Talk:Christian population growth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explanation of converted needed[edit]

It is unclear what the blanket statement n people converted means. Converted this year? Converted in the history of the country/people group discussed? Are still alive who at some point converted? The intended meaning of this expression should be stated clearly in the introduction. 114.248.209.23 (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False Information[edit]

This article is rife with false information and sly bias.

For example it claims Islam will lose millions in future, yet the very source it posts for that contradicts it by saying it will actually increase rapidly. A moderator or whoever needs to go through this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.75.100 (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headline number[edit]

The headline number of 2.14 billion needs to come with a health warning. Counting the number of adherents to a belief is difficult Depending on how "Christian" is defined, and how individuals are counted very different values can be obtained. The article should reflect this better in the introduction Zeimusu | Talk page 00:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I saw this on the main page and thought it sounded dubious, I wonder how many are actually 'practicing' Christians, but I cant imagine it even comes close to this number. --Silvestra (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Practicing has nothing to do with who is a Christian. It is believing in Christianity that makes you Christian. Christianity doesn't depend on who practices it according to you, or goes to church. It is about who says themselves that they are Christian. And so, unless a person said themselves they are not a Christian. They are counted as a Christian if they have been counted as one before. You are what you are, unless you declare that you are not. And it is not for some anti religion people, to claim what religion other people choose to identify themselves as.
The well known numbers of religions, come mostly from national censuses. Which is the best method of counting you are going to get for calculating worldwide religion totals. And are generally in agreement about the same rough numbers when we talk about one decimal point after billions, so are pretty accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.224.101 (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Whatever an official agency says is the number is the number; it is not Wikipedia's place to object. Every time Christian numbers are presented people who have a bias against them try to "redefine" it for their own purposes. They can't come to grips with the fact that Christians are a multi-ethnic religion with the greatest number of adherents worldwide. Gosh that it is actually growing!! Since you will only fight with me over this as you will never indicate your real motivation, the proof against your thought process is how do we "really" count Americans or Chinese, etc? A large percentage of Americans would not be considered Americans, if you proposed any other standard other than citizenship, by other Americans. So we pick the one thing that unifies us, birth. The same goes with Christians. People become Christians when they are baptized. So you argue that they were just little kids, fine (but it doesn't really matter; are American children, German children brainwashed by their parents as they are socialized in their respective cultures and have never made the choice?), but Christians also have "adulthood" rituals such as confirmation which is the next stage where they embrace their Christianity with full choice. Are they not "pushed" in that direction by their parents, neighbors, subculture? Sure, but so is every other group, religion, ethnic group, you name it. Finally, as adults, in the secular sense, if a Christian who has undergone all the initiation rituals and still desires not be Christiana she can fully renounce that background and indicate it on official government documents. These same documents are the ones Wikipedia should cite for total numbers. If the argument is that they are just lazy to do it or not motivated then perhaps they really do consider themselves Christians deep down inside and so they are still Christians.

Finally, we should be using government statistics exclusively. There CANNOT be a discussion on it if Wikipedia is to follow its own rules. If the CIA fact book or other official organization such as the UN cites a number than for all intents and purposes it should be considered sacrosanct. The only dispute that is allowed is which source. Ideology has no place here. Like I said at the beginning the only people who have a problem with the number are the fringe types, both right and left. Believe it or not the hardcore Christians such as the conservative side of the Catholic Church are probably more in agreement with the far Left in wishing to see those numbers reduced as both would argue that the only "true" Christian is one that goes to Church every Sunday, follows all the rules, etc. is to be counted. In essence, this is the Chicken or the egg argument for Christians. Only Saints should be counted but to be a Saint one needs direction from the Church since one was fallible before and so if you are only counting the Saints then how did you become one to begin with?99.30.225.87 (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christians in the UK[edit]

Not sure what the source is for this, but over 52m is way too many. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2001 census data: "There are 37.3 million people in England and Wales who state their religion as Christian." There aren't enough people in Scotland and Ireland to make up the difference. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The chart shows 44.6M in the UK. Maybe a typo elsewhere. Can't find the 52M you've found. The UK wiki article says that about 71.8% are Christians. With a UK pop. of 62M 44.6M is about right.99.30.225.87 (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are looking at. You're looking at the second column of the chart. That is a projection for 2050 if all remains constant. Hope that helps...99.30.225.87 (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to believe that there is a reliable source that says there will be 52m Christians in the UK in 2050. We don't even know how many people there will be! The same is true for other countries. I suggest that column should be deleted. Incidentally, the 2001 census figure significantly over estimates the number of Christians compared with other sources - see the UK article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is called a projection. Nothing wrong with that. Population projections are used all the time for things and they are generally only as accurate as they are close to the date that they are projecting to. So yeah that number is probably inaccurate but that is understood as it is a projection and properly labeled as such. The article doesn't make the claim that this WILL be the right number only a best guess using current information. The assumption on the projection was that if the UK maintains their current population growth while maintaining the same religious percentages then 52M would be the best guess. If you go to the UK wiki article it shows a 2001 breakdown of religion which shows that almost 72% of the people are Christians. If you multiple 72% by the population of that time you get the right numbers so I'm not sure what your issue is. Maybe it gets confusing since you have to make sure you keep all the dates together when you do the math.99.30.225.87 (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that the UK numbers appear to be too high, probably because they are based on original research. The best official figure is the 2001 census, although there are good grounds for believing this is too high. At the time, the question was regarded as a bit of a joke and many people gave their religion as "Jedi Knight". The population increase since 2001 is largely due to net immigration. Perhaps more than 71% of net immigrants are Christian. Perhaps less than 50% are. AFAIK there is no reliable source for a 2010 figure. As far as projection to 2050 is concerned, multiplying figures from different sources is not an appropriate way to derive projections. For example, I suspect that people who called themselves Christian in 2001 were above average age and therefore will have suffered greater mortality. Anyway, do you know whether there is a reliable source for the UK figures in 2010 and 2050? If not, I suggest substituting the 2001 figure for the 2010 figure (with appropriate citation) and deleting the 2050 figure. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon/Latter-Day Saints[edit]

Why is Mormon/Latter-Day Saints categorized under "non-Christian religions" in the United States part of this article when the religion is categorized as "restorationist Christian religion" on its article, and as a nontrinitarian Christian movement in the Denominations and Movements section of the Christianity template? Mormonism is even mentioned in the Christianity in the United States article that this United States section refers to for further information.

Also, I think the movement deserves a section under "by branches", because this article states it to have a world-wide annual growth of about 2.5% in the first decade of the 21th century. RaijinMonk (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - this was possibly yet another polemic attempt to classify Mormonism as non-Christian. If you look at the actual ARIS document these numbers are from, you find that that document actually counts Mormonism as a form of Christianity. Also of interest, Mormonism is also not counted as a New Religious Movement by that source. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tio Papo 2014 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Why I think Mormonism should not be considered Christian properly defined: Christianity adheres to an ultimate creator. It borrows from Judaism the already known Judaic belief and distinction of creator and creatures. Mormons adhere to the infinite nature of angels converting to human form including that of Christ. In other words, Christ you an I have the same essence, we are all infinite without beginning or end. This belief is contrary to the principles of Christianity and it really invalidates the need for God in the form of Christ to come to earth, for if I am infinite I can fix anything I did or ever will do in my infiniteness; I don't need Christ to show me anything since knowing it all should accompany the essence of an infinite being! Mormonism really does not promote the belief of redemption for infinite beings don't need redemption. As per most orthodox Christian sects, you can only call yourself a Christian if you adhere to the core essentials of the faith. A belief contrary to the core essential of creator vs. creature and redemptive contradictions, cannot properly be called Christian, IMHO![reply]

Changed the first sentence[edit]

The first sentence was wrong. 2.3billion was a 150million increase on 2billion. This has now been corrected, i.e. it now states that there has been an increase of 300million rather than 150 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.200.2 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mainline Christianity[edit]

Doesn't using the section "Mainline christianity"..and not including Catholicism, imply Catholics aren't mainstream christians? I'm sure there are plenty of catholics who may not agree........Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.xist.org/earth/population3.aspx
    Triggered by \bxist\.org\b on the global blacklist
  • http://www.xist.org/earth/pop_continent.aspx
    Triggered by \bxist\.org\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 16:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Christian population growth[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Christian population growth's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Encyclopedia of Protestantism":

  • From Protestantism by country: "Encyclopedia of Protestantism". Retrieved 14 February 2015.
  • From Protestantism: Encyclopedia of Protestantism

Reference named "Witte and Alexander":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Christian population growth. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christian population growth. 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) 11:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the links that concern the article of Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census[edit]

They are all estimates without any proof that they are true try reading it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion7861 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lion7861: You and I have discussed this previously, both when you were editing without an account (as 77.98.203.53 and others) and after you started the account LION786.
First, is there a reason you have started a second account?
Next, reviewing our previous discussions, I note that there were a number of cases where you had changed numbers in order to reduce Christian populations and/or increase Muslim populations.
The first edits of yours that I noticed removed several sources at a time, with no explanation. Later edits simply stated that the sources are "wrong" or "biased". Your newest approach is to argue that the sources do not provide their sources.
Wikipedia neither requires nor expects that sources provide their sources (or other "proof") for what they say. If we did, the next steps would be requiring that the source's sources provide their sources; the source's sources provide their sources and so on.
Instead, as previously explained, Wikipedia reports what "reliable sources" say as facts. If you feel a source is wrong, you must demonstrate that it does not meet thge criteria outlined at WP:IRS in order to remove it. Otherwise, if you are able to locate other sources (meeting the criteria at WP:IRS) which report different figures, we may include both. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is WEC International a reliable source?[edit]

Studies from WEC International and a journal published by Baylor University (a private Christian university) seem to be used frequently in this article. They claim that very large number of people are converting to Christianity, especially Muslims. I'm wondering if this reported only in Christian sources, or whether Pew Research and other neutral sources say similar things. If its only Christian sources saying this, then I'd take their claims with a grain of salt.VR talk 07:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global immigration[edit]

At least this could be clarified. In the lead, it sounds like planet earth is gaining/losing Christians due to immigration. This shouldn't be possible, because we don't emigrate from the earth yet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion[edit]

File:The source.jpg
The source p.59

Dear @Arsi786: the lead information is supported by the source as you can see, so no need for the removing, your new edit or change are based on the page 58, you could add it without removing the previous information.Eliko007 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Data for 2021 is available[edit]

As I mentioned in the article, new data is available for 2021 from the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. That is, 2.545 Billion Christians with a world population of 7.875 Billion people respectively. Is it time to update the table, which relies on data from 11 years ago (i.e. 2010)? Please discuss. NishantXavier (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has any objection, I'll edit the page shortly. I may create a table to depict the freshly available data for the year 2021. NishantXavier (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary is an extremely biased and completely unreliable source. Its data are pure speculation, not based on any actual survey. There are many other biased and unreliable sources in the article, which is in general in a very bad state, so bad that it would be better to delete it than to rewrite it. This is due to the fact that this and other articles related to Christianity were edited by a user (now banned) who filled them with ungrounded data based on partisan and unreliable sources.--37.160.164.93 (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may disagree with Gordon-Conwell's projection for 2050, but I don't think GC is necessarily an unreliable source for today's data. Do you have a source on number of Christians worldwide that radically differs from 2.5 Billion? Most sources I've seen give that number. Here, at any rate, is an earlier source from Pew Research, in 2017, based on 2015 data, that gives 2.3 Billion for that time. Shall I update the article with this number for 2015?

"Christians remained the largest religious group in the world in 2015, making up nearly a third (31%) of Earth’s 7.3 billion people, according to a new Pew Research Center demographic analysis. But the report also shows that the number of Christians in what many consider the religion’s heartland, the continent of Europe, is in decline." https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/05/christians-remain-worlds-largest-religious-group-but-they-are-declining-in-europe/ NishantXavier (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else feel some bias?[edit]

Just reading through this article it didn't feel very neutral, it said things like "Christians earned many converts", a lot of it sounded very written by someone who was very happy that Christianity was growing and thought Christianity deserved to overcome other religions. Did anyone else get that vibe? Apologies if I'm reading too far into this but looking into the rest of this talk page and similar things have been brought up regularly 2A00:23C7:5980:8501:C6C8:8EB:5FE9:7FA8 (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions measured over which time period?[edit]

The section Conversions says:


According to "The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion", in mid-2005 approximately 15.5 million converted to Christianity from another religion, approximately 11.7 million left Christianity, and most of them became irreligious, resulting in a net gain of 3.8 million.


What does "in mid-2005" mean? How is this a time period? From when to when did these conversions occur? Above, the article quotes the World Christian Encyclopaedia saying that the annual number of conversions to Christianity is 2.7 million. Therefore I'd assume that 15.5 is the number of several years, but how many? Johannes Rohr (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_population_growth&oldid=1206680598"