Talk:Major religious groups/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Unitarian Universalism

Though the currant organisation was the result of a merger of two groups in 1961, both organisation have much older roots. While I agree with putting their foundation date a the date of the merger, perhaps there should be an asterix or something indicating that it is a much older movement? On the other hand, since it's listed as separate from Christianity, it should remain as is, since some of the earlier incarnation of the movement (or precursors of the movement) are decidedly christian. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.152.77 (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

World religions

Could someone please add the following picture: 

[[File:World-religions.PNG|thumb|350px|World religion by percentage]]

to the beginning of the page (so it could be right of the table of contents). Thanks, 178.223.123.111 (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC).

Question: Rather than having it in the lead, do you think this might be more appropriate down in the Major religious groups#Largest religions or belief systems by number of adherents section? BigNate37(T) 15:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, even though that's the most appropriate place by the section, it would take too much place in there. As for my proposal, not only that it's great having the similar picture in the beginning of the article (so you could instantly see the religious trends), but it's also the part of artcile which isn't 'filled up', so it will also 'fit in' well, for the sake of article's tidiness. 178.223.123.111 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Done: [1]. BigNate37(T) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Note to other editors: As above there is no consensus to use any other image at this time. Shii (tock) 04:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

208.74.179.208 (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC) This is a minor point, but the image used is somewhat misleading. No religion is a larger group than Hinduism, and should take it's rightful place directly counterclockwise of it, instead of being shoved in at the end like an afterthought.

Bahai section

The Baha'i section includes the following comment:

"the top ten populations (amounting to about 60% of the Bahá'í World Faith adherents) are (in order of size of community) India, United States, Vietnam, Kenya, DR of the Congo, Philippines, Zambia, South Africa, Iran, Bolivia.[28] See Bahá'í Faith by country."

The source cited is based on a 2005 extrapolation as follows:

India - 1,880,707
United States - 525,046
Kenya - 429,010
Vietnam - 394,029
DR Congo - 290,899
Philippines - 272,685
South Africa - 240,191
Iran - 228,614
Zambia - 224,2152
Bolivia - 217,553
Tanzania - 191,263
Venezuela - 170,187

However, two of these countries have more recent, lower, figures quoted in the article Bahá'í Faith by country and linked articles. Bahá'í Faith in Vietnam states "[the] communist government ... proscribed the practice of the religion from 1975 to 1992, leading to a sharp drop in community numbers ... As of 2011, it was reported that the Bahá'í community comprised about 8,000 followers". Bahá'í_Faith_by_country#United_States states "In the United States ... the official estimate in Feb 2011 was 169,130".

I want to avoid moving into original research territory too much so I would like to suggest the following revision based on the three sources:

"the top ten populations (amounting to about 60% of the Bahá'í World Faith adherents) are (in order of size of community) India, Kenya, DR of the Congo, Philippines, South Africa, Iran, Zambia, Bolivia, Tanzania and Venezuela.[28] See Bahá'í Faith by country."

<ref> <ref name="WCE-05">{{cite web| title = Most Baha'i Nations (2005) | work = QuickLists > Compare Nations > Religions > | publisher = The[[Association of Religion Data Archives]] | year = 2005| url =http://www.thearda.com/QuickLists/QuickList_40.asp | format = | doi = |accessdate = 2012-09-30}} adjusted for more recent figures available for Vietnam (8,000 - see [[Bahá'í Faith in Vietnam]]) and the United States (169,130 - see [[Bahá'í Faith in the United States]]) </ref>

Do others agree?

AndrewRT(Talk) 23:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure Shii (tock) 11:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
sorry I missed this but ARDA revised their numbers sometime in the last year or so without advertising why. So I was going around fixing them where I knew it was cited - almost all the estimated counts went up (note this is NOT adjusting to 2010 - this is adjusting the published numbers for 2005.) As for who produces larger and smaller numbers... I've no real references to clarify what and why ( plenty of individual opinion, but little or nothing stated scholarly) which also applies to the question of the accuracy of the ARDA data - a few places Baha'is are known to claim very different numbers than ARDA and in a very few places governments report different numbers too. I think a simple statement should follow one source and if there are complications deal with that specifically. So the adjustments based on numbers from other sources need a more complicated referencing. I don't think it gets into OR if referenced but it complicates reading a fair bit. BTW there was a scholarly review of the WCE which is the basis of the ARDA data - didn't look at the Baha'is themselves but as a total picture and was found relative fair and if there was any bias it was towards Christian counts rather than away to others like Baha'is (see reference 42 in the article.) So resolving the conflict of data as discussed the above is perhaps not simple at this time. Smkolins (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are some more

I thought of a few more religions that definitely have enough adherents to be listed here:

I would add them myself, but don't have time right now. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of those are arguably denominations. For example Druze is arguably an offshoot of Shia Islam, and some sources such as adherents.com describe it as a denomination. Pass a Method talk 17:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Druze is indeed an offshoot of Islam, in much the same sense that Baha'i Faith is an offshoot of Islam. Like Baha'i Faith, they also have their own set of Scriptures that Muslims don't use: see Epistles of Wisdom. They see themselves as distinct from Muslims, and Muslims see them as distinct from Muslims. What more criteria could you want. But there is a lot of ignorance regarding them (I just found all this out yesterday myself by chance) which is understandable because of their intense secretiveness, so to some distant observers they have long appeared as another type of Muslim, and therefore "lumped in" with the Muslims. The other religions I listed cannot be called denominations of Islam by any stretch, some are older than Islam. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The medium religions i added are all founded in the western world besides zoroastrianism. So it would bring diversity. Pass a Method talk 18:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, i would discourage adding highly syncretic religions to the table. This might result in a grey area regarding what is a religion and what isn't, subsequently resulting in denominations being added to the mix. Pass a Method talk 18:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't fully follow your reasoning. A syncretic religion is less of a religion, so it doesn't deserve to be listed at all - because then it might lead to mere denominations being added? Could you explain a bit more? One of the noted advantages of article space over categories or templates, when these kinds of thing come up, is that we can take as much space as we need to tweak it until we have a full explanation of all the little nuances, that accommodates everyone. (With a category or template, these problems can be thornier, because then it can be argued 'there isn't enough space'.) For example we can always make a note saying 'So and so argue that such and such is not a separate religion, but rather a denomination of this other religion, while xyz disagree'. We could even put borderline 'questionable or disputed cases' into their own separate section, for when sources disagree if something is a religion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking about religions such as Santeria.Pass a Method talk 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I looked over that article and don't see why they wouldn't be a distinct religion; they may be "influenced" by Roman Catholicism, but I suspect their movement is not in Communion with the Pope and the Vatican! I can't tell if they'd have the numbers to qualify for "medium sized" though, since it only mentions the 22,000 adherents in the US. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm less concerned with whether a group is a denomination or syncretic as much as it is "major", as in the name of the article. There is already a subsection on "medium".... But for the record I see Druze as an independent religion. Smkolins (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Guys, i've been thinking about changing the "main regions covered" heading to "founded" in the same was as the table for medium sized religions. Does anyone object? Pass a Method talk 08:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

March 2013 concerns

i don't seem to be able to type sedilla. not on this laptop. anyway, my name is isa kocher. this article contains a lot of opinions presented as facts. some of them inappropriate to an encyclopedia altogether. this is an uncceptable accusation couched in a statement. a political attack on science. not related to the topic.

quote: "This event was sharply criticized by European Orientalists up until the 1960s as "unscientific", because it allowed religious leaders to speak for themselves instead of bowing to the superior knowledge of the Western academic."

the entire paragraph is eurocentered ethnocentrism. there is no discussion of cross cultural conceptualizations of "religion" and religious groups. many cultures have no category of thought comparable to the western european, north american category. so the discussion rejects both objective science and conceptualizations of other cultures. badly conceived. badly organized paragraph altogether.

the other area of blatant ethnocentrism is the category of "folk religions" and the inclusion of confucionist and taoists belief under one heading, chinese folk religion. the official religion of the chinese empire can hardly be called a "folk" religion under any definition of "folk." taoism as a religious belief system is adhered to by turkic, mongol, japanese tibetan, and other ethnicities. so putting taoism under the rubric of chinese folk religion is meaningless at best.

the whole discussion of "folk" religion denies altogether autonomous local community belief and practice. it seem the term folk is being used to cover religions the writer just doesn't know anything about.


quote"Iranian religions (not listed below due to overlaps) originated in Iran and include Zoroastrianism, Yazdânism, Ahl-e Haqq and historical traditions of Gnosticism (Mandaeism, Manichaeism). It has significant overlaps with Abrahamic traditions, e.g. in Sufism and in recent movements such as Bábism and the Bahá'í Faith. " endquote. this is a hodgepodge of contradictory misinformation.

sufism's history is primarily within orthodox sunni islam. during the entire history of sunni islam, sufi orders and sufi thought were intricately tied to the state and clerical establishments. the four founders of the 4 jusiprudential traditions hanefi shafi malaki and hanbeli were sufis. imam al ghazzali is a sufi. salahuddin eyyube is a sufi. the most famous artists musicians and emperors were all sufis. throughout north africa throughout the arab countries under all the major caliphates the selcuk and ottoman periods sufism was regulated by the state. putting sufism in an iranian non-orthodox category is just a denial of islamic history altogether.

then there are the discussions of eact of the "world" religions as if they were monolithic. old believers and old catholics, malabar christianity, ethiopia, akkadean, chaldean christians, mormons, pennsylvania dutsch, mennonite, friends, swedenborgians, anabaptists, etc. each in their different ways represent very different, mutually exclusive traditions in world christianity. there are christian groups which do not accept catholic or orthodox hegemonies, or pentcostal hegemonies, but have two mellennium or longer traditions and hardly can be called folk religion. the catholics of hiroshima and nagasaki during the centuries of official persecution.

the entire discussion needs to be reconceived on an objective and international foundation. this one is narrowly ethnocentricised. which is what happens when you reject scholarship. most of the false statements and distortions have no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isafakir (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This article should simply be a straight-up, straightforward, impartial, NPOV description of the "Major world religions" and their accurate subgroups. Any psychobabble such as you described above, getting into ethnocentricism and bias and "opinion shaping" and all that, needs to be permanently pulled, and I will be happy to help pull it. It doesn't belong on wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2013

Under the 1821 map of the world, the caption currently reads "An 1821 map of the world, where "Christians, Mahometans, and Pagans" correspond to levels of civilization (Buddhism and Hinduism were not yet considered separate religions)."

This is incorrect, as Buddhists and Hindus considered themselves very different for at least 2000 years prior to that map. It should be edited to read "...not yet considered separate religions in the west/by many westerners," or some variation of this.

Thanks.Tcamp3000 (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Does the new wording work for you? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Medium-sized chart is unclear

The populations listed, at first glance, appear to claim that there are 500,000 Scientologists and 8-12 Jains throughout the world. Since the column can't be simply denominated in millions, how about actually writing out the entire number in each case? That would list Jains as 8-12,000,000, which is entirely more clear. I steer clear of editing tables, so I respectfully suggest a braver editor than I make the change.--~TPW 14:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Falun Gong and Medium sized religions

Is it necessary to present religions with less than 1 million adherents? I feel like this page has become more biased and not a neutral fact oriented page. And where is Kirat Mundhum (3-5 million), Falun Gong (90 million) and Korean Shamanism (4-5 million)? And Buddhism didn't originate in India but in the Indian Subcontinent (Nepal and India). Cookieballer (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)CookieballerCookieballer (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

For the first I guess you mean in Major_religious_groups#Medium-sized_religions - I agree it makes sense to trim or section off that to "small religions" though that runs against them being "Major religious groups". As for the additions yes they sound large enough for mention with citation of numbers as well as appropriate group membership. --Smkolins (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No, this page has been falsy changed. In 2011 Sikhi had at least 30 million adherents, and they are the most steadily growing religion in the world. Buddhism is not an Indian religion but a Dharmic religion originating in Nepal. Hinduism and Jainism should also be called Dharmic religions like earlier. The Baha'i faith was reportedly declining according to 2011 data. Zoroastrianism was dwindling almost to extinction, while Roman Catholicism was rocked by millions of people converting to mostly Buddhism, Native American religions, Protestantism or Atheism. This page has become highly biased and there is no reason to mention a bunch of religions with less than 1 million adherents. I will also add Falun Gong which had approximately 90 million adherents in 2007. Cookieballer (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO SHOW THEM THE LARGEST AND MEDIUM SIZED WORLD RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD. Cookieballer (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Atheism is a religion

I would like to revert this edit.[2] The edit summary is "From source reports 2.0% atheist, which should be under 'non-religious', not 'other'." Atheism is a religious belief - the belief that there is no god. Atheists are not "non-religious", they are "other".--Toddy1 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion; it is a philosophy or a non-religious belief system. If you can provide definitive sourcing to support your contention that atheism is a "religious belief", please do. I suspect you'll find that reliable sources—either in the religious studies field or among reference works like dictionaries that discuss the word itself—don't tend to support it. Rivertorch (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
When Atheism Becomes Religion: America's New Fundamentalists--Inayity (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say that no one likens atheism to a religion or that no one consders it one; I said it isn't one. The existence of one book—or ten, for that matter—isn't likely to change either my opinion or the general consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Curiously the CIA source itself in its definitions lists Atheism under non-religious - [3] so I tend to think to let the change stand (despite the fact that they listed them separately in the percentages.) --Smkolins (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
No it's not a religion. Good one. But still surrounded by many beliefs like you pointed. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2014

Change dharmic religions to Indian religions in demographic section since both are same and dharmic religions redirects to Indian religions. Use of both at different places is not required. 70.39.185.108 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Done by this edit. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 23:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Some listed as "Largest" should be "Medium-sized"?

Regarding the lists of "Largest religions" and "Medium-sized religions," it seems that a few of the "Largest" actually belong in the "Medium-sized" because of their listed sizes. These are: Seicho-no-Ie, Rastafari movement, and Unitarian Universalism. All three have fewer than 1 million followers. Their numbers would be better listed in "Medium-sized," where the number of followers is written out in thousands. Please comment below if you agree or disagree, or make the change yourself if you feel so qualified (I come at this from an editor's POV, not a religion expert). — Molly-in-md (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree. Just looking at numbers there might be another split though -

Largest by population

  • Christianity
  • Islam
  • Hinduism
  • Buddhism
  • Folk religions
  • Chinese folk religions
are all 100s-1000s of millions
and then we have the 1-10's of millions

Medium by population

  • Shinto
  • Sikhism
  • Judaism
  • Bahá'í Faith
  • Jainism
  • Cao Đài
  • Cheondoism
  • Tenrikyo
  • Wicca
  • Church of World Messianity

And we cut out religions less than a million. What do User:Cookieballer and User:Molly-in-md and others think of that? --Smkolins (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I like your idea of dividing the religion tabes so the largest are 100,000,000+ and the medium are 1,000,000-999,999,999. That would show which ones really are the heavy hitters on the world religion stage. That would also eliminate the smallest that several people have commented on (while very important to their adherents, fewer than 1,000,000 adherents does not constitute a "major" group). Falun Gong and others listed by User:Cookieballer should certainly be added to the medium list, if there are citations to back up their numbers. Note, however, that all the entries should be vetted -- upon clicking the link for the currently-listed medium religion of Church of World Messianity, for example, I discovered that they claim 800,000 followers rather than the 1,000,000 listed in the table here, so that group would drop out of this article. Maybe we could put a sentence at the end of the "Medium-sized religions" section to the effect that "There are many additional world religions of under 1 million adherents. Examples include..." and then list (in prose form) the religions that got pulled because of size? — Molly-in-md (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree to all the above - I didn't mean the list to be specific but was just based on what was there then and yes, of course, cited.--Smkolins (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree and we should add Shi'ism to the list it has 112,558,954 estimated followers, I think it would just meet the Large religions Alisalaah (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I respect that Shia Islam is a respected group within Islam but this article avoids getting into denominations. There are plenty of articles that get into those issues. I'm aware some denominations (so to speak) treat each other like different religions and highlight the differences and have had wars about it, but from a neutral point of view it is clear they are of a group. So Shia and Sunni and the smaller groups are of a singular group of Islam even if they don't agree with each other. --Smkolins (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014

Looking at the number of people practicing Chinese folk traditions, on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups) it says there are less than 400 million, but on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China) it says there are over 750 million. That doesn't seem right. 101.161.133.85 (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You're not requesting a change, you're requesting someone figure out the "real" number, which I assure you will never happen. Shii (tock) 17:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Shii, especially when it is about China, yes. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

"[Under the chart] Major religious groups worldwide, by percentage, according to The World Factbook (2012)[1] Reference is there but percentages are written wrong. Please change Christians (28%) to (33%); Muslims (22%) to (23%); Hindus (15%) to (13.8%); Buddhists (8.5%) to (6.77%)". 82.17.220.196 (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

needed further refinement but changes noted - keep in mind live sources update their numbers without a history of why or when. I added a second source that closely agrees. --Smkolins (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Well done. However, when someone click on the reference number 1 (World fact book or CIA), it goes to wikipedia pages of World fact book or CIA which do not contain the expected information. It would be convenient for the readers if official CIA world Fact book link (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html) is cited instead of wikipedia pages of World fact book or CIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.220.196 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
That's because you are supposed to click on the "1" vs the word "World Fact Book". And unfortunately if you navigate to that url directly it still goes to the main page which needs to be opened as before. --Smkolins (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
add Shi'ism to the list it has 112,558,954 estimated followers, I think it would just meet the Large religions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisalaah (talk • contribs) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
no Disagree Shi'ism should not be added to the list -- see Smkolins's reasoning in the section on 'Some listed as "Largest" should be "Medium-sized"?' Also, please do not repeat requests in two places, as this can cause confusion and duplication of effort. — Molly-in-md (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Article is worse again

This is just to note that the article now has the absurdly specific number of 932 million believers of "Chinese traditional religion", even though 38% of respondents refused the survey and only 16% of respondents (i.e. 216 million) had a belief in shen. The other statistics have been fudged with as well. Someone's obsession with statistics has made the table much worse. Shii (tock) 17:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I would remove all "religions" which are banning multi-faiths together. Such as Chinese Traditional Religions. B/c if we want to go down that road, why not group Islam, Judaism and Christianity into Abrahamic and get a grand total. I had this discussion on similar pages before. --Inayity (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
There's really not much we can do about the Britannica style labels for religion (Catholic and Protestant should be separate, etc.). People sweep through this page and mess with the numbers all the time. I've given up on it. Shii (tock) 05:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Catholic and Protestant certainly should not be separate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Why? They are opposed to each other in doctrine, and often on the street. If you can merge them, why not merge Christianity with Judaism? Shii (tock) 07:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I would agree they should not be separated, because that might be going to far. Christianity is Christianity, Islam is Islam as a block. B/c if we go down that road Islam would get split into Sunni and Shiite. --Inayity (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
And why not? Sunnis and Shias fight wars against each other and accuse each other of heresy, is it really appropriate to group them together? Shii (tock) 14:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Strange logic, b/c you are create a dichotomy based upon "fighting each other" it has no value. Moreover Sunni Kill other Sunni even more than they have ever killed Shiitte. (per history of Islam). As for accusations of Kufr etc, I can confirm as someone who knows Islam that Sunni consider Shiite a legitimate sect of Islam and vice-versa, just as Catholics consider Pente and others as still under the banner of Christians (not sure about JHW). --Inayity (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you consider a valuable dichotomy? Will you silence the Sunnis who say that Shias are not Muslim? Shii (tock) 18:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
If you are familiar with Islam or any religious community what do you supposed we do with the Sunni Wahabi who say other Sunni are not Muslim, or the Muslims that say Sufi,Ahmadiyya, and Nation of Islam are not Muslim, on and on. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to get into sectarianism. All we do is report RS which has a block called Islam and a block called Christian which is considered unanimously as unique independent religions. --Inayity (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
"Unanimously"? Even Adherents.com lists Sunni and Shia as separate. Shii (tock) 20:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure separate sects not different religions! [4]--Inayity (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the difference between a "religion" and a "sect"? Shii (tock) 22:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Protestants and Catholics are not opposed to each other on doctrine. There are varying doctrinal opinions among the different Protestant groups, and varying doctrinal opinions among the Catholics, but nine times out of ten they recognize each other as fellow Christians, and the tenth time the Protestant group is probably as much against various other Protestant groups as the Catholics. If you split Protestants and Catholics, there's nothing really holding the Protestants together.
Judaism and Christianity have been recognized as separate religions for about 1950 years. Christians usually consider themselves Christians first and foremost, and Jews Jews; no one would say "I'm a Judeo-Christian".
Likewise, Muslims tend to consider themselves Muslims, first and foremost. Unless your intent is to look at a fine grained separation, Christians and Muslims should make groups.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit

I checked the source for the bar graph (Pew Research Center) and the date the information was USED was 2012, but the date the information is FOR is 2010. I think this should be corrected on the top of the chart but I cannot make the edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eklipst (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014

Buddhism originated in India even though the founder was born in present day Nepal. This information needs to be updated. Dattaputra (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian Religions

The text here says "The main Indian religions are Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism" but the main article says "Indian religions are the religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent; namely Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism." "Main" implies others, "namely" implies no others. Are there others? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure over the centuries the subcontinent has produced many religions, but those are the ones that fall under the category of "Major religious groups".--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015

Please change Size of Major Religious Groups as Muslims population as 23.2 % now it is 25.2% for which the total count exceeds 100% that is 102.2%.I got this data from other links.( Islam 25.2%==>23.2%) Pranab mishra002 (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

0.2% Jews

The "Size of major religious groups, 2012" bar box on the right is missing 0.2% Jews, see its reference. While 0.2% may not be major, that's still a lot of people, and why not make the picture complete; make it add up to 100%? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Really what you should have asked is "Why is Judaism placed on its own being that it constitutes an absolutely irrelevant % of the world's population?". Why not place the Sikhs as part of the chart (considering that they represent a bigger % than those that profess Judaism)? Or simply why not simply put Judaism as part of the "other" category? To me it is a plain and simple (and pathetic might I add) attempt to be seen as prominent, when it is anything but prominent. In Spanish we would say "figuretti". 179.26.153.132 (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Judaism is huge as theological and historical importance, regardless of the number of its believers. Christianity and Islam are offspring of Judaism, so in a way they are footnotes to Judaic thought, like European philosophy is footnotes to Plato. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"Judaism is huge as theological and historical importance" Wow! How ridiculous! Well that's one thing that Jews are good at it.Removed inflammatory statement.Bladesmulti (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)186.50.234.30 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not a Jew, if that is what you claim. Abrahamic religions started with the Jews, whether you like it or not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
And what I said above was not supposed to be flattering for the Jews, just consider that sharia and the Islamic state are rehashed Judaic thinking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Because that's the way the data we have comes to us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The way the data comes to us? Really? You mean the way that Jews manipulate this article to their own advantage by attempting to indicate that their religion is important enough to appear as a separate tab even though there are other religions that have many more followers and DO NOT appear as a separate tab??? 186.50.234.30 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You know, it's a lot easier to work on an article like this without sheer open bigotry being flung around. Yes, it's the way the data comes to us; there's a link right under the table, http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/ , that's gives us the source of this data.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this discussion at all. The easier point is valid - how is the 5th largest organized religion in the world (Sikhism) not in the major religions list, but Judaism is? Why not include other religions f we will include the 0.2%. i mean Chinese Traditional is pretty big. The whole "that is how the data is presented" thing is pretty BS, because there are plenty of sources out there ripe with information. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904108.html lists the organised religons in terms of size and I found that in seconds. 31.205.119.172 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

When this was updated to include Judaism's 0.2%, the other percentages were not updated, it currently adds up to 100.2% From the looks of the source data, it's Islam/Muslim % that needs changing. The source material lists it as 23.2% rather than the 23.4% cited. Can this get amended please? 90.198.225.28 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Grido
Done Thanks for catching my mistake, I should've noticed that the first time. Cannolis (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Largest religions, Chinese folk religion edit request

I checked chinese folk religions using the same reference as for the other four religions (http://www.pewforum.org/global-religious-landscape-exec.aspx), it states that " more than 400 million people (6%) practice various folk or traditional religions, including African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, Native American religions and Australian aboriginal religions"; this number is very different than the one that was posted (754 — 1,000 millions). In The Global Religious Landscape complete report pdf page 35 (http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/01/global-religion-full.pdf) the number of folk religionists for China is about 294 million, although it would be better to put the Asia-Pacific folk religions (about 365 million adherents, same reference as for China) rather than just China given that there is not a single Chinese Folk Religion but rather it is a variety of regional practices, some from the North of China more different to Southern China ones than the latter and Vietnamese or Taiwanese. Also, use the same reference for all five religions (http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/01/global-religion-full.pdf) rather than put a different reference that has a very different figure for China. Thinker78 (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015

I updated the "Predominant religions of the world, mapped by state" Map. I checked every Country, added more countries and Oversea-Territories/Islands. Also I changed the colours of the religions and fixed some landscapes. Please use the new Map.

File:New Prevailing world religions map
New_Prevailing_world_religions_map

NobleRacoon (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: file link is red. a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 14:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Christianity foundation

Isn't it pretty much without a doubt fine to say Christianity was founded in the Levant region in the first century AD? KarstenO (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Link is broken: 

 Staff (May 2007). "The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions". Foreign Policy (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). Retrieved 2013-12-25.

2602:306:CD6C:8F90:8984:2030:D30F:28CD (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Lacey

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Major religious groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Classification section

I have been trying to find a citation for the following sentence: "Today, around 3.4 billion people are followers of Abrahamic religions [21] and are spread widely around the world apart from the regions around East and Southeast Asia." The closest I could find and added is citation #21, which states: "Much of the world’s religions can be traced back to two sources: Abrahamic religions or India. The Abrahamic religions includes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá’í Faith, Samaritanism, Druze and the Rastafari movement. Indian subcontinent was the source of major religions including Hinduism, Jainism Buddhism and Sikhism. We have listed below the religions with the most followers in order: (1) Christianity: About 2.3 billion followers. About 50% of Christians are Roman Catholics. (2) Muslim: About 1.5 billion followers. About 80-90% of Muslims are Sunni and 10-20% are Shia. The Shia-Sunni split in the Muslim religion occurred due to the dispute over the succession after the prophet Muhammad died in 632. (3) Non-religious or atheist: About 1 billion people. (4) Hindu: About 900 million followers with the vast majority living in India. (5) Buddhist: About 400 million followers. Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the vast majority of Buddhists live in Asia." So, if there are 2.3 billion followers in Christianity alone, then are there 1.1 billion followers in the Islam, Judaism and the Bahá'í Faith religions combined? Where did you find this information and in what year was this data accurate? Tklisby (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I was also wondering if you would like to include the additional Abrahamic religions such as, Samaritanism, Druze and the Rastafari movement, to your description here: "Abrahamic religions are the largest group, and these consist mainly of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the Bahá'í Faith"? Are the "3.4 billion people are followers of Abrahamic religions" including these religious groups as well? Tklisby (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2017

Sikhism is now the fifth-largest religion in the world, not the ninth. Buddhism is now behind it as sixth. 5.64.226.57 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a source to that. (I'm not saying you're wrong, but you need to provide a source.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 03:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2017

World's biggest major religion - Christianity - 2.1 billion followers World's second biggest major religion - Islam - 1.5 billion followers World's third biggest major religion - Hinduism - 900 million followers World's fourth biggest major religion - Buddhism - 376 million followers World's fifth biggest major religion - Sikhism - 28 million followers 5.64.226.57 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. Also, edit requests should be phrased in a "change x to z" format. It's unclear whether you're proposing to replace or add content. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sinic Religions

Do we need four separate categories for Chinese Religions, Japanese Religions, Korean Religions, and Vietnamese religions? Perhaps they could all be put in a single category called East Asian Religion or Sinic Religion. There’s a lot of similarities between them (e.g. Japanese Shinto is similar to Chinese Shenism, and is written with similar characters), and they all exist within the Sinosphere (an area of significant historical cultural exchange). Having them as four categories introduces a linguistic/national/political dimension into what is otherwise a list of pan-national cultural groups.

Also, the linked map ("Religions of the World, mapped by distribution") is inconsistent with this article, including Vietnamese religions under "Chinese Religion" (though it leaves Korean Religions separate). That’s a good sign that the division is arbitrary. 2601:86:0:FD8F:E9EE:1E55:D239:7884 (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Religious demographics: Largest religions table

The cultural tradition listed for Folk religion is Organized religion, which stands in direct contrast to the definition(s) of folk religion. Currently, the page on folk religion shows this very clearly. I suggest this be changed to "Ethnic or regional religious customs" on the editing page.

As a side note, I wonder if this is meant to refer specifically to Chinese folk religion, given the origin being listed as Asia. The reference article does not refer to Asia as the origin of folk religion, and it therefore seems that either this line should refer to Chinese folk religion (given that it has the largest population, i.e. 73%), should not have Asia listed as its place of founding, or should reference material which states Asia as the source of folk religion. 24.8.247.132 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 talk 06:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment about the method used for demographics. It is pointed out that there no consensus on a reliable method then proceeds to provide some sort of ranking based on metrics that are not reliable. Is this ideal? I'd question the Christian numbers based on my own observation. Most people who call themselves Christian in the west do so based on family legacy, not on practice. There's not many people in church on Sundays these days. As opposed to Asia, India, Middle East etc where the churches, temples, mosques etc seem to be more regularly occupied. There is no easy way to count, but it would be interesting if there was an official gate count at places of worship like at sporting matches as I suspect every religion inflates their figures for marketing and political reasons101.164.235.226 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

major religions redirects here. Please add a hatnote to handle The Major Religions

{{redirect|major religions|the 1996 Thomas Patrick Burke book published by Blackwell|The Major Religions}}

"major religions" redirects here. For the 1996 Thomas Patrick Burke book published by Blackwell, see The Major Religions.

-- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 12:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2019

1. Under Religious demographics chapter, the pie chart has a date and a citation. The date 2019 can't be right as long as the article cited is from 2012, so the edit should be to change the date from 2019 to 2012 until new citation is available. Danko.abramiuc (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

/ * A semi-protected amendment request on June 4, 2020 * /

In the article you wrote about the definition of the Muhammadan This description is never used by Muslims. It is racist and incites hatred. You will never hear a Muslim say that we worship the Creator of Muhammad and the Creator of the universe and do not worship a person. Say, "I am only a man like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord - let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone. " Al-Kahf verse 110 This word was expressed by the West to Muslims, and I suspect that when publishing an article that does not symbolize any party, you should name Muslims as they call themselves. It is clear that it was relied on sources from one side, so this error occurred, but it is necessary to mention a special topic if it is complicated like this and sensitive To rely on each side for its own sources, for example, when talking about Islam, it must rely on Islamic sources in order to get correct ideas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMohammedan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan#Muslim_objections_to_the_term https://www.quora.com/How-and-when-did-the-term-Mohammedans-evolve-into-Muslims I hope the idea is clear and my greetings



≥≥§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.64.179.38 (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's better to suggest specific edits. "Muhammadan" is used in the article in the context of a historical perspective- the article also indicates that it is an archaic term that is no longer used, but when describing a historical division the terminology of that era is normal. In several cases, it is there because it is a quotation of the title of a historical work. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not include the Sikh religion?

There are 0,39% Sikhs in the world. For each Jew, there are two Sikhs. Since Sikhism is bigger than Judaism, it should be included too, alongside Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.100.192.13 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to further this point. We should add the Sikh religion, as it has a greater number of followers than Judaism, and is not small enough to fall under Folk Religion or Other. Viax7 (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete first para

the article is not about whether religions can be grouped, it's about what religions exist and categorizing the ones in existance is the normal way to answer this question. If replacement text is absolutely needed something like "Population sizes of major religions are generally determined by grouping similar religions sharing a common origin. Discrepancies may exist resulting in some religious groups lacking appropriate representation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:39D0:A8A0:35C8:C054:3EA3:864 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Pie chart

At the start of this page is a list of religions with percentages. These add up to 100.27% How is it possible to have 100.27% ????? Also, there is no group 'Not religious' Please do not lump us into unaffiliated, this is offensive! Can somebody please fix this page. Thanks. 119.224.88.149 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a bit of rounding, which is normal. The figures are a bit old though. I've changed "unaffiliated" to "No religion" as the source describes the people in this group as 'religious “nones”'.-gadfium 21:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger of Buddhism , Folk Religion and irreligious

The chart combines: Buddhism , Folk Religion and none Doremon764 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

2nd largest group atheists?

How is citation number 31 relevant to give any data on how many atheists there are? The linked study only estimates a rough number of atheists for the US. There is no number whatsoever given on the worldwide population and it feels like an atheist editor just trying to make a point. I didn't find any other study that would put a quarter of the population in that group, let alone state it as atheism rather than agnosticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senfex (talk • contribs) 08:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC) see Demographics_of_atheism

Yes apparently someone who's mad at their parents for making them go to sunday school has also snuck "no religion" into the list of biggest religions. Which, yeah, no. Mercster (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2021

change Buddhism Indian religions to Buddhism Nepali religions as Buddha was born in Nepal and most of the people from Nepal and Tibet follow Buddhism so whoever made it Indian religion is probably an illiterate idiot ViperFx10 (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. See Indian religions. The term is a way religions are classified instead of nationality. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Mormons

Are Mormons included in Christianity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmallis0n (talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Christian primitism to be precise. ~Awilley (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Medium religions table not sorting properly by number

There seems to be a technical error with the medium religions table. When you sort by numbers of followers it seems to treat the numbers as alphabetic text, so all the numbers beginning with 1__ go first, and so forth, regardless of whether it's 1 or 100. Due to the protected state of the article I cannot fix this myself. Could someone with edit access please fix this? --Shelraphen (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


Religion population percentage

I believe you got the wrong population percentage for Sikhism, as it is not 0.2%. It is much higher and is currently between 2.8% to 3%. If you are going to create a while Wikipedia page and add figures, make sure they are accurate and then do some research next time! 92.236.103.34 (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Who is "you"? Editor2020 (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Buddhism was originated from lumbini, nepal... It should be corrected in wikipedia.

Siddhartha gautam( gautam buddha) was a prince of kapilvastu( a place in nepal) and was born in lumbini ( nepal) . And buddhism was found in nepal.. just because india is big and powerful country not everything is in india.. gautam buddha was born in nepal. 150.107.107.34 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2018 and 4 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Awiggin8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Religion percentage

Hello. In the graph if you add the total of percent you have 100.3 %. Please correct your graph that's not true. 2A01:CB0C:88D8:AB00:A827:1EB5:61E5:8DBB (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@2A01:CB0C:88D8:AB00:A827:1EB5:61E5:8DBB I think other religion is 0.5 Alex Si1000 (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Fake percentage : 100.3 %

There is a mistake on the circle graph. Please fix it. I think other religion is 0.5 not 0.8 That's not very serious. Please correct it quickly Alex Si1000 (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

Change image at the top of the page to image inserted below. Current image is inaccurate, not displaying the pie slices correctly, and the data shown below it is also inaccurate (it doesn't total 100%). I have created a replacement pie chart using the best data I could source, data from https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/religions/

Edited to add an alternative image size for the pie chart. 

Snowpeek (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: The current chart appears accurate to me. Pie slices are definitely appropriately sized (it's automatically generated, not just an image), and it's very common for pie slices not to sum to 100 due to rounding. Tollens (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, just realized that the numbers don't actually match the source. Give me a minute or two to figure out what's actually happened. Tollens (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Working on fixing it now using your source - numbers were changed without a new source being provided, and the editor responsible (pinging @Berat2) hasn't responded for several days. I'll just use the automatic pie chart generator rather than using the images provided just for page load speed. Tollens (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 Done - I've lumped Judaism into 'Other religions', as no specific figure is provided in the source (and therefore any specific amount of space would be misrepresenting the source). Tollens (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Update this Christianity is 2.6+ billion. 2601:647:8481:6A60:E45C:8D65:A6D8:7B55 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Please first provide reliable sources supporting this change, then I can update the article. Tollens (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"Christian categorization" section reads like personal research

This section reads like someone's personal research on the topic and I would argue it does not reflect mainstream thinking. Citing a relatively unknown source from the 1700s to make an esoteric point hardly seems appropriate. I think the section should be deleted or reworked entirely. 97.116.74.87 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2023

Buddhism is not indian religion as buddha is born in nepal kindly review it 2404:7C00:41:6C8:D14C:AEF0:4B10:43E1 (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

The pie chart colors of Folk and Judaism should be the same as the world plot. In the map, Judaism is red and Folk relligions are pink whereas on the hart folk is red. THis is a little confusing and can be misinterpreted as grouping judaism as folk relligion Przygocki (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done HouseBlastertalk 00:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Abraham's ethnicity under classification

It is the consensus that Abraham was Aramaic not Hebrew, fix that under classifications, under Abrahamic religions. YElebiary (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Japan

It seems strange to call Japan "irreligion" when almost all Japanese have Buddhist funerals, many have Shinto weddings, and the temples and shrines are heavily visited at New Year's to pray for a good year. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sillyism

Sillyism is a religion with 3,120,000 followers. It would be displayed below Cheondoism. Sillyism was started in the UK, specifically England, and was founded in the year 2022. It is a worldwide religion. I think that the followers of Sillyism, Silly Billies (singular Silly Billy), are not represented and some could be offended. I have tried to fix this, but this is a protected site. Please add Sillyism, and Silly Billies like my self would appreciate it. Thank you. George in Gorge (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)!

Falun Gong

It is my understanding that this religion had as many as 100 million followers at one time. However, now that the religion has been forced underground, because of persecution by the Chinese Communist Party, the exact number may be hard to access. But, I would think there are, at least, a few million followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:117F:4530:0:0:0:200B (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

what this

"% all other religions but Judaism (equal parts cyan/magenta - Judaism)" 105.163.46.75 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Change the title to Major metaphysical groups because not all metaphysical worldviews are religious or religions

e ,sfsb; id — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.215.133 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Major_religious_groups/Archive_5&oldid=1221486104"