population is no longer larger than Pakistan), and I'm pretty sure that Bangladesh's Muslim population is greater than India's. ςפקιДИτς СФГиганты 16:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Population by Country 

message: *If that map is right than Islam is the majority religion in Kenya, Ethiopia, India, and F.Y.R. Macedonia which it is not. Pure inuyasha 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is inaccurate. 

message: "Listing of Muslims by country."
What the heck is need for this meaningless sentence? The Title already says "Islam by country." Pure waste 72.129.170.249 20:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: redundancy

message: The picture should make it clear that the green indicates 10% or more Muslim population (obviously not all of India is Muslim as this picture shows. When 10% populatoin is Muslim, the picture indicated that as green) 72.129.170.249 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now changed. Hope it's clear enough. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree it's not the most detailed map in the world, but it does correctly show countries which have a Muslim population of more than 10%. India is 13.5% Muslim therefore it is green. I think the map should be included in the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Where does the "Total" row comes from? Population column sums up to 6,430,856,221 (not 6,430,856,221) and summing of muslim population for every country gives slightly more than 1,497 milions (not 1,476,233,470). Computet from those two values (if correct) muslim share in world's population is slightly less than 23,3% (not 29,955%).
And now (29/06/2008) summing up country population column gives us 6,589,688,908 NOT a 6,671,226,000 as indicated in the "Total" row. Where this additiona 80 millions comes from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.252.2.237 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total 

message: According to the US State Dept religious freedom report, 1% (100,000) of Zambia's population is either Hindu or Muslim. According to the US CIA Factbook 24% - 49% (2,702,830 - 5,518,279) is either Hindu or Muslim. What nonsense. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zambia

message: How is it that the Caribbean has 15,000 Muslims, but Trinidad and Tobago has 65,000?  Does the rest of the Caribbean have -40,000 Muslims?  Guettarda 17:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional 

message: This country no longer exists - we ought to split it up.  I assume most of the Muslims are in Serbia (i.e., Kosovo?) john k 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia and Montenegro 

message: Why is the US listed as #41 on this list, when it clearly isn't? Ed Sanville 12:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See United states section above. It should be removed from the table, but I'm not sure what should replace it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States in Top 60 chart 

message: The map on this page has North Korea as very dark, while the page on Korean Islam says there is almost no Islam in North Korea. From what I understand about the country, the latter is probably correct. It should be fixed. Atropos 08:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: from the time of independence of india to the current day the indian leaders have said that the muslim population of india is greater than that of pakistan. we should remember that bangladesh was also a part of pakistn before 1971.and in that year the population of west pakistan (that is the current day pakistan) was 80 milliom and that of east pakistan (that is the current day bangladesh) was 90 million if we add that we get apopulation of 170 million in 1971 of which 90% were muslim or 153 million . so how many muslims are today in india ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman 0014 (talk • contribs) 
:At least, the population figure for East Pakistan (1971) stated above is *wrong*. The population of independent Bangladesh, according to the 1974 census, was 71.3 million .  Even considering the large number of Bengalis (between 1-1.5 million) (both Hindu and Muslims) killed by Pakistan Army in Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, the number was never above 75 million at that time. The population of west pakistan was lower than this, as Bengalis were 56% of the population of united pakistan. --Ragib 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a plainly wrong report from an Islamophobic site. Statistiki 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  population of muslims in india 

message: How can these figures be accurate when 0.1% of the population in Afghanistan is Christian? The figures in the table states that Afghanistan is 100% Muslims are Islamic. --Canadia 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the United States figures above and in the table. This article really needs the references for the numbers for each individual country to be identified and labelled. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No one with even the most elementary understanding of demographics, or common sense for that matter, would believe that ANY country would have 100% of the population with the same religion. Even just the margin of error here would make that suspect. Not a single Afghani is non-muslim? I doubt it. Obviously these figures are wrong and need to be corrected with reliablee statistics. 72.227.6.34 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about rounded figures here. Similarly if we were to say 99% doesn't mean that there are exactly 30746427.03 Muslims in the country. Generally speaking, when a number is given as 100%, it meants that the actual figure could be any from 99.500.....% and larger... If you have accurate info 0.1% of the Afghani population is Christian then please cite it. Please note that 0.04% for example is not 0.1%. It's more accurate to say there is 100% Muslim then 99.9% if the the actual figure is 99.96% (I'm not saying this is the case, I have no idea, I'm siply giving an example, obviously it would be better to say 99.96% if this were the case). Nil Einne 09:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To avoid further confusion, I added the word nearly so it now says nearly 100%. Although it isn't necessary strictly speaking, I feel it's better to avoid confusion with people who have a limited understanding of stats. Until and unless we can find better figures I suggest it be left at that. Also if we have conflicting info from equally reliable sources we can't just ignore one because we don't like it. For example, if someone says Afghanistan is 0.1% Christian and someone else says it's 99.99% Muslim, and both of these are equally reliable we have can't ignore either. In a case such as this, we would probably use the 99.99% figure and mention that some sources claim Afghanistan has 0.1% Christian (and that this doesn't add up). Again this is just an example rather then a real case but is illustrates the point Nil Einne 10:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at the CIA book and it's highest estimate for the number of non Christians is 8k. This is only about 0.025% so way below the 0.1% figure quoted above (and this is the highest estimate). There is also a small Sikh and Hindu population but I didn't read in depth Nil Einne 08:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy of the figures

message: Both http://www.islamicpopulation.com and http://islamicweb.com/ are unreliable sources and should not be used for this article. They both claim to have got statistics from the CIA World Factbook, but in reality the figures they present are completely divorced from the reality of what has been published by reliable sources. Martin Jensen 10:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to ask, where does the number of 200 million come from? The source is obviously POV, doesn't reveal its sources, and isn't peer reviewed. That makes it an unreliable source. Martin Jensen 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with what you already said, why would anyone believe a website that claims to gets its facts from the World Fact Book when in actuality, it greatly differs from it.  And how could China have a scentific census in the 1970s period when there was so much going on in the country (Cultural Revolution anyone?). --Indefinitevirtue 15:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: These Islamic websites are POV, because if they claim to get its informations from the CIA World Factbook, why would they distort the population figures and fill in other estimated figures?  The CIA World Factbook's statistics are official population findings, and are used by the majority of references works, it is at least more credible and neutral than those listed websites.--67.2.149.250 18:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: Balthazarduju, Indefinitevirtue, and 67.2.149.250, user:Joycedula, user:Godardesque,  user:Andrepalis, and IPs on the ranges 67.2.145.xxx, 67.2.148.xxx, and 67.2.149.xxx are all the same person. -Will Beback · † · 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable sources

message: In the above list Afghanistan's given rate is 100% but in the top 60 list it's 99%. Can someone explain that? --Theguys 06:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan 

message: Hi all. I would just like to reiterate a point made briefly above - when citing POV against any sites which probably do have a bias towards the religion, one should consider the question, why should the rest of the world, i.e. non-Americans consider the CIA facts as being NPOV? If for some of you, to consider sites which defend the faith as being biased is a problem, then for others, to consider sites by people they view as attacking the faith, will also be biased. I hope I make some sort of sense. I'm not arguing for either view here, but just making an observation. Be considerate. The-pessimist 15:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability 

message: Wow, is this article always being edited like this?  I'm not sure what the correct figure is for the U.S.; Adherents.com gives 0.5%: 1,558,068; the World Factbook apparently rounds to the nearest percentage, so it just says 1%.  Has semi-protection been considered?  It seems way too easy for anon editors to randomly change a number here and there, and if nobody notices immediately, it's the sort of thing that's really hard to catch in a later review. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is mostly full of made-up numbers, and has been for a while. Registered editors randomly change numbers too. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism and semi-protection 

message: It is mentioned in top 60% by population and in Islam by country, but no there.
It should be on position #51 
Kazakhstan 	47%      7,137,346 
Now I have no time to change all table - could anybody do it?
91.90.179.77 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no Kazakhstan in top 60 by %Muslim 

message: The Muslim population of France seems high. The French government, you know, the Government of France, states thats that the population is 4m, which is about 6.9%, not the 10% given by the CIA.  . 
I addition, on the list of top sixty countries, ANOTHER figure is given...at 7.5% of the population. A degree of consistency?
I am sure it is possible to find more accurate data from within the French stats websites, and given the politisation of Islam with regard to demographics (ie how right wing yanks think that Europe is about to become a Caliphate) a more accurate picture should be presented. 
I do not like the over-reliance on US sources, the CIA fact book in particular. We should be going to nations states which have more accurate demographic date, constructing a more accurate picture.   
Matchrthom 11:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  France = 10%? 7.5%? 6.9? 

message: Predominant of Cham ethnic people and a little of South Asian descents are Muslims.And about 60-70% South Asian Muslims as Indian,Pakistani,Tamil,v.v...They have converted almost  to Buddhists or few poeple have converted to Hindus.Why they have converted?Because they say Islam is very hard,complicated and savage!The official estimate as 2005 of Muslim population of Vietnam's government is only under 70 thousands (nearly 0.08% of Vietnam's population)
Source: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.186.235.168 (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim population in Vietnam is not as high as 0,85% 

message: Around 40-50% of the Albanians are Muslims. The percentage of Atheists under Albanians with a Muslim background is higher than under Christian Albanians, however to claim that only 10% of the Albanian population is Muslim is ridiculous. Statistics on Adherents.com shows that religion is growing in Albania. Although these figures are not very accurate. 82.156.71.144 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Albania

message: I see that we now have a new source of numbers for a certain country, not one of the sources which we say we use, which also happens to be considerably lower than the sources that we DO say we use (0.08%, as opposed to the CIA's 0.1%, and adherents.com's 0.25%, 0.7% and 1%).  I just wanted to remind editors how we get our figures.  We use the US State Dept., CIA Factbook and Adherents.com figures, and, in case of conflicts between them (which there usually are), try to come up with a compromise between those figures which are recent and appear reliable.  We do not try to minimize or maximize figures.  A few times in the past I have found editors (most often anonymous IPs) systematically altering the numbers up or down for multiple countries.  If I notice that happening again, I will refer to the talk page when reverting the edits, so that it will be clear what my reasons are.  Thanks, Poindexter Propellerhead 04:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting silly with highball and lowball numbers 

message: Hi!I hope I and you will work together to make the new census of Muslim population with more exact census from many neutral and justice sources,fairness,truth because Muslim population is over 1.5 billion is very LIAR and BIASED CENSUS!
I will find the source and you will edit new census of population as 2007 and both of us will calculate it soon.Here is the census of World population as 2007:
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl
I hope you will allow to combine with me!Thank so much!
I hope the happiness to you.Good luck!
:Thanks!  I've actually already collected around half the world's data from all three sources, so most of what remains to be done is the calculating (population*percentage) and entering it into the page.  I have absolutely no idea what the outcome will be, but I really want to see it done right.  No more out of date population numbers, and no more percentages which get changed all the time.  We should be able to get this page to where we know that it's true to the sources, and needs nothing more than occasional population updates. Poindexter Propellerhead 12:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message to Poindexter Propellerhead 

message: Bhutan is an Buddhist country with about 97% is Buddhists,2% is Hindus and only under 1% is Muslims maximum (1% is enough high)!No more no less!
:According to all of the sources we use (CIA, State Dept. and adherents), Bhutan is at least 25% non-Buddhist, so for purposes of this page it should not be listed as 97% Buddhist unless you can bring the US government around to your way of thinking.  Bhutan is a terrible mess to keep track of anyway, the CIA says that some population estimates are as low as 810,000, while theirs is 2.33M.  That's part of why we use standardized sources.  Not only are they fairly reliable, but it prevents revert wars where different editors pick and choose between wildly divergent figures from different sources. Poindexter Propellerhead 12:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the "US Government" shouldn't be the only possible reliable source on this subject, nor should convincing the US government be the only way to change demographic information about a country.  That being said, the anon ought to provide an actual source for his or her claims. As currently presented, the claim is being made entirely by assertion, with  no evidence being provided at all. john k 22:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, under the existing policy of this page, the US State Department and the CIA Factbook are the resources of first resort, with adherents.com figures being used in desperate cases (see discussion at the tail end of "Disputed numbers" above).  If you know of a comprehensive, authoritative and relatively unbiased source which should be considered, now would be a great time to bring it up. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not, but we certainly shouldn't a priori exclude them. john k 00:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, the UN population estimate for Bhutan is 670,000, which is what we use on the  Bhutan page.  I'd also note that the CIA basically says there's no Muslims - 75% Buddhist, 25% Hindu, is what it says. john k 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked for the UN reference on the Bhutan page, but couldn't find the URL.  When I Googled "Bhutan site:un.org," the first match was this page: http://www.cyberschoolbus.un.org/infonation/index.asp?id=64 which says that the population is 2.257M, which is the same as the CIA's estimate as of a few months ago, and within 3% of census.gov's current figure.  What page should I be looking at to see a population of 670,000? Poindexter Propellerhead 01:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. - I agree that the a priori exclusion of sources seems undesirable from a philosophical perspective, but we do have changes made to these figures on a pretty much daily basis, with nearly none of them explained on the talk page, and only a handful explained in comments.  Without reviewing all of the talk pages and edit-time comments that have been made on this page, I feel pretty confident that avoiding biased/unreliable sources was one reason for standardization, and prevention of edit-warring was another.  I think it was a pragmatic concession rather than the philosophical ideal, but we can discuss changing that, too...  Poindexter Propellerhead 02:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Muslim in Bhutan! 

message: For a to-do list, "(details)" should be added after the countries' names' in the tables. Also, the total population of most countries are a year or two old, they should be updated along with the corresponding population of the muslims.Opticals 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: Since territories should be included in this article, should this page be redirected to something like "Islam by country and territory"?Opticals 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change article's name?

message: Problem: A good number of our statistics have no source listed for their figures.  
:Proposed Solution: If you make a change, you must source it.  Use Wikipedia's standards:Wikipedia: Verifiability, Wikipedia: Attribution,Wikipedia: No original research.In other words, the burden is on you, the editor, to show your change isn't your own point of view (POV), but is based on an actual authoritative source.  How do you know what constitutes a reliable source?Wikipedia: Reliable sources.
:Summary: If you make a change, you must source it.  If in doubt, hit the discussion board and find a consensus with us, your co-editors.  If you make a change and it isn't sourced, don't be suprised if one of your co-editors "improves" it.  If there is a dispute, we work out a consensus on the discussion page.  If that doesn't work we go to Wikipedia: Dispute Resolution to determine whose position is the most neutral.
Since this proposal is in line with / direct quotes from Wikipedia: Five Pillars and Category: Wikipedia guidelines, I don't expect much disagreement.  But, in the spirit of consensus, what say you all? (TS Brumwell 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem Resolutions 

message: I would like to make a complaint about the IP address 58.186.232.136. He has almost definitely signed on now as Opticans and has requested to block me. He is identified in the history of the article on more than one occassion with vandalism. He once said on the history page on the brief discription "All of the Muslims is worse than SHIT!And they are World's most dangerous terrorists!" To sum up, i would not like to be blocked.Opticals 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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:
#Christianity in France (51%-85%), Belgium (38-84%),etc...
#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)
replies: text: Actually, if you look at the scrutiny of sources section, you will see that the main source is going to be CIA Factbook, with a section for links to other figures. (TS Brumwell 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To TS Brumwell;so we will use the census from http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl soon and apply more than one figure in each country (as articles of Christianity by country and Buddhism by country did before).A example:
##Egypt: 90 (CIA,Religious Freedom) -94%
I like to invite some people to re make this article again!Thanks!
Angelo De La Paz 10:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions! 

message: As i have been working very hard these last 15 day putting together the new agreed stats (as of 01 aug 07), I was highly disappointed to find that not only is this page protected now, but people are posting without reading the previous posts.  We have already gone over the basic rules in the previous Problem Resolution.  The following are people who have put time and effort into this project: OneGuy, PMLF, SimonP, thames, Carioca, Afc, Itsalif, Pure inuyasha, zzuuzz, Guettarda, john k, Ed Sanville,  ArsalanKhan,  Statistiki,Canadia,  Nil Einne, Martin Jensen, Indefinitevirtue, One2one, Madman 0014, Islamic, Balthazarduju, Will Beback, Theguys, The-pessimist, Jim Douglas, Matchrthom, Poindexter Propellerhead, Opticals, TS Brumwell.
I suggest, we implement yet another page resolution:
Changes are not made without first discussing them.  In other words, post your proposed change in Talk section BEFORE changing.  Let there be discussions about future changes. (TS Brumwell 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. The only thing I'd add is that reliable sources alone are not enough; they need to be a very limited set of reliable sources. The 3 we've been using have, to one degree or another, everything in one place, so that looking up 100 countries is a pain, but still feasible. Additionally, it is all online and in English (yes, we DO have articles on religious demographics where you have to be able to read Serbian or Urdu or something to read the cites), which makes it possible to revert bogus figures. This is not an article that needs unilateral editing, it is simply a list (and a mature one at that), which needs annual updating. The page protection comes at a bad time, since it is in the middle of getting caught up on needed updates, but once it's updated, it should be able to remain completely static for months at a time. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. (TS Brumwell 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem Resolution: 2 

message: Nowadays,many foreign workers are working in Saudi Arabia where Islam is the state religion and all non-Islamic religions are prohibited:
*India (Hindu)
*Nepal (partly Hindu and Buddhist)
*Far East Asia,Indochina,Sri Lanka (Buddhist)
*Europe,North America,the Philippines (Christians)
##Saudi Arabia:over 99% Muslim could not right because with 3-5% Christian,1% Hindu,0.5% Buddhist and 1% others as Baha'imaximum of Muslim in Saudi Arabia could only from 92%-95%.
##Qatar:over 95% Muslim could not right too because with 8.5% Christian,1% Hindu,nearly 2% Buddhist and around 1% othersb maximum of Muslim in Qatar could around 86-87% no more no less.
(Please visit other articles of Christianity by country; Buddhism by country and Hinduism by country for more detail!
The Muslim populations in UAE,Kuwait or Bahrain were fine because it showed very exactly!
Angelo De La Paz 05:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam in Saudi Arabia 

message: Hi all!I've just finished to update new census of 2007 for articles of Christianity by country and Buddhism by country,now I am so tired after 3 days (over 2 hours per day).So,I will remake this article Islam by country on tomorrow and it may take me 2-3 days to making!These are main points:
*Only one source of 2007's census for all articles of religious populations (Christianity and Buddhism were finished,Islam and Hinduism soon but Islam first).That is from here:
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl
*The total World's population of 2007 is 6,671,226,000
*In some sects in "Table" part will show more than 1 figure from many sources (CIA,National Factbook,etc...) but not the sources of these websites:
##http://www.islamicpopulation.com/
##http://www.islamicweb.com/?file=statistics
And next update of Islam by country will take the census of 2008 (December).Any questions?
Angelo De La Paz 10:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Angelo, you really should read the rest of the posts.  I will summarize just a few points...The CIA Factbook is updated weekly.  The US State department updates their figures every couple years and for some departments, if they are frisky, will update every six months.  One rep at the State Department told me to go with the CIA figures.  So...  The problems that we are having, are that people keep changing the numbers without using sources, using sources that have no credibility, and making changes just to make changes because people say, "I live in ****, and I KNOW this figure is wrong!"   Hey, Appeal to an Authority (who isn't an authority) is a fallacy of basic logic.  What is currently on the table is that we use the CIA Factbook as the main numbers, and then in the next column leave space where people can put links to different numbers they find.  Quite frankly, keeping accurate track of Muslim populations around the world is part of my job.  That's why I volunteered to commit a few years to this project. (TS Brumwell 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The common ideas for all articles of religious populations! 

message: Gentlemen, according to the above mentioned policy, I am bringing forward a possible change for discussion, rather than just post it.  I propose we change the opening paragraph in order to bring it into alignment with our current policy.  I propose we change it to something along the lines of the following:
:Islam by Country
:This is an article about the population of Muslims around the world.  You will find that the numbers are broken down by region, by country and by percentage of population.  Although the gathering of statistics is considered a science, people use different methodologies and theoretical formulas.  Therefore, different people get different numbers.  In order to ensure the readers some level of confidence in our figures, we have decided to select one primary source, and then list links to other authoritative sources in order to enable the reader to observe the variances.
:The primary source used in these breakdowns is the CIA World Factbook.  Some readers may want to know why we have chosen this as our statistical reference.  The primary reason the CIA World Factbook is utilized, is because it is not only an authoritative source, but it is also updated weekly.  Other sources that were considered were the US State Department figures, Adherents.com, the US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report and the US Census Department.  The reason the US State Department wasn't chosen, was because their statistics/numbers are updated irregularly.  A small number of country departments update their numbers around every six months, while the majority update their numbers every year or so.  Also, the US State Department regularly uses and references the figures in the CIA World Factbook.  Adherents.com was not chosen as the primary source because it is seriously out of date and very few--if any--sources are quoted.  The US Census Department was not chosen because its figures are based on the census, which takes place every ten years.  Furthermore, the US Census Department and their International Data Base (IDB) falls under the US Department of Commerce.  (optional) The US Department of Commerce is not known for their foreign intelligence gathering or their ability to balance the US Trade Deficit.
:Please rely on these numbers with caution.
(TS Brumwell 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion: Possible Change 

message: Individuals are posting changes on this page without discussing them, and without reading prior posts regarding what is published.  New editors are more than welcome here.  However, we need to come to a consensus before "dramatic" changes are made.  
The sheer number of disagreements, reverts and good intentioned changes this article has undergone and is still undergoing are proof that people are unwilling to try and come to a consensus.
Please, when you have a suggestion...post it in the discussion page first.  We can make this article a shining example of cooperation and neutrality.  We can make this article respected, in reference to our numbers.  We can make this article a joy to edit.  However, we can accomplish none of these things without consensus, discussion and compromise.
(TS Brumwell 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent posts without discussion 

message: Sorry to bother ya'll.  I was a bit curious about Islam so I started adding up the numbers.  I am having trouble making heads or tails out of them.  Either my calculator is deep fried or things just aren't addin up right.  
Just thought I would mention it in case nobody noticed.  (Patricia Op 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! Welcome, Patricia.  I know what you mean.  This page can get into a jumble at times, but we're hoping to get some sort of consensus going and possibly get all the numbers reconciled.  If your planning on staying around, we could use all the help we can get. (TS Brumwell 00:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers? 

message: From reporter of IRF 2006 of US Department of States wrote:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71434.htm
The country's population is estimated at 4.5 million, approximately 85 percent of which are noncitizens. Approximately 85 percent of citizens were Sunni Muslim and the remaining 15 percent were Shi'a. Foreigners were predominantly from South and Southeast Asia, although there were substantial numbers from the Middle East, Europe, Central Asia, former Commonwealth of Independent States, and North America. Although no official figures were available, local observers estimated that 55 percent of the foreign population was Muslim, 25 percent was Hindu, 10 percent was Christian, 5 percent was Buddhist, and 5 percent belonged to other religious groups, including Parsi, Baha'i, and Sikh. 
In late 2001 the Ministry of Planning inquired about religious affiliation in its first federal census. According to a ministry report compiled in 2003 using data collected during the census, 76 percent of the total population was Muslim, 9 percent was Christian, and 15 percent was other.''
Here is the total Muslim number in UAE:
*85% of which are noncitizens: 4,444,011*85% = 3,777,409
*55% of the foreign population was Muslim: 3,777,409*55% = 2,077,575 [1]
*Approximately 85 percent of citizens were Sunni Muslim and the remaining 15 percent were Shi'a:
4,444,011*15% = 666,602 [2]
From [1] and [2]===> 2,077,575 + 666,602 = 2,744,177 or 61.75% in total UAE's population is Muslim.
Angelo De La Paz 07:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims in UAE 

message: To Angelo De La Paz. Why were my edits deleted? The numbers for Ethiopia came from the state department, the most cited source on this page. This should at least be cited as an estimate, even if u dont agree with it. No reasons were given for the other deletions.Opticals 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum percentage of Muslim in Ethiopia 

message: All non-Islamic religions is prohibited in Saudi Arabia but in more than 27 million, including an estimated foreign population of more than 8 million. The foreign population reportedly includes 1.5 million Indians, 1.5 million Bangladeshis, 1.2 million Filipinos, 1 million Pakistanis, 1 million Egyptians, 600,000 Indonesians, 400,000 Sri Lankans, 350,000 Nepalese, 250,000 Palestinians, 150,000 Lebanese, 100,000 Eritreans, and 30,000 Americans (Source: ).That means:
* Christianity: 4.5% or over 1.2 million Christians (Predominant of about 90% of Filipinos, Americans and Europeans).Read more in Christianity in Saudi Arabia
* Hinduism: 4.5% or over 1.2 million Hindus (Predominant of about 80% of Indians, Nepalese).Read more in Hinduism in Arab states
* Buddhism: 1.5% or over 400 thousand Buddhists (93% of Sinhalese people from Sri Lanka; remainders are from East Asian countries as China, Vietnam, Thailand, etc...).Read more in Buddhism in Middle East 
* Others as Sikhs, Baha'is, Jews, etc...all is common 0.5%
Overall Muslim numbers is including native Saudi Muslims and foreign Muslims (from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, etc...) is only 89% as maximum and it's 100% with 22 million native Saudi Arabian citizens.It means the numbers of Muslims is from over 22 million (100% of Saudi Arabia's citizens only) to 24.5 million (including foreign Muslims and citizens)
Angelo De La Paz 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims and non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia 

message: I have been trying to find a source that tells me if Pakistan or India has more Muslims today, but have not yet been successful. The current sources contradict either one another or the material on the page, for example "adherents.com " cites the Muslim populations as  
# Indonesia 	170,310,000
# Pakistan 	136,000,000
# Bangladesh 	106,050,000
# India 	103,000,000
and despite the fact that these figures do not appear on the page, it is referenced. In  addition, I can't seem to find where the current figures come from, my search of the CIA factbook was not successful, if these figures are on there and are the ones that are being taken as accurate, an actual link to the page should be made.
Not Worth Waiting For 04:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ranking of top Sixty Muslim Nations needs better referencing

message: I want to nominate this article as a Featured list on the basis of the WP:WIAFL. What's your idea.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated it here. please participate in it.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured list

message: Something is wrong with country clasification. According to the table Southern Europe consists only of two countries: Albania and Turkey. They should be moved to some other categories (f.e. Balkans an Middle East). Also Austria rather belongs to Western not Central Europe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.42.229.147 (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Souther Europe

message: I was going through the table of ascending order of most populated Muslim countries, on the left hand sid, the Saudi % is 100% but on the right it is 97%. Other data inaccuracies also occur. I don't know if it's been discussed above, but I didn't find it to be discussed. Kindly fix it. 
 User: Salvoray  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.160.87 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the table by percentage isn't strictly sorted by percentage. I don't know whether this is due to alterations to the order from the original source, or because people have changed the percentages (I should imagine some of them are controversial). Choalbaton (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Data inaccuracy

message: Humanbyrace (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of muslims is very inflated 

message: in the "Top sixty" section, the numbers given for percentages and population differ from each other in each column; eg in the "By population" column it states that bangladesh has around 132 million muslims, yet in the "By Percentage" column it states that bangladesh have 127 million muslims. This kind of contradictory info is throughout the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disparity between statitics

message: This article is just about mainly Demographics of Muslim countries, it is supposed to be about Islam around the world of countries, for example Asia or Europe, all of this is also available on Demographics of Islam. Islam by country, meaning the presence of Islam by country not by just demographics. Mohsin (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article (s) needs to be re-developed 

message: Catholicism is the major religion cristhian and your number is inferior to Sunni Muslims(the majority of Islam)!!! Islamics sunnis are + 1,5 bilion and praticants catholics are 1,4 bilions!!!(in Brazil, major country of catholics, the majority of the cristhians not are praticants)!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.54.68 (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cristanity not is a religion, because various religions

message: Now that the 1994 & 2007 census results are online, I'd like to update the figures on this page. However, the results have been questioned about their accuracy, with some believing that Muslims in that country were intentionally undercounted & numbers for the Ethiopian Church inflated. (It doesn't help that the CSA limited all other choices to "Protestant", "Catholic", "Traditional" & "Other" -- which lumps Jehovah Witnesses with Baha'i & agnostics.) Any objections, or suggestions on how to best add this material? -- llywrch (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising Ethiopia statistics 

message: http://www.scribd.com/doc/15738681/Feja-ne-Shqiperi1
According to the newest statistics, 70% of Albanians are atheists... so change that 70%...
And if you don't belive:
http://albania.generalanswers.org/
http://ithelp.us/Albania/?p=7
http://www.albanians.gr/forumi/index.php?topic=232.0
http://ateistet.org/shkrime/feja-dhe-statistikat-fetare-ne-shqiperi
http://www.tiranacity.com/shqiperia/pozita-gjeografike-mainmenu-147/486-besimet-fetare.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/nationprofiles/Albania/rbodies.html
http://www.usab-al.it/usab/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=327&Itemid=114  
--Dessy-The Hero's Land (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion in Albania 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion|Templates for deletion]] nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Lists of countries}}]] 

message: The list mixes up countries and regions. That is very confusing. The article should containe a list of countries and a separate list of regions. User:nielsle October 17th 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.116.115 (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I follow you; could you help us understand which ways you feel it is confusing?  The list shows an alphabetical listing of every country in the world, with the estimated Muslim population as per the Pew Research Center's October 2009 report Mapping the Global Muslim Population, the percentage of Muslims in the country, and finally the percentage of the global Muslim population that the country's Muslims make up.  As an example, Bangladesh has 145,312,000 Muslims in the country, they make up 89.6% of the nation's population, and those 145.3 million Muslims constitute 9.3% of the world's total Muslim population.  — Kralizec! (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list mixes up countries and regions 

message: I think the original policy of citing the State Department and the CIA world factbook should be restored, maybe along with the Pew Forum as a source. Much effort over the years went to making a table that showed a total very close to the total of the Pew Forum, off by only 11 million. The discrepancy could have been minimized if editors had been a little more diligent in updating the figures. Additionally and more importantly, the Pew Forum report is not going to be updated, while the mentioned sources are updated annually in the case of the State Department and on and off in the CIA world factbook.  Thus, in a year or two, the current data will begin losing its reliability. Opticals (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do not know how often the Pew Forum plans to update the report (their web site mentions releasing a global report on Christian populations next year), it seems natural for us to shift to U.S. State Department and CIA World Factbook sources in future years if their reports are updated more frequently.  However the Pew report has a lot of advantages right now because it provides all the information we need in a single location that not only cites it own sources, but also gives us an apple-to-apples statistical analysis of the demographic information for each nation.  Plus speaking from the ease-of-editing perspective, HaireDunya`s switch of the article from a HTML-based table to a wikitable decreased the article's size by over 76%, which makes it much easier to edit and update.  — Kralizec! (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pew Forum 

message: Pew is obviously not a reliable source and should just be ignored. These figures are completely unrealistic, misleading, wrong, fake, pooh. Not only that: figures have also been cited erroneously and incompletely: final result is quite ridiculous, obscene. Opicodor (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you help us understand why you feel that Pew's report is not a reliable, published source?  Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pew is not reliable 

message: BBC News confirms in 2005 the French muslim population was 5-6 million (8-9.6%), this artical says for 2009 France has a muslim population of 3.5 million (6%) hmm? I think something is wrong, especialy as French government sources for 2008 stated the French muslim population was 6-7 million (9-10%).
Also UK muslim population is 2.4 million (3.5%) in 2009 NOT 1.6 million stated here! Rademire2 (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The French government doesn't do religious and ethnic surveys so if it wants an estimate, it just considers people that originate from muslim countries as muslim (apparently the BBC uses the government estimates), it has nothing to do with the "comprehensive demographic study" the Pew Research Center has done, read .--Chrono1084 (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: France

message: The table doesn't have Vatican City. Someone needs to add it, I can already tell you that there are no muslims in Vatican so everything should be ZERO. Vatican city is a country so it should be on the table. Bolivia13 (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add it yourself if you want, provided you have a reliable source. Airplaneman  ✈ 21:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican City 

message: This is the second time this subject has been brought up about Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico isn't in independent country, it is a territory of the United States of America. Therfore, it is part of the United States. Sure its self governing, but every state in the United States is self governing. Puerto Rico has common wealth status. It doesn't have senetors and the people there can't vote for president, but they are considered United States citizins. Therfore Puerto Rico shouldn't have its own section. Muchas Gracias. Bolivia13 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the label in the table states "Country/Region". I'm guessing Puerto Rico is classified as a region. And please sign you comments with ~~~~, which you produce your name. Thanks, Airplaneman  ✈ 21:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico again