Talk:Muslim population growth

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muslim population growth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Shi'a Islam / Sunni Islam High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force (assessed as High-importance). Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wpark36.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 9&10 biased? Mrmango786 (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global growth figures corrected. The CIA factbook link gives no growth rates. "Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life" has been referred to already as an accurate resource. In line with WP guidelines, we stick to good, regular and reliable sources. Avenger786 (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an encyclopedia article and thus should be delated. It does not bring any new information compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_Growing_Religion. (Abdullah mk (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a of an old version of the Muslim Claims from that page. Mike Young (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is a very biased article with scewed data. Same goes for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_Growing_Religion which keeps getting modified by evangelical christians with faulty data. Timothyn7 (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree! I will be deleting it soon.Islamuslim (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is highly debated and thus notable. Shiftadot (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article provides various aspects on why and how Muslim population continues to grow through out the world. I updated the data regarding the number of Muslim Population in Europe as of 2016 according to Pew Research Center. And, contributed by providing more details regarding the cause of Muslim Expansion in Europe.^[1] Moreover, I have included several subsections providing information on major European countries containing a great number of Muslim population, such as France and Germany. Therefore I believe this article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpark36 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that there are so many calls for deleting this page. I just came to complain about the lead sentence: "Muslim population growth refers to the highly discussed topic on population growth of the entire global Muslim community, which has lately gained popularity largely as a global demographic threat." How is that encyclopedic? 1.) Passive voice--who discusses this? Who considers it a threat? 2.) Really? We're saying that the most important takeaway about Muslim population growth is that some consider it a threat? Whatever you think of the politics of Muslim population growth, it's chiefly demographics and conversion rates, and then secondarily something that some groups consider a threat.69.94.192.147 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. AnandVisho (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: AnandVisho has been blocked as a sock of IslaMuslim.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A recent editor is intent on forcing content into this page and numerous others. The scope of this page is to verifiabilty report on Muslim population growth. For this reason, there is no need for an apologetic commentary on claims of Eurabia. The topic is not raised in this article, so content forking an apologetic for a non-existent argument here is unnecessary. The content may have its place on Eurabia or Islam in Europe but you are going to need to justify why some POV original research is to be placed in the middle of this article. --Ari (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on the article is research so all points of view needs to be discussed. Islamuslim (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also discuss keynesian economics here? I have given just as much reason as yourself. --Ari (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Islamuslim has pov-forked the article in Criticism of the Muslim Population growth and immigration theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamuslim's add is too huge, but I think that some copy could be usefull, like those I made in Islam in Europe. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Eurabia:

See also Randy McDonald, France, its Muslims, and the Future, 2004-04-13, Doug Saunders, The 'Eurabia' myth deserves a debunking, The Globe and Mail, 2008-09-20, Fewer differences between foreign born and Swedish born childbearing women, Statistics Sweden, 2008-11-03, Denmark: Immigrants/Danes have same number of children, Statistics Denmark quoted by dr.dk, 2009-05-06, Mary Mederios Kent, Do Muslims have more children than other women in western Europe?, Population Reference Bureau, prb.org, February 2008; for fertility of Muslims outside Europe, see the sentence "The dramatic decline in Iran's fertility provides a recent example of how strict Islamic practices can coexist with widespread use of family planning," (in Do Muslims have...), "Turkish women have 1.92 children in average, Tunisian women 1.74. Iranian women? 1.8 children." in Øyvind Strømmen, Fisking Mark Steyn, 2006-11-07, and the articles by Farzaneh Roudi-Fahimi and Mary Mederios Kent, Fertility Declining in the Middle East and North Africa, prb.org, April 2008, especially the figure 2, Mohammad Jalal Abbasi-Shavazi, Recent changes and the future of fertility in Iran, especially the figure 1, Yoram Ettinger, Demographic implosion in Muslim societies, The Jerusalem Post, 2008-10-28;

"They go on to say it's possible that the Muslim percentage of Europe's population could rise to six per cent by 2020. If current immigration and birth rates remain the same, Westoff and Frejka say the percentage of Muslims in Europe could rise to 10 per cent -- a century from now. Then again, the demographers say, even these scenarios are unlikely." in Douglas Todd, Do Muslims seek to dominate the West? And could they do it?, Vancouver Sun, 2009-08-15;

From Islam in Europe:

Other analysts are skeptical about the given forecast and the accuracy of the claimed Muslim population growth, since sharp decrease in Muslim fertility rates^[1] and the limiting of immigrants coming in to Europe, which will lead to Muslim population increasing slowly in the coming years to eventually stagnation and decline. Others point to overestimated number and exaggeration of the Muslim growth rate.^[2]

1. ^ Mary Mederios Kent, Do Muslims have more children than other women in western Europe?, Population Reference Bureau, prb.org, February 2008; for fertility of Muslims outside Europe, see Farzaneh Roudi-Fahimi and Mary Mederios Kent, Fertility Declining in the Middle East and North Africa, prb.org, April 2008, Mohammad Jalal Abbasi-Shavazi, Recent changes and the future of fertility in Iran
2. ^ see Eurabia#Criticism

Please notice the articles claiming decreasing fertility rate of muslim population worldwide.Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the three different projections provided by Pew Research Center, even without any migration, the Muslim population in Europe is expected to rise by over 1%. And, in medium and high migration scenario, the Muslim population is expected to increase by approximately 3%. Therefore, even with those two factors (migrtion,birthrate) declining, the Muslim population will never decrease. Therefore, the data does not seem overestimated and there are no exaggeration regarding the Muslim growth rate.^[1]

I've now protected this page for 2 weeks to allow the budding discussion above a chance to grow without editors reverting each other. Please note both [[User:Islamuslim and User:Ari89 were technically in breach of 3RR and could have been blocked, but I'm assuming good faith and that blocking would be counter-productive in this case. If edit warring breaks out again, I will block on sight. GedUK  09:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence "the number of Muslims on the continent has tripled in the last 30 years. Most demographers forecast a similar or even higher rate of growth in the coming decades." is wrong in my opinion. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The two sentences "According to the Carnegie [...] the monsignor said." are not specific to Europe and should be moved outside the Europe section of the article. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the justification for the this edit? The material appears mostly reliable (though some sources are unreliable).Bless sins (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean unreliable or out-of-scope? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out who this is quoting, "Islam is already the fastest-growing religion in Europe. Driven by immigration and high birthrates, the number of Muslims on the continent has tripled in the last 30 years. Most demographers forecast a similar or even higher rate of growth in the coming decades." Google seems to indicate it is from Pew but the links are dead. In any case it should have some attribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.210.137 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have ever read a more racist article in wikipedia. Are you seriously trying to find a correlation between demographics and religion? If religion orders and human makes than bible orders to reproduce openly. Why doesn't christian population growth is higher than the world average? "Because muslims are ...." bingo you are racist. There might be a single non-racist and scientific thesis for that. Which is muslims predominantly live in rural places and ghettos where the growth rate does really tend to increase. I'm sure you can find some research about that -if you really want to- since the header of the article and the content seems it the writers justify their racist ideologies and show them like mainstream ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.102.184 (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J0mm0n, please explain here why WCE is not neutral.--Peaceworld 09:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is from World Christian Encyclopedia which is not a neutral source on a article on Muslims. J0mm0n (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J0mm0n, most of the sources used in the entire encyclopaedia are by authors who have a Christian or a non-Muslim background. The first source cited in this article alone is from the CIA factbook, NOT a Muslim source. Your reasoning is not acceptable by any standard.--Peaceworld 10:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said not a neutral source never said non-Muslim. Stop putting words into my mouth. J0mm0n (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So WHY is it not neutral? Explain. --Peaceworld 10:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already said it is not a neutral source. There is only one way to say this and is very obvious. J0mm0n (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J0mm0n I'm well aware that you said it's not a neutral source. I'm asking WHY do you think it is not neutral? Is it biased towards Ahmadiyya? --Peaceworld 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even thought about Ahmadiyya. I have a problem with WCE as not a neutral source. J0mm0n (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having a personal problem with a particular source is not a sufficient reason to remove well sourced content. Unless you are willing to explain why WCE is not neutral, your edits will be reverted.--Peaceworld 11:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see the obvious not at all my problem. J0mm0n (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not psychic. I can't see why YOU think it is not neutral.--Peaceworld 11:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WCE is a Christian leaning encyclopedia so it is not a neutral source. Definitely cannot be used on article of Islamic or Muslim issue. Please refer to WP:NPOVS. J0mm0n (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day you are claiming, it's a Christian authored reference book, therefore it's not neutral. This is exactly what I said is not acceptable, per NPOV. By the way, also note this is not an "Islamic issue", it's a statistical issue.--Peaceworld 11:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the NPOV. Just like New York Times a left leaning source cannot be used on right wing issues so is WCE cannot be used on our current issue. J0mm0n (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are essentially making a case against the entire set of Islam related articles, by claiming that non-Muslim sources cannot be used for Muslim-related topics. Nevertheless, WP:RNPOV is pretty suggestive that non-Muslim sources are acceptable.--Peaceworld 11:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide where it says that on NPOV. Second provide an example. The example of NYT I gave you is right out of the NPOV page. J0mm0n (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) You can't equate political leaning with religious background of individuals, for that would mean the entire article and the entire set of Islam-related articles are biased.
• (2) Nowhere does it imply in WP:NPOVS that "New York Times a left leaning source cannot be used on right wing issues". It says "The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view,"
• (3) WP:NPOVS is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline.
• (4) WP:RNPOV is Wikipedia policy: It states "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs" which clearly suggests that non-Muslim sources are acceptable.--Peaceworld 12:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a issue with the source. Again you are putting words into my mouth. J0mm0n (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right after the lede, this article embarks on a "birth control" section that consists solely of a discussion of coitus interruptus. There is nothing to indicate what this has to do with the topic of population growth. There is no general statement linking Muslim population growth to birth control. I'm deleting the section. If restored, it should be expanded and demoted. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was reverted without comment. So I guess this is one of those battleground articles. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 14:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caution? User:Johnzsmith that appears to give the meaning that Ahmadiyya is a lesser of a branch than say Sunni or Shia or Ibadi. That fails WP:POV.--Peaceworld 20:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So there are article with the title Shia Islam and Sunni Islam but there is no article with a title Ahmadiyya Islam. Second, all of the sources are secular nothing to do with Fatwas. Johnzsmith (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secular or not, it is not relevant to an article on Muslim population growth. Having "Islam" on the title is not a prerequisite for the identification of the group as a branch of Islam.--Peaceworld 21:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if you don't even care to create an article with a title Ahmadiyya Islam then why should I take you seriously on the point that Ahmadiyya and Islam are one and the same. Second those sources are secular and neutral but World Christian Encyclopedia source is not a neutral source particularly on the subject of Islam or Muslim and which involves a Ahmadiyya, a sect consider heretical by mainstream Muslims. I suspect that World Christian Encyclopedia is promoting this idea with no good intention in mind as you can tell by the results here on this article. Johnzsmith (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article cites a YouTube video which is clearly not uploaded by the copyright holder (NBC News): see the last reference in the 'Conversion' section. Per WP:LINKVIO this link needs to be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As protection has now been removed, I've done this myself. I'll see if I can find a proper source - though it is rather dated anyway (2008). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This paper [1] makes specific comments as regards to the reliability of the World Christian Encyclopedia in regard to Muslims, as well as general comments as regarding evidence of possible bias (see in particular the conclusions on p 691-2). Also WCE article says that WCE has been described as serving as "an informational undergirding for Christian missionary work" Jayjaykijayjay (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As was discussed on the WP:RSN, we cannot interpret academic papers about reliability. Consensus there was that WCE is reliable enough. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::WCE been described as serving as "an informational undergirding for Christian missionary work" which says on WCE article itself. Jjkijj (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to suggest that there was no consensus arrived at at WP:RSN at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, just to remark, I think there are over 100 articles that use WCE as a reference. This page is just one of them.--Peaceworld 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a source is used elsewhere is not in of itself evidence that it is reliable for the particular material it is cited for here. We know that its reliability in relation to Muslims has been questioned. We know that it is out of date, and we know that more recent sources contradict it. Why is it still being cited? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The figures are an estimate, not a census. So even reliable sources can contradict. Perhaps, I differ from EvergreenFir here, but I don't see why historical growth figures cannot be discussed in the article, particularly as no such similar set of statistical results can be found elsewhere, at least by myself. Moreover, perhaps you know better than me, best of sources can be subject to criticism. Besides, many of the growth rates as mentioned in the table are higher than the average growth rate of 1.8% mentioned in the lede. If anything WCE appears to be biased towards Muslims.--Peaceworld 18:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the WCE is necessarily biased - merely that their data acquisition methodology may not have been ideal when it comes to Islam - which is what the evaluation previously cited suggests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's reliability was questioned in an academic publication, but it doesn't appear to be widely questioned. If we're gonna remove the sentence, it should be because it's out of date. I'm starting to think we need an RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC might be a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

217.23.5.77 (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This RfC apparently means to ask whether the World Christian Encyclopedia should be used to state, with attribution, that a particular sect of Islam is the fastest growing in the world. -Darouet (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the purpose of this RfC is unclear; why should it be removed? What policy suggests its removal? The source seems reliable enough; it is an OUP publication. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion: Talk:Muslim_population_growth#World_Christian_Encyclopedia. The WCE reliability in relation to Muslims has been questioned. It is out of date, and more recent sources contradict it. Why is it still being cited? Also see this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_193#Muslim_population_growth. 217.23.5.70 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The World Christian Encyclopedia appears to be published by Oxford University Press, a reliable source. Are there any reputable sources that explicitly contest this claim? -Darouet (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The World Christian Encyclopedia has been described as serving as "an informational undergirding for Christian missionary work".^[2] Should the statement about Ahmadiyya in the lead be removed all together? As it serves the Christian mission. What do you think? Metaphysicswar (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE applies here. Information about what drives the viewpoints of the sources cited, if relevant to the article topic and if supported, might be mentioned or might not -- it's a judgement call. Such mention would be liable to lead to a need for clarification diverging from the topical thrust of the article. I see that the World Christian Encyclopedia article says, "Despite the name, the encyclopedia includes membership data for numerous non-Christian religions. However, the work has been described as serving as 'an informational undergirding for Christian missionary work'", citing this in support. (compare "serves the Christian mission" vs. serving as "an informational undergirding for Christian missionary work."). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this edit, that removed the comparison of religious conversion in Islam to that in Christianity. However, the lead also compares the fertility rate of Muslims to that of other religions:

“

Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 2.9 children per woman—well above replacement level (2.1) due to young age of Muslims (median age of 24) compared to other religious groups.[4] Hindu fertility (2.4) is similar to the global average (2.5).[5] Worldwide, Jewish fertility (2.3 children[6] per woman) also is above replacement level.[7] All the other groups have fertility levels too low to sustain their populations and would require converts to grow or maintain their size: indigenous and tribal religions (1.8 children per woman), other religions (1.7), the unaffiliated (1.7) and Buddhists (1.6).[8]

”

So I don't see why we can't compare effects of religious switching in the lead between Islam and other religions. @Desmay: VR _talk 16:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC) This article is Muslim population growth, growth factors etc, not about Christian or Hindu population growth and not about comparison. Plus the comparison is misleading e.g. based on the study while it's the study cited that christianity it's expected will loses more converts than it gains. Yet the study says this loss will have small impact. Anyway I don't even think it should be mention compares the fertility rate of Muslims to that of every other religions. The article is about Muslim population growth and not comparison of religious conversion in Islam to that in Christianity. desmay (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "Muslims in Europe are a diverse population of citizens and majority of Muslims are integral part of European cities," from the section on Europe as it is irrelevant. This article is about the change in population, not the population itself nor its value. Ribose carb (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The good man 232, world Christian encyclopedia is a reference work and published by Oxford University Press, which is the largest university press in the world, which passes WP: RELIABILITY by a long shot. Eliko007 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko007, You say that world Christian encyclopedia is a reference work and published by Oxford University Press, give me source. The good man 232 (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The good man 232, please before any further editing, read the source well and read the information in the source. It's very obvious that the publisher of the World Christian Encyclopedia is Oxford University Press,^[1][2] which passes WP: RELIABILITY by a long shot. Eliko007 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The good man 232, Sources: "The first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia (1982) was one of Oxford University Press’s best-selling reference books" ([2]), ([3]). Eliko007 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko007, Those who carry out these statistics are the missionaries. Go to the article World Christian Encyclopedia and read the history of the the encyclopedia and the reception. ~The good man 232 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The good man 232, If you have any doubts about the WP:RELIABILITY of the citation, go to WP:RSN and try your luck there. Books published by university presses are reliable by default. Eliko007 (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The good man 232, the book is published by a university press and is used throughout academia. Like any other scholarly work, it has its critics. That doesn't negate its authoritativeness. Eliko007 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko007, This encyclopedia says about itself that it "serves the Christian mission".

The good man 232, again the book is published by a university press and is used throughout academia. The author, who you are calling a missionary, is a professor at Columbia University; Columbia University is among the best colleges in the world. One's religious faith doesn't disqualify one from being an academic. Eliko007 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko007, I don't have a problem with his religious faith, but he is not an ordinary Christian, he is missionary. The good man 232 (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Eliko007, If you go back to the history of this discussion page, you will find that I am not the only one who has questioned this encyclopedia, and if you search for the history of the encyclopedia, you will find that its statistics are among the few statistics that differ with national statistics, so I think that addition of a ^{[unreliable source?]} template is justified. The good man 232 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The good man 232, and he is a professor at Columbia University, Columbia University is among the best colleges in the world. His book was published by Oxford University Press, which passes WP: RELIABILITY by a long shot. if you have any doubts about the reliability of the citation, go to WP:RSN. Otherwise you keep pushing your personal opinion rather than giving a convincing reason for the why you're feeling it an unreliable source and this goes against the rules here. BTW The template been removed also, since no one gave a convincing reason for it. Eliko007 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko007, According to wikipedia policy, the promotional source is a questionable source. The good man 232 (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the diff where you state that a consensus was made against the use of the citation. Eliko007 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko007, what? I didn't stated that.

Provide the diff where state that a consensus was made against the use of the citation. Eliko007 (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]