Talk:Christianity by country/Archive 1

message: I recommend that certain aspects of the table should be changed:
#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.
#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 Albania displayed as Albania.
#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)
replies: text:  As time Allows I shall check the maths for accuracy :)  Smeggypants 23:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Sweden 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  according to this , 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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) Patstuarttalk|edits 01:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. -Patstuarttalk|edits 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  CIA Factbook 1 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources From Religious Websites 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  the most Christian missionaries 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rounding Figures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: '''An Answer to Vexorg'''

message: 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)
thread_title: TOTAL FIGURE

message: Europe is missing. Please add Europe 24.166.188.29 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: By Region

message: The figure of Bangladesh is just wrong. The source provided is Charisma Magazine ??, 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: . 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)
replies: text:  well spotted! Thanks for updating Vexorg 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangladesh ?

message: According to UN, World population Prospect and several other reliable sources, the total population is over 6.6 billion. Sources . . --Itsalif 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  World Population ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Albania 

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)
thread_title:  Some suggestions! 

message: ---------------------------------------------
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)
thread_title:  No grounds for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Eurobarometer figures Again 

message: 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 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:
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title:  Source dispute WP:3O, Eurobarometer 

message: 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:
# 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
# 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:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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
# 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.
# Belgium is 84%, based on "Roman Catholic 75%, other (includes Protestant) 25%". Why? Heck, why not.
# 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:
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title:  Source dispute WP:3O, CIA World Factbook 

message: 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:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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).
# Inclusion of statistics should be on the talk page or commented out. It has no place on the actual article page.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title:  Source dispute arguments in article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mdsummermsw's Third Opinion - ''comment by Vexorg'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Explicitly: re World Factbook 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Monaco 

message: :: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Further Arguments...