Talk:Buddhists

Untitled

As it is this article has nothing to do with "Buddhists" as its title would suggest, but instead contains "Buddhist regions of the World" and "Buddhism and the West" articles.PHG 04:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I am now remerging with the Buddhism article. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I have removed the following paragraph, because the percentage of Buddhists in East Asia is obviously wrong and it fails verification.

Globally, the distribution of people identifying as Buddhists is highly uneven. Approximately 98% reside in Asia and the Pacific, around 1% in Europe, and less than 1% collectively in Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. Within Asia, Buddhists account for about 93% of the population in East Asia, 67% in Southeast Asia, and 29% in South Asia.

In East Asia Buddhism exists alongside Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism etc, it isn't 93%. PhilKnight (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Many mahayana buddhists are culturally buddhists.China has more Buddhists than Thailand as Buddhism influences more than 1 billion people in the world.So total Buddhist population in the world would be more than 1 billion. ~2026-15949-71 (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Hatnotes

@Y Ranasnghe: Which part of WP:HATNOTE suggests that this article shouldn't provide a disambiguation hatnote to Buddhist (horse)? It was my understanding that we should always disambiguate, where an article exists, and where a user looking for it could plausibly have ended up here. Belbury (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury

WP:HATNOTE focuses on likely confusion, not every possible case. In this situation, confusion between Buddhists and Buddhist (horse) seems very unlikely, so adding it would not improve clarity and may create unnecessary clutter. Y Ranasnghe (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hatnotes are to help readers locate a different article if the one they are viewing is not the one they're looking for. It isn't about how likely the two subjects are to be confused; we hatnote Turkey (bird) from Turkey even though nobody would ever mistake one for the other. If a user searches Wikipedia for buddhist, they end up here. Since it's possible they were looking for the horse, we should offer them a link to that article.

I don't see anything in WP:NOTHATNOTE to suggest that we should omit hatnotes when they match the redirect term but are comparatively unknown. If the racehorse was so obscure that it was only mentioned in passing in an article about a race event, then it probably wouldn't be worth the link, but we have a full article. Belbury (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hatnotes are for helpful navigation, not for listing every meaning. 'Turkey' works because both meanings are common. Buddhist (horse) is very obscure and not a usual search. Adding it just adds clutter. According WP:HATNOTE, WP:NOTHATNOTE, and WP:UCS, hatnotes should stay simple and useful. Y Ranasnghe (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Which specific part of the hatnote guidelines do you see as supporting the idea that we should omit very obscure target articles from hatnotes? Belbury (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:HATNOTE says hatnotes should help readers find the right article and stay concise. WP:NOTHATNOTE says avoid hatnotes that are not helpful. So very obscure topics can be left out if they don’t help most readers. Y Ranasnghe (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see anything in WP:NOTHATNOTE to support the idea that links can be omitted if there's a full target article with the same name but where its topic is very obscure. Such hatnotes exist all over Wikipedia. Which subsection of the guideline do you have in mind? Belbury (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Y Ranasnghe: Could you clarify this for me? Thanks. Belbury (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Rick Joseph has repeatedly reverted my edits, claiming they are vandalism, even though the source I used is widely relied upon across many Wikipedia articles on religious demographics. The data comes from the Pew Research Center, which is a reputable and commonly used source. According to Pew’s study, Buddhists are the only major religious group whose global population declined between 2010 and 2020 (here). The center has also published multiple articles based on large-scale studies explaining the reasons behind this decline. So it’s unclear why adding this information would be considered vandalism. Additionally, the article currently states: ‘There are approximately 530 million Buddhists worldwide, accounting for about 7% of the global population,’ but the cited Pew source actually gives a figure closer to 320 million. This means the source does not match the statement being supported. Is there a valid reason for continuing to revert these corrections, especially when they improve accuracy and are based on reliable sources?.Durziil89 (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)