This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Buddhism by country article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Archive 1 January 2005 - July 2009 |
I removed the line from the intro about 'most Asian ethnic groups being irreligious' and Buddhism not being a religion by "Western standards". There were a two major problems with it: first, the cited articles were about Asian-American ethnicities, not Asians in their country of origin. Second, the idea that there is a single 'Western standard' by which it is decided if someone is religious or if their practices constitute a religion is fallacious. It might be worth noting with citation that some observers don't call Buddhism a religion, but we shouldn't be presenting that as if it is a standard majority view. -- Clay Collier ( talk) 00:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
(Indent reset) I'm quite frustrated by this discussion as well. I'm not arguing the article shouldn't mention the view that Buddhism is not a religion. What I want to know is this: what are these sources that say most East Asian ethnic groups are irreligious? Where is this point established? Here are the references in the first paragraph, in order:
The next three references are discussing the view that Buddhism is not a religion. I have no problem including that here. The problem is: there is only one ethnic group called irreligious in the source material. Chinese-Americans. Other ethnicities in East Asia are not discussed at all, and only two emigrant communities are discussed- neither of which are called irreligious. The language for the statement in the article is taken directly from the Chinese-American article, and then broadened in a way that the sources don't support. Where is any ethnic group other than Chinese-Americans discussed as being irreligious by Western standards? The language of the statement in the article is way too broad, and isn't what the sources are saying. -- Clay Collier ( talk) 05:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Where are 'my opinions' in edits like this? You say 'the author' was making a single point- what author are you talking about? The authors of the sources? The author who edited the introduction before we started? The sentence that was there before we started editing related the concept of irreligion to Buddhism not being a religion. Now the sentence that you want to keep discusses Asians following a mixture of religious practices and being irreligious in the same sentence. The sentence is not grammatically correct in the form you propose to keep, and connects two loosely related concepts without any transition. How is this out of context? Following the practices of multiple religions and being disinterested in religion, or not personally identifying as religious are pretty clearly two separate situations, no? -- Clay Collier ( talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to a request for a third opinion.
...although according to the Western standards of religion much of East Asia could be characterized as irreligious <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion Wikipedia - irreligion]</ref> <ref>[http://www.reference.com/browse/Irreligion?jss=0 reference.com - irreligion]</ref> <ref>[http://en.allexperts.com/e/i/ir/irreligion.htm allexperts - irreligion]</ref> including Buddhists <ref>[http://www.amtb.org.tw/e-bud/releases/educati.htm Buddhism is an Education, Not a Religion]</ref> <ref>[http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm Buddha Net]</ref>
Such a statement (poorly sourced at that) might have been widely perceived in the United States as true in the 1950s. It does not belong in the article. — Athaenara ✉ 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Why was "1.5 billion estimated Buddhists wild and unsubstantiated." archived? The last comment made was on the 31st of October. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 10:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I see this discussion is quite difficult due to widely varying sources and definitions, but how come even the lower-end totals end up around 500 million, while 350 million is an often used total figure in some sources? say adherents.com? Also, just wondering, what's the position arrived at on irreligious - adherents put that as high as 75% of japan for instance? Is irreligious actually overlapping with Buddhist - or just different research/definitions? Or could this number be added as lower-end estimate for japan? I don't wish to argue for any particular number or value, just wondering what positions has consensus here come to - and maybe suggest - an FAQ on a discussion page might be useful? Aryah ( talk) 14:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook, which is an accurate source reports that China is only 3-4% Buddhist, yet wikipedia says 80% based off which reliable source? No reliable source indicates that China is 80% Buddhist at all. The Dhamma web site given as a source is not reliable and does not link to any reliable source indicating that China is 80% Buddhist. After China's communist rule Buddhism went down. A number around 8-23% is much more accurate. -- 71.163.31.116 ( talk) 07:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to add a bit more detail here..
For China, the article currently says: 8% - 21% - 80% (approx)
The 8% figure is supported by two cited sources:
The 21% figure is supported by two cited sources:
The 80% figure is supported by two cited sources:
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Village grandmothers view the image of Guanyin on the altar like Latin American Santeros view the image of St. Barbara on their altar - as an indigenous deity in a polytheistic tradition. Urban people often identify with Buddhism because they want to seem 'modern' by identifying with a world, rather than indigenous, religion. Nonreligious Chinese (the majority) often also say they are Buddhist because they do not want to attract Christian proselytes.
The term for Chinese spirituality is folk Taoism or Traditional Chinese Religion; an indigenous spirituality cognate to Shinto and Hinduism, similar to the Paganism of the ancient Mediterranean. Please do not impose biased viewpoints or interpretatio indica. The Dragon King and the God of Fortune do not originate from the Pali canon or other Buddhist sources.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.181.192 ( talk) 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe its difficult to determine the actual number of Buddhists in the world. In countries dominated by Christianity and Islam, Government/Demographers in those countries state people belong only to one religion. There is hardly any leeway for people who believe/follow multiple religions/philosophies or no religion, thus the actual "believers" are overstated and minorities such as Buddhists are understated, especially in less tolerant Muslim dominated countries.
Buddhism, is generally practiced along with other beliefs either in parallel or combined. For example, in China its combined with Taoism and Confucianism. In Japan its combined with Shinto. In India its combined with Hinduism. Etc. Recently, in Western countries we are seeing more and more people practicing Buddhism along with Christianity or Judaism. Over time this will be acknowledged. In China, I believe all three faiths: Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism are undercounted.
Generally, Muslim and Christian organizations will undercount number of Buddhists. If we take the Western or Islamic view of determining number of Buddhists worldwide ... the range is between 300 - 500 million. However, if we take the traditional approach of Buddhism being practiced with other beliefs, the numbers would be much higher: Well over a Billion does not seem off the mark. I am betting on the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.237.178 ( talk) 19:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
If you rearrange the chart by percentage, it is very much out of order. I'm not sure how to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.109.65 ( talk) 19:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe that 2 years later, this article is still such a trainwreck. All the same faulty and misquoted references remain intact. The article even references a website written by the very user whose been violently inserting his POV in articles related to Buddhist demographics. I think it's high time this article had a revamp. Here's my old summary of the sources used in this article (from 2009) which as far as I can see remains relevant today.
I looked at all 4 of the references for the 1.5 billion figure, and here is what I found:
1. Is exactly the same as number 2 2. Is the "Idiot's Guide to Understanding Buddhism", and I found no "1.5 billion" stat in it 3. Was written by the Vipassana foundation, which has been found to be an unreliable source in above discussions 4. Is in Vietnamese, and I can't understand it, but since the other 3 sources were fault, I think it might be as well.
In addition,
- Hong Kong: Neither of the Hong Kong numbers are for Buddhism as a whole. The 10% number is for practicing Buddhists and Taoists, whereas the 90% number is "an electic mix of local religions". They're both somewhat generalizing, but they also say different things.
- Japan: One of the Japan sources is the same page written by Vipassana Foundation. The other two are accurate. I think we should, however, use the academic reference used on the Japan page, as well as add a note that "Higher estimates are for both Buddhism and Shinto. x source argues that these numbers are for the number of people registered at a temple, rather than self-identifying Buddhists or Taoists".
- North Korea: Neither state.gov nor the CIA World Factbook give a 60+% number for North Korean Buddhists. The everyculture.com references does not give any statistics, either. For some strange reason, both the CIA World Factbook and state.gov are sourced twice for the same statistic(s).
- South Korea: State.gov does give around 20% (10 million out of almost 50 million). State.gov is sourced a second time, for the 50% number, but this version of the state.gov data has no statistics on religion, just a list of major religions present in S Korea. Everyculture.com is sourced twice, but neither source gives any actual statistics. Then Korea.net is sourced, but it does not give 50%. It says that half of the population practice any religion, and 43% of those who practice religion are Buddhists.
- Laos: There is only one source given, state.gov, and it does not give a 90+% number. In fact, it gives more of a 50-60+% number. It says that most ethnic Lao are Theravadin Buddhists, but only 40-50% of Laotians are ethnic Lao. The rest are from a large number of ethnic groups, most of which practice animism.
- Macau: State.gov is sourced three times this time. The first state.gov source does indeed say "17%". The second source gives no where near 80+%, as the source says that only 43% of the population practice any religion. The third state.gov source does give a high number, but it is 79.3%, not 85%. The CIA World Factbook does indeed give a 50% number for Macanese Buddhists.
- Malaysia: The state.gov source referenced gives a 19% statistic, not 22%.
- Mongolia: The CIA source does indeed say "50% Lamaist", but the other two sources say "93% of ethnic Mongolians" and "90%", not 94%.
- Singapore': The CIA source does say "42.5%" for Buddhists. However, the state.gov source gives 51% for "Buddhism, Taoism, ancestor worship or other faiths traditionally associated with the ethnic Chinese population", not Buddhism as a whole. The virginia.edu source gives a 14.5% statistic, not anywhere near 60%.
- Taiwan: The 35% figure is legitimate, but the 75% figure from state.gov says "Budhists OR Taoists". The 93% number also says "mixture of Buddhist and Taoist".
- Vietnam: The VN embassy does give a low number (10 million), the state.gov source is correct (50% of pop). However, the second state.gov source says 14.3%, not anywhere near 90%, and the last source does not give any statistics.
saɪm duʃan Talk| Contribs 00:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it true that there are more than 20.000.000 buddhists in Western Europe ? I have recount and the highest number is > 2.000.000 people only. -- Si Gam ( talk) 07:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it is hard to measure, so I don't blame the authors, but, among young people especially, buddhism is rapidly overtaking christianity as the default religion in North America. This is happening not only on the trendy east and west coast, but in middle america as well. Heads up, Authors.
I've been in Vietnam and I haven't seen any clear evidence that the government discourages the practice of religion. The figure of 10% seems to me to be too low. They mix it a lot with folk religion, but it seems clear to me that most Vietnamese people consider themselves as Buddhist and respect the Buddhist traditions (Mahayana). Talk| Mondolkiri1 21:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I move here the discussion that the user Angelo De La Paz has started on my talkpage, accusing me of vandalism and original research:
Hello, I'm
Angelo De La Paz. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Buddhism by country because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Angelo De La Paz (
talk)
16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Buddhism by country. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
Angelo De La Paz (
talk)
17:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I have started to cleanse the article from all the unreliable sources (web posts like this, press articles like this, data from touristic websites like this or this, maps like this which don't say anything specific about Buddhism), original research and synthesis, through which Angelo De La Paz has constructed it over the years, with the aim of inflating the number of Buddhists to "1 billion and over". This number is calculated summing Buddhists with the followers of other, totally unrelated, religions. In additon, Angelo De La Paz has written sections with unsourced, invented, figures about "cultural Buddhists" by country.
The article has been in this poor, messy and unfactual state for years, and unfortunately it has been copied in other languages. It has also been criticised for this state by different users (just read posts above), and tagged for the same reasons.-- 79.54.84.104 ( talk) 17:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
P.S.: I already tried to expose the problems of this article in the past (for example read here, where I discussed the problems further in detail), but I received little or no attention at all, and all remained the same.-- 79.54.84.104 ( talk) 18:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Today I have emptied the table of "Buddhists by country" so that now it can be re-compiled according to what sources actually say (i.e. not making sums of adherents of different faiths). If someone wants to help, his contribution will be very appreciated!-- Xyxyo ( talk) 14:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is fatally flawed, in that it fails to acknowledge a fundamental problem of enumeration. In the case of Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhists are a clear enough identity group that they can be meaningfully counted (except in regions where the religion is suppressed). The situation is very different for East Asian Buddhism (China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam), where small groups of people who actively identify with Buddhism get lumped together with much larger populations for whom Buddhism is but one element of their religious heritage (along with Daoism, Shinto, Confucianism, etc.--many might consider that they have no religion), and whose identities as "Buddhists" are very questionable.
I see no simple way of resolving this problem, due to the inherent complexity of the situation. Unfortunately, the total number of Buddhists in the world would go up or down by several hundred million (i.e. 100 percent or more) depending on how this is interpreted. My recommendation would be to state a range, with a conservative figure for those who clearly identify as Buddhists, and a larger figure to include borderline cases, such as most ethnic Chinese and Japanese.
On the issue of whether Buddhism is a religion, it is true that the meaning of the term "religion" is debated (certainly there are many borderline cases), and that Buddhism lacks some features shared by, say, the Abrahamics. However, since virtually everyone--Asian, Western, or miscellaneous--except a few intellectuals considers Buddhism to be a religion, according to our ordinary use of language, I think we have to be guided by that. The problem with respect to East Asia is not debate over whether Buddhism qualifies as a religion--it is over what one has to do, be, or believe in order to be properly considered a "Buddhist."
In Japan there are temple registries (needed for burial) which encompass most of the population, even though few people admit to being religious. In several countries there are surveys of religious attitudes or practices. In some countries (like Malaysia), religion is printed on one's ID card (and everyone is assumed to have a religion); in others (like China), there are official state-run religious bodies which believers may join (though many do not, either out of fear or disinterest). All of these measure fundamentally different things. This article counts...nothing in particular.
One more thing: The first chart lists ten countries which are claimed to have the largest Buddhist populations, not ten countries with Buddhist majorities. (Several show numbers below 50 percent.) --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.58.253 ( talk) 08:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Buddhism by country. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Buddhism by country. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the numbers added by JaMongKut in e.g. this edit: [21] from the lead section, as well as numbers that were previously there. Since estimates vary widely, for example in the case of Japan, according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight, we need to present them appropriately, as is done in the table. We should not choose any one particular estimate to state in Wikipedia's voice in the lead section. We do not necessarily privilege government data over other reliable sources, it depends on the context and the sources in question. -- IamNotU ( talk) 16:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
A citation was added by
JaMongKut for the statement that in Japan the number of Buddhists when calculating including the Shintoists would ramp the percentage of Buddhists in Japan to >99%.
: <ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|title=『図解仏教』|publisher=成美堂出版.|year=|isbn=|location=|pages=32}}</ref> I am skeptical about this. Can anyone provide a quotation/translation of what it actually says? It contradicts, for example, Encylopedia Britannica, which gives a total of 66.8% affiliated with Buddhism, including those also affiliated with Shinto (see the chart here:
[22], note the percentages add up to much more than 100%). At the least, we would need to describe what the most reliable and significant proportion of sources say; according to
WP:WEIGHT we shouldn't give a single number with a single source if there are other reliable sources that say something quite different.
Also, in general, it's not correct to describe Buddhism as the "dominant religion" in Japan; most people practice aspects of more than one, and according to Britannica, "Not one of the religions is dominant" (see link above). There are widely differing estimations by reliable sources of how many people are considered Buddhists, from less than 20% to almost 70% (or 99% if we are to believe the first source above) depending on the methodology of calculation. The article should not attempt to portray only one point of view as being correct, in accordance with the neutral point of view policy. -- IamNotU ( talk) 16:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Related to the above, I have once again reverted this change to the lead section: [23], previously: [24], stating "Buddhism is the dominant religion in Japan". It's another example of edits that are not verified by, and misrepresent sources. It is contradicted by the reliable sources in the article which show that Shinto practices are as much or more widespread, that most people engage in practices of the two or more, and e.g. in the words of Encyclopedia Britannica "Not one of the religions is dominant", and most people do not self-identify as being religious. [2] Also the figures for Macau and Vietnam are disputed. -- IamNotU ( talk) 13:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I noticed that this article primarily uses and/or gives more visibility to PEW estimates over the national census data. I believe data from PEW estimates should be only used when reliable primary sources are not available. Would anyone be able to clarify the reason? I would happy to edit tables with numbers from the national census to give them more visibility over PEW estimates. Thought I would ask here before doing anything. Lipwe ( talk) 09:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no consensus to deprecate these sources. That said, rough consensus did develop to use them with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources.
@ Lipwe: If you will need to cite it, hereinabove is the outcome of the RSN discussion + deprecation RfC about Gordon-Conwell's WRD/WCD/WCE+ARDA & Pew-Templeton's GRF, closed by Firefangledfeathers.-- Æo ( talk) 14:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Buddhism by country article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Archive 1 January 2005 - July 2009 |
I removed the line from the intro about 'most Asian ethnic groups being irreligious' and Buddhism not being a religion by "Western standards". There were a two major problems with it: first, the cited articles were about Asian-American ethnicities, not Asians in their country of origin. Second, the idea that there is a single 'Western standard' by which it is decided if someone is religious or if their practices constitute a religion is fallacious. It might be worth noting with citation that some observers don't call Buddhism a religion, but we shouldn't be presenting that as if it is a standard majority view. -- Clay Collier ( talk) 00:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
(Indent reset) I'm quite frustrated by this discussion as well. I'm not arguing the article shouldn't mention the view that Buddhism is not a religion. What I want to know is this: what are these sources that say most East Asian ethnic groups are irreligious? Where is this point established? Here are the references in the first paragraph, in order:
The next three references are discussing the view that Buddhism is not a religion. I have no problem including that here. The problem is: there is only one ethnic group called irreligious in the source material. Chinese-Americans. Other ethnicities in East Asia are not discussed at all, and only two emigrant communities are discussed- neither of which are called irreligious. The language for the statement in the article is taken directly from the Chinese-American article, and then broadened in a way that the sources don't support. Where is any ethnic group other than Chinese-Americans discussed as being irreligious by Western standards? The language of the statement in the article is way too broad, and isn't what the sources are saying. -- Clay Collier ( talk) 05:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Where are 'my opinions' in edits like this? You say 'the author' was making a single point- what author are you talking about? The authors of the sources? The author who edited the introduction before we started? The sentence that was there before we started editing related the concept of irreligion to Buddhism not being a religion. Now the sentence that you want to keep discusses Asians following a mixture of religious practices and being irreligious in the same sentence. The sentence is not grammatically correct in the form you propose to keep, and connects two loosely related concepts without any transition. How is this out of context? Following the practices of multiple religions and being disinterested in religion, or not personally identifying as religious are pretty clearly two separate situations, no? -- Clay Collier ( talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to a request for a third opinion.
...although according to the Western standards of religion much of East Asia could be characterized as irreligious <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion Wikipedia - irreligion]</ref> <ref>[http://www.reference.com/browse/Irreligion?jss=0 reference.com - irreligion]</ref> <ref>[http://en.allexperts.com/e/i/ir/irreligion.htm allexperts - irreligion]</ref> including Buddhists <ref>[http://www.amtb.org.tw/e-bud/releases/educati.htm Buddhism is an Education, Not a Religion]</ref> <ref>[http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm Buddha Net]</ref>
Such a statement (poorly sourced at that) might have been widely perceived in the United States as true in the 1950s. It does not belong in the article. — Athaenara ✉ 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Why was "1.5 billion estimated Buddhists wild and unsubstantiated." archived? The last comment made was on the 31st of October. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 10:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I see this discussion is quite difficult due to widely varying sources and definitions, but how come even the lower-end totals end up around 500 million, while 350 million is an often used total figure in some sources? say adherents.com? Also, just wondering, what's the position arrived at on irreligious - adherents put that as high as 75% of japan for instance? Is irreligious actually overlapping with Buddhist - or just different research/definitions? Or could this number be added as lower-end estimate for japan? I don't wish to argue for any particular number or value, just wondering what positions has consensus here come to - and maybe suggest - an FAQ on a discussion page might be useful? Aryah ( talk) 14:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook, which is an accurate source reports that China is only 3-4% Buddhist, yet wikipedia says 80% based off which reliable source? No reliable source indicates that China is 80% Buddhist at all. The Dhamma web site given as a source is not reliable and does not link to any reliable source indicating that China is 80% Buddhist. After China's communist rule Buddhism went down. A number around 8-23% is much more accurate. -- 71.163.31.116 ( talk) 07:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to add a bit more detail here..
For China, the article currently says: 8% - 21% - 80% (approx)
The 8% figure is supported by two cited sources:
The 21% figure is supported by two cited sources:
The 80% figure is supported by two cited sources:
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Village grandmothers view the image of Guanyin on the altar like Latin American Santeros view the image of St. Barbara on their altar - as an indigenous deity in a polytheistic tradition. Urban people often identify with Buddhism because they want to seem 'modern' by identifying with a world, rather than indigenous, religion. Nonreligious Chinese (the majority) often also say they are Buddhist because they do not want to attract Christian proselytes.
The term for Chinese spirituality is folk Taoism or Traditional Chinese Religion; an indigenous spirituality cognate to Shinto and Hinduism, similar to the Paganism of the ancient Mediterranean. Please do not impose biased viewpoints or interpretatio indica. The Dragon King and the God of Fortune do not originate from the Pali canon or other Buddhist sources.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.181.192 ( talk) 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe its difficult to determine the actual number of Buddhists in the world. In countries dominated by Christianity and Islam, Government/Demographers in those countries state people belong only to one religion. There is hardly any leeway for people who believe/follow multiple religions/philosophies or no religion, thus the actual "believers" are overstated and minorities such as Buddhists are understated, especially in less tolerant Muslim dominated countries.
Buddhism, is generally practiced along with other beliefs either in parallel or combined. For example, in China its combined with Taoism and Confucianism. In Japan its combined with Shinto. In India its combined with Hinduism. Etc. Recently, in Western countries we are seeing more and more people practicing Buddhism along with Christianity or Judaism. Over time this will be acknowledged. In China, I believe all three faiths: Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism are undercounted.
Generally, Muslim and Christian organizations will undercount number of Buddhists. If we take the Western or Islamic view of determining number of Buddhists worldwide ... the range is between 300 - 500 million. However, if we take the traditional approach of Buddhism being practiced with other beliefs, the numbers would be much higher: Well over a Billion does not seem off the mark. I am betting on the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.237.178 ( talk) 19:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
If you rearrange the chart by percentage, it is very much out of order. I'm not sure how to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.109.65 ( talk) 19:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe that 2 years later, this article is still such a trainwreck. All the same faulty and misquoted references remain intact. The article even references a website written by the very user whose been violently inserting his POV in articles related to Buddhist demographics. I think it's high time this article had a revamp. Here's my old summary of the sources used in this article (from 2009) which as far as I can see remains relevant today.
I looked at all 4 of the references for the 1.5 billion figure, and here is what I found:
1. Is exactly the same as number 2 2. Is the "Idiot's Guide to Understanding Buddhism", and I found no "1.5 billion" stat in it 3. Was written by the Vipassana foundation, which has been found to be an unreliable source in above discussions 4. Is in Vietnamese, and I can't understand it, but since the other 3 sources were fault, I think it might be as well.
In addition,
- Hong Kong: Neither of the Hong Kong numbers are for Buddhism as a whole. The 10% number is for practicing Buddhists and Taoists, whereas the 90% number is "an electic mix of local religions". They're both somewhat generalizing, but they also say different things.
- Japan: One of the Japan sources is the same page written by Vipassana Foundation. The other two are accurate. I think we should, however, use the academic reference used on the Japan page, as well as add a note that "Higher estimates are for both Buddhism and Shinto. x source argues that these numbers are for the number of people registered at a temple, rather than self-identifying Buddhists or Taoists".
- North Korea: Neither state.gov nor the CIA World Factbook give a 60+% number for North Korean Buddhists. The everyculture.com references does not give any statistics, either. For some strange reason, both the CIA World Factbook and state.gov are sourced twice for the same statistic(s).
- South Korea: State.gov does give around 20% (10 million out of almost 50 million). State.gov is sourced a second time, for the 50% number, but this version of the state.gov data has no statistics on religion, just a list of major religions present in S Korea. Everyculture.com is sourced twice, but neither source gives any actual statistics. Then Korea.net is sourced, but it does not give 50%. It says that half of the population practice any religion, and 43% of those who practice religion are Buddhists.
- Laos: There is only one source given, state.gov, and it does not give a 90+% number. In fact, it gives more of a 50-60+% number. It says that most ethnic Lao are Theravadin Buddhists, but only 40-50% of Laotians are ethnic Lao. The rest are from a large number of ethnic groups, most of which practice animism.
- Macau: State.gov is sourced three times this time. The first state.gov source does indeed say "17%". The second source gives no where near 80+%, as the source says that only 43% of the population practice any religion. The third state.gov source does give a high number, but it is 79.3%, not 85%. The CIA World Factbook does indeed give a 50% number for Macanese Buddhists.
- Malaysia: The state.gov source referenced gives a 19% statistic, not 22%.
- Mongolia: The CIA source does indeed say "50% Lamaist", but the other two sources say "93% of ethnic Mongolians" and "90%", not 94%.
- Singapore': The CIA source does say "42.5%" for Buddhists. However, the state.gov source gives 51% for "Buddhism, Taoism, ancestor worship or other faiths traditionally associated with the ethnic Chinese population", not Buddhism as a whole. The virginia.edu source gives a 14.5% statistic, not anywhere near 60%.
- Taiwan: The 35% figure is legitimate, but the 75% figure from state.gov says "Budhists OR Taoists". The 93% number also says "mixture of Buddhist and Taoist".
- Vietnam: The VN embassy does give a low number (10 million), the state.gov source is correct (50% of pop). However, the second state.gov source says 14.3%, not anywhere near 90%, and the last source does not give any statistics.
saɪm duʃan Talk| Contribs 00:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it true that there are more than 20.000.000 buddhists in Western Europe ? I have recount and the highest number is > 2.000.000 people only. -- Si Gam ( talk) 07:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it is hard to measure, so I don't blame the authors, but, among young people especially, buddhism is rapidly overtaking christianity as the default religion in North America. This is happening not only on the trendy east and west coast, but in middle america as well. Heads up, Authors.
I've been in Vietnam and I haven't seen any clear evidence that the government discourages the practice of religion. The figure of 10% seems to me to be too low. They mix it a lot with folk religion, but it seems clear to me that most Vietnamese people consider themselves as Buddhist and respect the Buddhist traditions (Mahayana). Talk| Mondolkiri1 21:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I move here the discussion that the user Angelo De La Paz has started on my talkpage, accusing me of vandalism and original research:
Hello, I'm
Angelo De La Paz. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Buddhism by country because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Angelo De La Paz (
talk)
16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Buddhism by country. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
Angelo De La Paz (
talk)
17:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I have started to cleanse the article from all the unreliable sources (web posts like this, press articles like this, data from touristic websites like this or this, maps like this which don't say anything specific about Buddhism), original research and synthesis, through which Angelo De La Paz has constructed it over the years, with the aim of inflating the number of Buddhists to "1 billion and over". This number is calculated summing Buddhists with the followers of other, totally unrelated, religions. In additon, Angelo De La Paz has written sections with unsourced, invented, figures about "cultural Buddhists" by country.
The article has been in this poor, messy and unfactual state for years, and unfortunately it has been copied in other languages. It has also been criticised for this state by different users (just read posts above), and tagged for the same reasons.-- 79.54.84.104 ( talk) 17:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
P.S.: I already tried to expose the problems of this article in the past (for example read here, where I discussed the problems further in detail), but I received little or no attention at all, and all remained the same.-- 79.54.84.104 ( talk) 18:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Today I have emptied the table of "Buddhists by country" so that now it can be re-compiled according to what sources actually say (i.e. not making sums of adherents of different faiths). If someone wants to help, his contribution will be very appreciated!-- Xyxyo ( talk) 14:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is fatally flawed, in that it fails to acknowledge a fundamental problem of enumeration. In the case of Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhists are a clear enough identity group that they can be meaningfully counted (except in regions where the religion is suppressed). The situation is very different for East Asian Buddhism (China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam), where small groups of people who actively identify with Buddhism get lumped together with much larger populations for whom Buddhism is but one element of their religious heritage (along with Daoism, Shinto, Confucianism, etc.--many might consider that they have no religion), and whose identities as "Buddhists" are very questionable.
I see no simple way of resolving this problem, due to the inherent complexity of the situation. Unfortunately, the total number of Buddhists in the world would go up or down by several hundred million (i.e. 100 percent or more) depending on how this is interpreted. My recommendation would be to state a range, with a conservative figure for those who clearly identify as Buddhists, and a larger figure to include borderline cases, such as most ethnic Chinese and Japanese.
On the issue of whether Buddhism is a religion, it is true that the meaning of the term "religion" is debated (certainly there are many borderline cases), and that Buddhism lacks some features shared by, say, the Abrahamics. However, since virtually everyone--Asian, Western, or miscellaneous--except a few intellectuals considers Buddhism to be a religion, according to our ordinary use of language, I think we have to be guided by that. The problem with respect to East Asia is not debate over whether Buddhism qualifies as a religion--it is over what one has to do, be, or believe in order to be properly considered a "Buddhist."
In Japan there are temple registries (needed for burial) which encompass most of the population, even though few people admit to being religious. In several countries there are surveys of religious attitudes or practices. In some countries (like Malaysia), religion is printed on one's ID card (and everyone is assumed to have a religion); in others (like China), there are official state-run religious bodies which believers may join (though many do not, either out of fear or disinterest). All of these measure fundamentally different things. This article counts...nothing in particular.
One more thing: The first chart lists ten countries which are claimed to have the largest Buddhist populations, not ten countries with Buddhist majorities. (Several show numbers below 50 percent.) --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.58.253 ( talk) 08:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Buddhism by country. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Buddhism by country. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the numbers added by JaMongKut in e.g. this edit: [21] from the lead section, as well as numbers that were previously there. Since estimates vary widely, for example in the case of Japan, according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight, we need to present them appropriately, as is done in the table. We should not choose any one particular estimate to state in Wikipedia's voice in the lead section. We do not necessarily privilege government data over other reliable sources, it depends on the context and the sources in question. -- IamNotU ( talk) 16:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
A citation was added by
JaMongKut for the statement that in Japan the number of Buddhists when calculating including the Shintoists would ramp the percentage of Buddhists in Japan to >99%.
: <ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|title=『図解仏教』|publisher=成美堂出版.|year=|isbn=|location=|pages=32}}</ref> I am skeptical about this. Can anyone provide a quotation/translation of what it actually says? It contradicts, for example, Encylopedia Britannica, which gives a total of 66.8% affiliated with Buddhism, including those also affiliated with Shinto (see the chart here:
[22], note the percentages add up to much more than 100%). At the least, we would need to describe what the most reliable and significant proportion of sources say; according to
WP:WEIGHT we shouldn't give a single number with a single source if there are other reliable sources that say something quite different.
Also, in general, it's not correct to describe Buddhism as the "dominant religion" in Japan; most people practice aspects of more than one, and according to Britannica, "Not one of the religions is dominant" (see link above). There are widely differing estimations by reliable sources of how many people are considered Buddhists, from less than 20% to almost 70% (or 99% if we are to believe the first source above) depending on the methodology of calculation. The article should not attempt to portray only one point of view as being correct, in accordance with the neutral point of view policy. -- IamNotU ( talk) 16:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Related to the above, I have once again reverted this change to the lead section: [23], previously: [24], stating "Buddhism is the dominant religion in Japan". It's another example of edits that are not verified by, and misrepresent sources. It is contradicted by the reliable sources in the article which show that Shinto practices are as much or more widespread, that most people engage in practices of the two or more, and e.g. in the words of Encyclopedia Britannica "Not one of the religions is dominant", and most people do not self-identify as being religious. [2] Also the figures for Macau and Vietnam are disputed. -- IamNotU ( talk) 13:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I noticed that this article primarily uses and/or gives more visibility to PEW estimates over the national census data. I believe data from PEW estimates should be only used when reliable primary sources are not available. Would anyone be able to clarify the reason? I would happy to edit tables with numbers from the national census to give them more visibility over PEW estimates. Thought I would ask here before doing anything. Lipwe ( talk) 09:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no consensus to deprecate these sources. That said, rough consensus did develop to use them with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources.
@ Lipwe: If you will need to cite it, hereinabove is the outcome of the RSN discussion + deprecation RfC about Gordon-Conwell's WRD/WCD/WCE+ARDA & Pew-Templeton's GRF, closed by Firefangledfeathers.-- Æo ( talk) 14:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)