Misplaced Pages

Talk:Muslim population growth

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J0mm0n (talk | contribs) at 11:11, 22 March 2015 (→WCE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:11, 22 March 2015 by J0mm0n (talk | contribs) (→WCE)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconIslam Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEcology Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Comments

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

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)

Delete it!

This is not an encyclopedia article and thus should be delated. It does not bring any new information compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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

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

Keep it.

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

Objectionable Lead

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)

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

Scope of article

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)

Everything on the article is research so all points of view needs to be discussed. Islamuslim (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Should we also discuss keynesian economics here? I have given just as much reason as yourself. --Ari (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)

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 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.

  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)

Protected

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

Europe

Criticism

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)

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

Quote

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)

2012-05

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)

WCE

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

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)

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)
I said not a neutral source never said non-Muslim. Stop putting words into my mouth. J0mm0n (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
So WHY is it not neutral? Explain. --Peaceworld 10:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If you can't see the obvious not at all my problem. J0mm0n (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Categories: