Image talk:Worldreligion.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Two colours strips on countries

There can only be ONE predominant, so who ever added the stripes to show there are two predominant religons got it wrong. The map should be reverted back to singular colour per country.--203.87.127.18 09:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese religions

Just a minor note... "Chinese Religion" should read "Chinese religions". --195.33.105.17 10:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

See the German original of the map. There is no "Chinese religion". "Chinese religions" is a term chosen to include Chinese folk religion, ancestor worship, Taoism, Confucianism, and many other religions found in China, which are difficult to separate and to measure as a) they often overlap and b) there are no good statistics. Can someone please correct it and add the 's'? --195.33.105.17 08:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secular, athiest or non-religious

This image is incorrect, the dominant religion of the Netherlands is secular (42% unaffiliated with any religion). --metta, The Sunborn 21:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

When we painted it, we decided that "secular" is not a religion and shouldn't be displayed on a map of religions (compare discussions on the German page). If there was a country with only one single person having a religion, it would be painted in the colour of his religion. Of course, you may feel free to do it differently in the English version. In this case, you shouldn't forget China, North Korea and the Czech Republic, where more than half of the population are secular or atheist. 134.76.62.65 06:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you should say explicitly in the image that those who do not subscribe to a religion are not included, Otherwise, i challenge the veracity of this image. -Lordsuhn

Unfortunately, the image is tagged incorrect when it's clearly disputed, I changed the tag to NPOV to reflect the nature of the dispute.

I find it amusing to have a secular advocate looking to put secularism as a valid faith. In the US, this is avoided like the plague because if secularism is a religious faith, it tremendously disadvantages it under US law. I guess somebody didn't get the memo. TMLutas 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

But why then is Czech Republic marked as "other" (meaning "atheist")? Sweden is another country where the majority of the people are de-facto non-religious.User:lowcrust

While many Europeans in the Netherlands may not go to church, Holland is still a predominantly Christian country--but one which recognizes the separation of church and state. So, it should be classified as Protestant. I have 2 minor objections to the map: 1) Wikipedia entirely excludes Sikhism which is predominant in the Indian province of Punjab and 2) Southern Sudan should be coloured as either Christian or Animist. It is definitely not Muslim as there was a 20 year long bitter civil war there between its inhabitants and the government in the Muslim Arab controlled Sudanese state which ended in a 2005 peace agreement. Southern Sudan might become an independent country if a promised referendum on independence is carried out there in 5 to 6 years time, as stipulated by the agreement. --Leoboudv 05:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Great work on this map! I found it very informative however I would have to agree with those who propose "non-religious" as a category of representation. If the majority of a population is atheist or agnostic it is misleading to classify them as Buddhist, Christian, Muslim or other. If a population was near 50% religious and 50% atheist or other religion I would propose that diagonal lines through a country with both colors would be more accurate, less misleading and feasible.--SAUNDERS 01:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This really should not ignore "no religion". Secularism is not a faith, but the map should reflect where people do not have a faith - perhaps use white as the representation, since the different colours are different faiths, a lack of faith should be represented by a lack of colour, giving white. Sad mouse 17:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yh, or adding a Cirle for each continent with the proportion of non-adherents people... --83.134.216.132 13:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But North Korea's largest religion is Chondogyo, so shouldn't we show it as that religion? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi Arabia

Why is Saudi Arabia not coloured as a Sunni muslim country, the first sentence of Islam in Saudi Arabia reads: "The vast majority of the people of Saudi Arabia are Sunni Muslims." Oman is the only muslim majority country which fits in the "Muslim - other" group. --Bjarki 16:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The one who translated this map into English obviously did a mistake: He didn't translate the (quite long) paragraph of comments to the map. So, everything we already discussed at the German version must be discussed again here. Some of the most important points:

Each country is painted in the colour of its largest religion. For some reasons (I can't find a proper word for "Übersichtlichkeit") the countries are not separated into regions (so no Punjab, no Southern Sudan, no Northern Iraq, no Tibet). I was quite puzzled, too, when I saw it first.

Countries are given two colours if the ratio of its two largest religions is 60:40 or less.

(So the Netherlands are painted correctly, as there are about 35% Catholics and about 25% Protestants (and "Secular" is not seen as a religion (see above)).)

The map was translated during the few weeks, when we didn't regard Wahhabites as Sunni Muslims. Today, that's different (compare with actual German version).

In my personal opinion, there's no reason why you shouldn't do it differently. Feel free to create your own system. 134.76.62.65

[edit] Cuba

Why is Cuba dubbed with "Nature Religions"? Aren't most Cubans Catholic? W123 02:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Most Cubans practise Santeria, which is included in "Nature Religions" in the German version. Some source said that there are (much) more believers in Santeria than Catholics in Cuba today. I admit, this sounds strange as it's often stated that Santeria-believers mostly are members of the Catholic church at the same time. Maybe you can find a better source. 134.76.62.65 09:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Demographics of Cuba page, taken from the CIA World Factbook. "Nominally 85% Roman Catholic prior to CASTRO assuming power; Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, and Santeria are also represented". W123 18:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"prior to Castro assuming power", so these numbers are about half a century old... 134.76.62.65 15:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just from reading about Santeria, Syncretism and Cuba#Religion, I think it is safe to say that Cuba is Catholic. Santeria is practiced in parallel, so if it is considered a religion, and someone can come up with a source indicating it is indeed so widespread, Cuba can be rendered with stripes, like neighboring Haiti.--128.139.226.36 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism is really that small?

I mean...really, the population is that small?

Yes, there are only 15 million Jews. Israel is the only country where Jews are a majority.--65.23.76.78 01:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added notes to clarify, removed disputed tag

I added notes similar to what's on the original German page which clarify the issues raised here. I happen to agree with the above posters and with the suggestions on the German page that it'd be nice ot have a map that included non-religious people.--Atemperman 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Where is this data coming from? Wikipedia articles on each of the countries? -- Beland 07:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tibet

Tibet is no longer an independent nation. Nor has it been for quite a while. 75.34.8.146 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No Tibetan follows "Chinese religion". deeptrivia (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A number of Han Chinese have migrated to Tibet, so it is likely that many Tibetans indeed practice "Chinese religion". But the text that has recently been deleted never calls Tibet an independent nation; it simply calls it a nation, just as Wales is a nation, though it is not independent politically from the U.K.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atemperman (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

I hope you're just kidding here. Would be shocked to see someone seriously reason like this. deeptrivia (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Czech republic and Estonia

are marked in grey as other, why?

Because in the Czech Republic and Estonia, atheists and non-religious people form a majority of the population, with Christians forming a sizeable minority. In this sense, it is wrong to state that the prevailing religion in these countries is Christianity. Ronline ✉ 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So then why is The Netherlands not marked grey? Or China? These are not the only countries where atheists form the majority. User:Notecardforfree 22:35, 2 June 2007 (PST)

I agree that China and the Netherlands should also be marked grey. Ronline ✉ 11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I envy the Czechs :( they get to be grey while the rest of us have to have colour despite being just as non-religious as them.

Highly inconsistent. /85.194.44.18 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the map identifies the largest religion in any particular country. Estonia and Czech Republic, as said here before, are not the only countries where atheist form a majority. In Estonian, protestant Christianity is historically prevailing religion and compared to other religions (excluding atheism, even if it is religion too), Estonian Lutherian Church still has the most believers - therefor it would be correct to color Estonia Protestant Christian. If necessary, I can link data from Estonia's Statistic Department web page (possibly in English too), but unless someone objects I won't bother. Just color Estonia Protestant blue. In regards to Czech Republic, I believe that catholic church is still the largest church, though with fading influence. However I don't have data for Czech Republic so therefor it would good if some Czech would clarify that.

[edit] Factual accuracy of map of world religions

Map showing the prevailing religion of each country.

The factual accuracy of this map has been questioned. Looking at the map I have trouble accepting the arguments for its banishment from the article. I find it useful and informative. The argument for removing it is as follows:

This map shows the religion practiced by the majority of religious persons in the states of the world. It does not depict non-religious populations. (For example, although recent surveys[1] estimate that 54-61% of Czechs, 43-54% of French, and 46-85% of Swedes self-identify as atheist, agnostic, or non-spriritual, those nations are depicted as Other Groups, Catholic, and Protestant, respectively.) If the ratio of the largest religious group to the next largest religious group is less than 60:40, then the color of the state is a blend of the colors of the two largest groups. Therefore:

States consisting of multiple nations, countries, or autonomous regions receive a single color determined by the aggregate of their inhabitants. Thus, Tibet, for example, receive the same color as the People's Republic of China, even though that color does not accurately describe the Vajrayana Buddhist religious affiliation of its inhabitants.

Persons without a religion are not counted in determining the majority religion. Because of this, the Netherlands is colored steel-blue (mixed Protestant and Catholic), even though there are more non-religious people than there are Catholics, who constitute the largest religious group[2].

Regions within a state whose predominant religion is different from the plurality religion of the nation-state are not separately indicated. Thus, southern Sudan receives the same color as the rest of the state of which it is a part, even though that color does not accurately describe the religious affiliation of the inhabitants of those regions.

However, the map only shows the primary religion of each nation state. Therefore:

It does not depict non-religious populations.
It doesn't indicate whether atheism is predominant in a nation state, since atheism is not a religion.
It doesn't show the religion of religious groups that, while dominant in a region, are minorities within nation states (e.g., Quebec, Tibet, southern Sudanese).

With those caveats, I fail to see a problem. Perhaps the caveats should be added as "Notes." to the image page, however. I further suggest that, while it might be nice to have, an accurate map of all the religious practitioners in the world would be virtually impossible to create. Wars and migrations would shift the boundaries weekly.

Keep the map. Sunray 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no point whatsoever in using state borders for classifying religions which could be totally misleading. Most states are not defined on the basis of religion, and although sometimes state borders divides religious groups, more often than not they don't. Much better (i.e. "Correct") information is available. Just compare the area occupied by "Chinese religions" in this map, with this to see how grossly inaccurate the map is. Few people would read any notes on the image page, and even if they understand these points, they will still go back with the message that mapping religions onto state borders is a valid academic exercise, which it of course is not. Sorry, there are no weekly shifts in religious demographics. State borders change more often. deeptrivia (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that states are not defined on the basis of religion. That is why it is potentially interesting to an encyclopedia reader to see the distribution of religions across national boundaries. No one is sayinig this is an academic exercise, simply a way of displaying primary religions in various states. I submit that it is informative to readers to know the primary religion of various ~~nation~~ states. Sunray 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This being an encyclopedia, we'd be better off in using something that conforms better to academic standards. As soon as we get an accurate map, which would not be based on "states" (drop the "nation" many states engulf multiple nations), this map should be replaced by that one. deeptrivia (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken about ~~nation~~ states. However, I do not agree that Wikipedia must necessarily conform to academic standards. Wikipedia articles are not academic treatises, but are rather to be written for the general reader. Since you and I don't seem to be in agreement on the main point here (the value of the map), I think that we should let others comment. Sunray 18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. It would be good to see what others think. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does this map need to be considered in terms of national, state, or regional boundries? Just make a map that shows where populations are, and ignore political boundries. To see an example of what I am talking about, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_peoples.jpg. Of course, to create such a map on a global scale would be an incredibly difficult task, as the demographics would be extremely intricate, and would undoubtedly lead to more controversies. It seems like any map that examines religion on a global scale will, unfortunately, be forced to make generalizations. This is not to say, though, that this map does not have educational value. Rather, it should merely contain some caveats. User: Notecardforfree

If you look at the history of the page and the image, it's pretty clear that the image as it is was used because it already existed on the German Wikipedia and it's much easier to copy an image than to make a new one. The people who added it to the page did not select it in preference to an image that showed predominant religions irrespective of state borders--they added it because they found no such image already existing in any of the Wikipedias. Some people have misunderstood or complained about the color-coding scheme, and I and some other editors then added some notes to the image to make it clear just how the scheme worked. The explanations of the scheme are purely descriptive: they do not argue that the scheme is superior to others; they simply explain the scheme so that people do not draw false conclusions from the image. If anyone makes an image that is as easy to read as the current one but takes no regard of state borders, then I would have no problem with it and would probably support it.--Atemperman 15:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the disputed tag so that it accurately represents what the dispute is about, and restored the notes, as they are necessary for people not to get the wrong impression. I also went to the articles that link to the image, and change the captions on those pages so that they would be accurate.--Atemperman 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've saw in Vietnam map and that showed Mahayana Buddhism and Catholic are equal===>TOTALLY WRONG 100% because:

1. Only total Christian percentage in Vietnam is only 8% (7% Catholic and 1% Protestant)
2. At least 16% people have taken the Rufuge of Three Jewels (all sect of Buddhism) but at many International sources said at least 50% of Vietnam's population is Mahayana Buddhists and 85% are "traditional beliefs" (similar as China with the mixture of Mahayana Buddhism,Taoism,Confucianism and Ancestor Worship).

Vietnam MUST BE colouring as "Chinese folk religion" or "Mahayana Buddhism" (But in 85% those "tradiotal beliefs",more than half of these people prefer Mahayana Buddhism than other).With me I think it should colouring for Vietnam as a Mahayana Buddhist country! Angelo De La Paz 10:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove the map. It is inaccurate. It should show simply the dominant religion, rather than the dominant and second dominant. It also should show secular people.Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious and denominational distribution by state

Maybe we should keep this map, and have another map that has the secular population and doesn't show more than one religion per state (only the single dominant)? Like this one (below, description is "religious and denominational distribution by state"Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Before you can have a map at all you need figures, & those are subject to a lot of uncertainty & dispute, as to both definitions & facts. Peter jackson (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion in Far East Asia

The map of World religions disputed was wrong when in Vietnam and Japan; Mahayana Buddhism and Roman Catholicism is equal===>idiot!

85-88% Vietnamese people is Mahayana Buddhist or more exact is "triple religion" is Buddhism mainly and Taoism with Confucianism!Only over 6,5% of Vietnam's population is Roman Catholics!

China,North Korea are also like Vietnam!

95-96% Japanese people is Mahayana Buddhist with Sinto.Less than 1% is Christian!

Uh, Japan is mostly secular. Its just that Buddhist temples record people as adherents even though they do not consider themselves part of any religion. In China, most are non-religious. Same in North Korea. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Judaism a major religion of Guyana and Suriname?

Perhaps I am colour blind, but it looks to me like Judaism is listed as a major religion of Guyana and Suriname. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Judaism is a major religion in either of these countries. In any case, this map seems misleading, as it ignores many major religions (i.e. Sikhism), and does not account for regional variations. Any thoughts? User:Notecardforfree 23:03, 2 June 2007

Perhaps, indeed, you are color blind, for you are failing to differentiate between the colors representing Hinduism and Judaism. Both countries have significant Hindu populations. Further, the map is not misleading as it does what it purports to do. Read the notes. If you want a map that shows world religions by regions of the world without regard to state borders, feel free to create one. --Danaidh 02:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion in the United States

The United States is mixed Catholic and Protestant should be blue/purple —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.41.62.145 (talk) 02:41, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

I Agree! <--DLxXx —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLxXx (talk • contribs) 12:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shinto is "other"?

Shouldn't perhaps Shinto be included as a "nature religion"? --131.215.220.112 20:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam need to fix!Quickly!

I've saw in Vietnam map and that showed Mahayana Buddhism and Catholic are equal===>TOTALLY WRONG 100% because:

1. Only total Christian percentage in Vietnam is only 8% (7% Catholic and 1% Protestant)
2. At least 16% people have taken the Rufuge of Three Jewels (all sect of Buddhism) but at many International sources said at least 50% of Vietnam's population is Mahayana Buddhists and 85% are "traditional beliefs" (similar as China with the mixture of Mahayana Buddhism,Taoism,Confucianism and Ancestor Worship).

Angelo, do you think they would call themselves Mahayanists or Buddhists? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] religions in United kingdom and Maylasia

There is about the same amount of catholics in the uk than protestants/angligans so the facts are wrong also in china and maylasia and some of those country's the religion is Christianity.

Johnny45irish 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the dominant religions other than Islam in Malaysia would be Buddhism. Christianity doesn't come close to being a majority.--Hamster X (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The dominant religions in China, Malaysia, etc...other East Asian countries are CHRISTIANITY!!!Ha ha ha!It sounds very bullshit!Are you a evangelist?Please stop to say the stupid things!See more here:

Religions by country, List of religious populations

Angelo De La Paz 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racist Color Schemes

Why is Asia yellow? Why is Africa dark/black? Russia is Red.

These color schemes are racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.237.27 (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because those colours have been assigned to the main religions in those countries.

Trust me, it's purely coincidental. --Kage Me 11:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Orthodox Christianity"

This map fails to show the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (or Miaphysite, or Monophysite). Ethiopia does not have the "Orthodox Christianity" that Greece, Russia and Serbia do.Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hungary is not 100% Catholic

Please correct the coloring for Hungary, a majority of the population is though Catholic but some 25% is Protestant and there are Greek-Catholics, Jews and an increasing number of atheists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.164.252 (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq, North Korea, USA

This map shows Iraq as a Shi'a majority, but the dominance is debatable. I suggest a striping like Yemen. Same goes for USA, where it should be like Canada. North Korea however, should be grey as it does not actually follow any religions. --Hamster X (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)