Talk:10/40 window/Archive 1

The following archive contains a variety of discussions, all of which have been resolved for at least six months.

Readers interested in this topic may find these discussions of interest.

Rewrites planned

I am proposing a major rewrite for two major purposes: professionalism and accuracy. I will deal with the first of the two issues first since I think it is fairly non-controversial and we can all agree on the rewrites that are necessary in that aspect. Pianoguy 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the tone of the article is somewhat bellicose. This is most evident in the "controversy" section which includes such odd statements as "while the conclusions are unsettling to some" and "this data is uncontested." If the data is in truth uncontested then such a statement is not necessary, in either case it is rather highschoolish and needs to be rewritten. There are several such instances in this article. Pianoguy 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: let's find best-practice examples of other WP articles covering topics that similarly contain surprising elements that many readers might contest. Note that this article has been controversial from the get-go, mostly because people have so many preconceived notions. South Koreans were upset because SK happens to be inside the region, etc etc. Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, as already mentioned the sources for this article are poor at best, with the exception of the world factbook, the Time article, and possibly the World Christian Encylopedia. Particularly bad is the citation of a private blog, and most curiously, a citation of something I said on this board. I am flattered to suppose that anything I say is quoteworthy, but as people have been quick to point out I am neither a non-biased source nor an expert on this subject. I understand that this is in an attempt to add to the fairness of this article, but simply citing biased sources on both sides of the issue does not add to the fairness of the article. Pianoguy 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Wikipedia policy [recommends] quote-without-promotion/berating sources that reflect various POV's. Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As requested many times, you need to specify your requirements for judging a source as inadmissible, and recognize that your current requirements bear no relationship to Wikipedia policy. You have trashed sources without reason. Wikipedia does not allow this: valid references are not to be lightly trashed. You want to trash cited references from a variety of magazines, books and other publications, many of them best-sellers with long publication histories...just because they have a "Christian" label. That's as bigoted as it gets. I'm not defensive about this; actually I'm sad for you. You are wholesale rejecting a vast array of well-researched and well-written material. Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the factual accuracy of this article- as I have been researching the term 10/40 window it seems that it is only within the Luis Bush camp that the term refers to a supposed correlation between Christianity and poverty. As I will demonstrate later, no such correlation exists and no respected scientist has ever tried to make this claim, hence it cannot be included on wikipedia. For most people, the 10/40 window seems to refer to an area of the world that contains a high percentage of non-Christians, and as such, it is an easy area for evangelists to focus missionary activity upon. The rewrite of the article will focus mainly on this aspect of the window and will eliminate the economic aspect. Pianoguy 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the 10/40 Window. The Window was highlighted by half a dozen correlations, all of them backed up by GIS-produced maps based on publicly available, published global data. Half of them dealt with socioeconomic factors. The data was and is widely published, just not online. How can you justify eliminating half of the supporting citations, references and data for the Window definition? Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several counterexamples to the claim that there is a correlation between Christianity and economic prosperity, some of which I have already discussed and some of which I have not. Firstly, there are many countries that are economically prosperous and have little history of Christianity: most notably Japan, China, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwain, and others. Secondly, Europe, while it does have a history of Christianity, currently has one of the highest percentages of atheists and agnostics in the world, along with one of the strongest economies. Thirdly, South America has a high percentage of Christians and a rather weak economy (especially when contrasted with the non-Christian nations with strong economies in the 10/40 window, i.e. Japan, Saudia Arabia, et. al). Fourthly, especially in Africa, there has been little to no historical correlation with the introduction of Christianity to an improved economy. While sub-Saharan Africa has seen an increase in Christianity in recent years, the economy has gotten much worse. Fifthly, in supposedly Christian nations there is a strong correlation between Christianity and economic prosperity- but in the opposite direction. In the United States, for example, New England, California, and the Pacific Northwest are home to both the most properous areas economically and the highest percentage of atheists and non-Christians, whereas the considerably more religious South and Midwest are poorer economically. This is also true in Europe: traditionally atheistic Scandanavia, France, and Germany have much stronger economies than the more religious Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Eastern Europe. Pianoguy 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

First, you are making many claims here but not backing them up with facts, references, citations. That's not helpful to your case. You are also making your case based on short rather than long term trends, again not useful. Pianoguy, if you want to argue a different POV, you will need to find some support in the published literature and cite it here. Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Second, The situation is not as you present it, neither historically nor currently. Some of the "strong" economy nations you list only benefit the few not the many. Some have most definitely benefited from Christian influence, whether you would see it or not. Yes, there are some exceptions but you've done nothing to invalidate the analysis. Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Third, what we're talking about here is long term impact. Looking at any area that has had a recent societal change (whether introduction of representative democracy, free markets, high tech or anything else) and attempting to draw immediate quality of life conclusions is not helpful.

The article quotes a number of facts. Be specific please: which data available in 1990 do you specifically dispute? What data is incorrect? Here's the facts quoted on the 1990 "Poorest Countries" map: 49 nations, 3.0 billion people, had GNP/person under $500; In the 10/40 Window, 23 nations, 2.4 billion people, had GNP/person under $500 (82% of the total by population). Which of those facts are you disputing, based on what cited source? Let's get that dispute into the article if necessary! Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I need to add that it is not my duty to provide these counterexamples, as the burden for proving a theory falls on the person asserting that the theory is true, in accordance with traditional scientific process and Wikipedia standards. Pianoguy 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The article and associated references contain a variety of verifiable claims, backed up by valid citations based on published data. You want to removed that material based on unsubstantiated opinion without citation or reference. I'm sorry, I don't see how that flies. Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has tried to cite statistics that supposedly document this correlation, although few to none of these statistics come from reliable sources. Most importantly, the article does not account for any of the cases described above. The many strong economies within the window are dismissed as "anomalies" as though Japan and China, two of the strongest economies in the world, can be categorized this way. Europe is explained as having "access to Christian resources," a term which appears subjective and unmeasurable. Even if this explains the case of Europe, it does not account for growing access to Christian resources in many areas of the world, which have not seen a corresponding increase in economic prosperity that seems necessary to prove the existence of such a correlation. Pianoguy 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does not need to account for your accusations. You provided no facts to back you up; much of what you said is actually untrue. In addition, you are asking a study done fifteen years ago in a relatively stable world environment to accomodate recent upheavals and changes. That's a rather biased requirement.

Let's just dissect your Japan/China economic argument for a moment:

Japan. The data available in 1990 said the population of the 10/40 Window was 3.1 billion. Japan's population was [billion], and it was accurately listed as having a per-capita GNP higher than $500. The study properly incorporated this data. What's your beef? Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

China. The data available in 1990 gave China's per-capita GNP as below US$500. The 1990's saw a massive economic explosion there (although highly disputed as to just how big). Sure, today China is a growing economic power, but that was hardly true in the 1980's. What's your beef? Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of tremendous opposing evidence, and unsatisfactory supporting evidence, it becomes necessary to consider the removal of such information. If it is deemed necessary to resupply the article, more writing can be added, but it will need to be strictly documented in terms of reliable sources, which has been unsatisfactory up to this point in time. Pianoguy 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole line of thinking goes against Wikipedia policy. Offline sources are certainly published. You are rejecting evidence and sources without cause. Rather than remove facts and citations, your job is to add reputable opposing views. Add to the mix, don't eliminate information. Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you have also inverted the logic of the correlation. The facts highlighted by the 10/40 Window analysis are not of Christianity and prosperity. It is lack of access to Christian resources correlated with poverty and low quality of life. They are not the same. Here's an example from India. The outcastes of India are held in place by a variety of factors; many would argue that much of this has to do with the upper classes enjoying the "benefit" of a slave class. One of the more eloquent is the "Tocqueville" of India, Vishal Mangalwadi. In The Quest for Freedom and Dignity: Caste, conversion and cultural revolution" he argues passionately that 'Caste, karma, and reincarnation created today's Hindu hierarchy, but caste cannot coexist with democracy. Democracy, built on the biblical principles of justice and equality, is driving Dalits and other lower caste Hindus to rise up against 3,000 years of Hindu caste-driven "apartheid."' It is Christians who have been bringing this realization to India for over 100 years, beginning with William Carey. Mr Pete 16:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My point: Escaping from such bondage is not a guarantee of riches by any means, but over time it brings a quality of life that none can deny. The same is true in many many parts of the world. The correlation is of escape from bondage, not entrance into wealth. Escape from poverty, death and disease, not entry into a life of ease. Mr Pete 16:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(I happen to believe that even Europe and the USA, having forgotten their foundations, will not long survive without being answerable to a "higher being." Historians have seen this for a long time. What is happening today is, in that sense, no different from long ago. But that's off-topic to this article. We don't need to posit nor prove the "why" and "wherefor". We have a simple set of analytical facts that produced a simple outcome.) Mr Pete 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to especially emphasize the point about history: if over the last 15+ years the 10/40 Window has seen a vast decline of poverty or improvement in quality of life, then at least for the sake of this article one is obligated to find published references that consider the extent to which the Christian message and resources have had anything to do with it. If the economies are better, that's great. Is that further validation or a repudiation of the 10/40 Window concept? Do we need to look at additional factors suggested by PianoGuy concerns, such as rate of change, imminent decline, or any of a host of other influences? In any case, we must look at the situation today as historically very different from the situation in the 1980's/1990.Mr Pete 16:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

References

The entire reference section is based on Christian sources and is therefore POV, with the exception of the World Factbook, and the Time Magazine article, which consists only of a map of the region with two sentences describing it. This article requires more non-biased sources.

You need to defend your statement that any Christian source is POV. That's equivalent to saying a Climate Science publication or journal is POV for a Climate article, a political science article is POV for an article dealing with politics. Christianity is no more POV than any other specialist area. The World Christian Encyclopedia, for example, is considered in academic circles to be one of the most authoritative reference publications out there. Mr Pete 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You also need to further define what you mean by "non-biased sources." on a term that is, by definition, a specialist term incorporating a Christian worldview. (By which I mean that the term examines the correlation, if any, between "Christian" resources and various socio/economic/etc demographics. One could examine the world from other perspectives as well, and perhaps learn something interesting. But that's not the topic of this particular article. Mr Pete 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is in clear violation of POV. The goal of Wikipedia means that, if a writer writes an article, it should be unclear what the viewpoint of the author is. When you say that the author and sources "incoporate a Christian worldview" this directly contradicts POV, a conscientious Wikipedia author incorporates NO worldview into the article. This is irregardless of whether the term is a term commonly used by a certain denomination of Christians or not. The goal of POV is to try and irradicate any reference to a particular worldview. Pianoguy 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the subject of the article, the sources of the article, and the article itself. Wikipedia only has NPOV policy with respect to the latter!

The subject of the article is a correlation between various measurable attributes. Each attribute has its specialized terminology and yes, worldview. See below (climatology) for more. I am saying each side of the correlation in question incorporates specialized definitions and terminology. One must understand those definitions and terminology -- that view of the world -- to understand the correlation being analyzed. Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect to source POV, please explain how you distinguish sources with domain expertise in a particular arena vs sources with a "bias" or POV in that same arena. In general, in any area of knowledge, it is the "insiders" who have both expertise and developed perspective on that arena. They develop the specialized terminology, the history, the rules of thumb, the ground rules, and so much more. And all of that adds up to a POV of some kind. The only areas of knowledge that are completely free of "POV" are mathematics and the very hard/provable sciences such as physics and chemistry. And even those have "POV" when you talk with the experts. I reject as bigoted any assertion that "Christian" studies, research or data are inherently POV. Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, with respect to the claim that use of sources holding a particular worldview is in violation of POV: that's completely wrong. Wikipedia requires quoting sources from MANY POV's. There's nothing wrong with citing and quoting a source that holds a POV -- else very little would be cited other than math books. So again -- what is a non-biased, Wikipedia-acceptable source from your perspective? Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the article itself, it can certainly be written with neutral commentary on the various elements introduced without itself becoming a POV piece. Of course one must be careful; witness the whole AGW debate "out there." Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that we need to examine this issue from multiple perspectives, which would lend an element of fairness to this article that is currently lacking. Pianoguy 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your references to climatology- I'm under the understanding that being a climatologist is not considered a worldview, perhaps I am misinformed. Pianoguy 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In the sense that I discussed and defined above, yes, climatology has its own specialized terminology and perspective on how science is done. A "worldview" so to speak, just as I described above. Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The time magazine article was an extensive cover story. Yes the link was to the illustration, and the scope of the article was much broader, but again, what are you looking for? Mr Pete 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the article's references to the 10/40 window. The cover story was on Christian missionary activity generally, as such it contained almost no information on the 10/40 window and is not terribly useful for this article beyond the map that you mentioned. Pianoguy 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the reference section is extremely confusing and needs to be cleaned, footnotes should link directly to the source being quoted. "See above sources" is unacceptable, especially when making highly controversial statements.Pianoguy 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps just ignorance of an appropriate method for using MW tags. The challenge here is what to do when multiple elements all need to "target" the same reference. MediaWiki handles the first reference just fine using <ref> and </ref> tags. But how do you point to the same ref a second time? It's confusing and messy to put multiple citations of identical references in the ref section.

Give me a sample or template and I'll be happy to clean it up.Mr Pete 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Found the answer! First citation should be <ref name=something>citation</ref>; subsequent citations should be <ref name=something/>... Massive cleanup to follow :) Mr Pete 10:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Pianoguy 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies

I have struck the sentence that dismissed the entire area as "econmically backwards" (an undefinable term and one that no economist would use). This needs to be rewritten more objectively. Certainly some of the area could be said to be "economically backwards," but this does not account for the many advanced economies in the area such as Greece, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, Singapore, China, all in addition to Japan, to name just a few.

Of course, the entire article overlooks the fact that South America is extremely Christian and is "economically backwards" and Europe is extremely atheistic and has a strong economy.

At what point, scientifically, does one class an economy as "economically backwards"? Pianoguy 20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One would first read the entire article, and peruse the cited references, to discover that the economic indicator used was per-capita GNP. This is actually a very generous/conservative indicator.

One would then get their geography straight. Singapore is not in the 10/40 Window.

Next, one would realize that today's data are not the same as data available in 1990. The available data used for the GIS analysis showed both India and China to have per-capita GNP below US$500 at the time. Today, that's no longer true for either nation (and we would no longer use US$500 as an extreme poverty line either.) That doesn't invalidate the data. If you want to dispute it you'll need to first read the references then dispute them with cited sources. (It would be a tough row to hoe... the World Factbook, World Christian Encyclopedia, and Operation World are very high quality publications.)

By reading the cited references, one would also learn that it's difficult to assess economic poverty more accurately, largely because certain nations have amassed great wealth among a few, and are reluctant to allow the economic disparity of their people to see the light of day. (This is actually off-topic, because the research was based only on published data, but it's a significant factor for that region of the world.) MrPete 11:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is true, then you should remove all claims to poverty in the article. If it isn't measureable, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. This is known as verifability. Pianoguy 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to the UN. We don't stop assessing poverty just because some nations are uncooperative. We do what we can with the data available.Mr Pete 21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are contradicting your previous statement that says, essentially, that we cannot believe the UN's stats on China because, quote "certain nations are reluctant to allow their economic disparity of their people to see the light of day." You cannot argue both that the UN data is the only data available when it supports your position, and that it is unwise to rely on it when the data does not support your position. Pianoguy 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I said "it's difficult to assess economic poverty more accurately." Let me illustrate. Suppose per capita GDP is US$5000 somewhere. With 10m population, that's total GDP of US$50bn. Overall there could be lack of poverty. Or, 10k of the population could have US$4.9m income (US$49bn) and the other 9.99m could share $1bn (i.e. US$100 per capita, deep poverty). A vast divide between the wealthy and the poor. In such a case, the ruling wealthy class would not be particularly interested in seeing other data come to light, such as median family income. (BTW, I wasn't referring to China ;)) Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One would also learn that the article ignores neither South America nor Europe. Poverty in South America is, and was, miniscule compared to that in the 10/40 Window. (At the time, only Guyana had per-capita GNP below US$500; and PPP indices, controversial as they are, were not available.) And while Europe is very atheistic, Europeans have very comprehensive access to Christian resources. If you'd like to dispute that, please start another Wikipedia article with cited references. MrPete 11:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See my discussion below regarding Europe. Pianoguy 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Next, one would understand that the term, and the "box" nature of the region, are quite obviously generalizations with some utility for effectively communicating. There's no reason to completely strike the sentence; perhaps the summary term should be made more precise to fit with what is said later in the same article. Readability usually has some value. Not that I want to defend a term such as "economically backwards" but if the same article explains the per capita GDP aspect, is the term really so horrifying?

The original citations use another term, "the poorest of the poor" with respect to per capita GDP under US$500. I've adjusted the article to use this more precise definition and added footnotes identifying the appropriate reference citations (which already existed in the references section). I trust that will allay your fears about objectivity. MrPete 11:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have followed the mentioned links and have been unable to find the "poorest of the poor" in a nonbiased source. I am not doubting the authenticity of this claim, but for the sake of Wikipedia it will need to be removed if an objective source can not be presented that verifies this claim. Pianoguy 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to research this, you need to look a little harder. This is historical data. If Wikipedia has a policy of only allowing material that's verifiable through independent online sources, then a large portion of WikiPedia ought to be removed. This article covers a topic that requires historical research for verification. You need to look at the data that was available in 1990. Some small amount of it may be online; most of it requires looking in libraries, etc. E.g. not the current World Factbook but the edition available in 1990.Mr Pete 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are unwilling or unable to provide the webpages that verify these facts then I am going to strike this information. It is not my responsibility to search for webpages that verify your positions, especially since the positions are highly dubious in the first place. The burden of proof falls upon the person that is trying to prove a position, not the person trying to disprove it. This is Wikipedia policy, and it is in accordance with general scientific standards. Pianoguy 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying the data is in books, not online. I have cited the proper references. Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your commitment to this article. Please don't be so defensive, I am only trying to help improve this article. It has the potential to be a good article but it isn't at that point quite yet. One of Wikipedia's founding principles is to assume good faith on the part of other users, please try to be civil in discourse.Pianoguy 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, how about if proposed edits are discussed rather than simply done? Please have some respect for the serious research work described here and in the cited publications. Your edits and presented attitude suggest you doubt the facts given, even though you have cited no opposing published information.Mr Pete 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages "agressive editing" and I feel that I have been quite patient in asking for proof of highly dubious claims before striking them. If the proof does not seem forthcoming or reliable then I reserve the right to edit as I see fit. It is not my responsibility to cite opposing published information because the burden of proof falls upon you to prove the facts that you are stating. This is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Pianoguy 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also in accord with Wikipedia policy to assume good faith. If you are unwilling to dig into the cited offline references, that doesn't make the article's citations less reliable or less verifiable. Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am striking the references to the 10/40 area as having the "highest area of socioeconomic problems in the world." Following one of the links provided by the author, the Wikipedia article on the Human Development Index, one can easily see that the area of greatest economic suffering is not the 10/40 window but Africa, specifically sub-Saharan Africa. The 10/40 window does encompass part of this area, but if a window were made to encompass the area of greatest human suffering in the world it would not correspond to the 10/40 window. This makes this statement scientifically indefensible.Pianoguy 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This comment (and associated rash edit) reflects a basic mistake. Please please avoid this ongoing mistake: the current Human Development Index has no bearing on this article. Please revert your edits.Mr Pete 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why the current HDI cannot be taken into account on this article. To the contrary, it will improve the article greatly. Pianoguy 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That would require original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. The subject of the article is a 1990 analysis of data available in 1990. A new analysis of data available today might show other interesting results. But such an analysis cannot be done within the confines of Wikipedia. It must be published as original research somewhere, and then cited by valid sources. Those sources could then be referenced here. Until then, no, the current HDI has no bearing on this article. Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also striking the reference to South Korea as a strong Christian nation. A visit to the Wikipedia article religion in South Korea shows clearly that 86% of the population is non-Christian.Pianoguy 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please revert this edit as well. No slur intended but it is evident from your comments you need to learn more about Christian worldview, and need more background or understanding of the published reference material. Without this, I recommend more caution in assessing NPOV or even the facts of the situation.

I would recommend the World Christian Encyclopedia as a possible starting place. Even better would be to take a course such as Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, taught all over the world (but that's a serious investment of time and money.) What would be learned, one way or another: a substantial Christian presence in no way requires a majority. Real Christianity is hardly comparable to religions; it is a life-transforming message (about God) and a life-transforming relationship (with God). As such, for it to spread all that's needed is access to the message. This is hugely OT for this little article... I see no reason why this article needs to build an entire WikiPedia philosophical infrastructure to stand. Mr Pete 21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

At best this is wishful thinking. There is simply no way that you can argue, from a scientific standpoint, that a nation that is 86% non-Christian is "strongly Christian." The theological argument you made above has absolutely no bearing in science and, as such, does not belong on Wikipedia. This kind of discussion is better suited to a blog or missionary pamphlet. Pianoguy 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Analogy: Colorado has only a tiny percentage of SCUBA divers. Yet it has the highest percentage of SCUBA divers of any state in the USA. Does that help? South Korea is well known among Christians worldwide for a few things, among them the size and strength of its prayer communities, and the fact that it has (by far, last I checked) the largest single church community on the planet. One church in Seoul is closing in on a million members. Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few scientific/analytic ways to measure such things. One is to ask on a census. Another is to look at the actual practices of the people. And the results can be surprising. Suppose for example that a nation is 95% uncaring about "gun ownership" one way or another, but 5% strongly support gun ownership. That nation could easily be the strongest pro-gun country on the planet, even though most of its population don't own guns, don't care, and if asked would be mildly anti-gun. I hope such analogies are helpful. Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "access to Christian resources" needs to be defined. Religious statistics show Europe as having the highest percentage of non-believers in the world, yet it is implied in the article that Europe is economically prosperous because it has "access to Christianity." This doesn't make any sense even from a theological standpoint, one would suppose that God would be even more angry at Europe for having deserted the faith and would punish them accordingly. Pianoguy 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(See above for 'access' discussion)

Again, this is a very large and separate topic well beyond the scope of one little article. But hey, might as well conduct the conversation here for lack of time to look around for a better forum ;)

I would guess it will be easiest to understand this by working from the present to the past.

Yes, today some parts of Europe are vastly non-Christian. Many would also argue that Europe is rapidly going downhill. Certainly, a devout Christian would argue that any nation that has rejected God is living on borrowed time. God is patient but He does eventually require justice. By the way, some would apply the same argument to the USA.

Next, please cite a reference for Europe as having highest percentage of non-believers; quite a few nations have essentially none, particularly where all known Christians are immediately subject to execution. Europe isn't that bad ;).

Finally, let's go back to the development of Western Civilization, when Europe actually came into the limelight so to speak. It's a very large topic but if on examination, one finds that the foundations of modern western civilization are decidedly (Judeo)Christian. Once upon a time, for example, government service was exactly that: purposefully based on a menial service model (not greed and power). Government ministries were called that for a reason.

Yes, the church in Europe, especially the State Church, is dead. Meaningless to the overall argument. Argument should not be based on short-term perspectives.

I hope that helps!Mr Pete 21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My source for Europe was the following Wikipedia: Religion in Europe I quote the third sentence: "Europe also has the largest number and proportion of irreligious, agnostic and atheistic people in the Western world, with a particularly high number of self-described non-religious people in Scandinavia." I hope that this settles this issue.Pianoguy 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Note in the quote you cite: in the Western world -- we're talking the entire world, not the western world. You've disproven your own point. The whole emphasis of the 10/40 result is that there's an area of the non Western world that has a major issue. Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the foundations of Christianity are European, and I essentially buy your argument that Europe has "access to Christian resources," but my point is that this term is not measurable, and is therefore unscientific and subjective. As such, it is bad science to build an argument on such a statement, which is one of my points about this article generally. Pianoguy 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The term is eminently measurable, in many ways. You simply do not have the background facts, and it requires some significant education to understand. I have already explained some aspects of how such measurements are made. I'll go further by analogy: both broadcast media (think Nielson ratings, etc etc) and the advertising industry do extensive measurements of the reach of various media into various marketplaces. World Christian Encyclopedia contains more than two hundred measures that go into their calculation of "access" to the Christian message. There's an extensively developed terminology, accredited majors in the subject worldwide, vigorous academic debate, etc etc. It's far more scientific than a variety of topics that are accepted as science today, and has nothing in common with junk science, let alone junk legend. Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigorous discussion and patience through this process, it is a pleasure to work with you. Pianoguy 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank YOU for sticking with this. Lots of good "iron sharpening iron" ;) Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article has serious neutrality issues. Attempting to correlate a lack of Christianity with "increased human suffering" (whatever THAT means) is irresponsible at best and racist at worst. This article needs heavy editing.Pianoguy 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pianoguy, while you seem to have serious neutrality issues, I don't see what is so non-neutral about this article. You seem not to be questioning the facts but rather have a preconceived notion that even to research such a correlation would be irresponsible or racist? That sounds like a biased, racist perspective! Why are you so opposed to the discovery that something good could come from people learning to do what is good and right? Perhaps you would not be so upset if you actually read the article here on Wikipedia, and learned a little more about what this research discovered. If they had found that a lack of coffee in the diet correlated with "increased human suffering" would you have been equally upset?

whatever THAT means is nicely defined. I'm surprised you couldn't see it in the article: "human suffering" was based on "life expectancy, infant mortality, and literacy". MrPete 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Pete, thank you for your response. Whatever my views are on the this topic are irrelevant, which is the point of neutrality in general.

I question your POV edits, Pianoguy. Why remove the neutralizing statement about Japan's economy? It is one of the great examples proving that the 10/40 Window is simply a generalization that while carrying weight at a macro level cannot be used to draw micro level conclusions. By removing that, you make the POV less neutral. And why dispute that South Korea has widespread access to Christian resources? It has a huge Christian population, and the largest Christian church on the planet. Mr Pete 04:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire point of NPOV is that, in a scholarly article, it should not be obvious what the viewpoint of the writer is. NPOV does not pass judgment on whether those views are "good" or not. This article is in clear violation of NPOV because it is extremely obvious that whoever wrote the article clearly supports the theory. This is why the article requires a major rewrite.

My comment per the definition of "increased human suffering" is less POV concern and more a verifiability concern. This term is entirely subjective and does not merit inclusion in an scholarly article. One cannot prove "increased human suffering" because there is no agreed-upon definition of "increased human suffering." This kind of thing would be more appropriate in a missionary pamphlet or other form of Christian propaganda. Pianoguy 20:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pianoguy, you claim that NPOV does not pass judgment on whether a particular result is "good". Yet in this case, the result is TRUE and easily verified by anyone else who desires to repeat the analysis (made slightly more interesting because the original work was done in 1990, obviously based on pre-1990 data). A correlation is fact. It is not cause/effect of course, but correlation is correlation. In the face of that fact, your concern about bias and racism is the only non-neutral POV that remains. This article incorporates quite a lot of citations, NONE of which dispute the underlying facts of the GIS research or internationally-sourced data. It seems to me that you, by disputing the NPOV, must come up with a citation that disputes the factuality of the cited information, if you intend to maintain your side of this 'dispute'.

Please read the following article: Wikipedia:Verifiability. If it can't be proven it can't be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about verifability, not truth. Most of your claims are either subjective or based on sources that are themselves biased. Pianoguy 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read that, and the NPOV, and the FAQ (see for example Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions and the section on Religion as well. In an article that specifically is tied to "religion", and to one particular "religion", it can hardly be claimed that all sources from adherents to that religion are non-Reliable. All you are doing is pushing for a different bias. Non-adherents do not care enough about Christianity to publish anything on the esoteric details of missiology, "access to the Gospel" and other esoterica.

AFAIK your logic reduces to: Christian sources are not Reliable, therefore the "Christian"-aspect facts of an article are not verifiable, therefore such statements must be elided. Do you see how ridiculous that is? Swap in "Climatology" or "Political science" or any other subject for "Christian" and you will see how biased you are on this question.Mr Pete 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is quite simple to verify the life expectancy, infant mortality and literacy data on which the "human suffering" is based. (Actually I believe the original reference is to the "quality of life" index, which at the time was the precursor to what is now entitle the Human Development Index.) Sure it's only one measure among many possible. If you feel it necessary to dispute every fact, go ahead. As I mentioned above, you come across not as disputing verifiability nor facts, but being incensed that such a corellation could even exist.

My primary suggestion at this point is to ensure we adjust the article introduction to use the "Quality of Life" term, and link that to the already-present citations to those references. Perhaps an additional citation linking to the existing Wikipedia articles on the related topics would also be helpful. The 10/40 Window Quality of Life GIS maps are still available as well, so that's not a problem either.

If you want to continue to argue NPOV about human suffering / quality of life / human development indices, I suggest you take it up on the Human_development_index page, not here. Mr Pete 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made the suggested edits, as a start. Do you still have a dispute? Please work through the cited references before disputing NPOV off the top of your head. It would seem the POV is only non-neutral with respect to your POV, not with respect to the truth nor to the generally accepted demographic data standards on which the research was based. Mr Pete 04:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions: Pianoguy has requested specific citations for three elements in the introduction. This raises two questions for me about Wikipedia "standard" practice (whatever that is)...

• If a claim is made in an article introduction, then further elucidated later in the same article, is it necessary to provide citations both in the introduction and in the detail section?

• If an article summarizes published information, which itself is based on a variety of outside sources, is it desirable, appropriate or necessary for the Wikipedia article to directly cite those sources, or is it enough to cite the other published references?

In this case, the referenced material made use of data from standard nation-level sources (e.g. UN, etc). Those sources are cited in the Wikipedia article. Yet a reviewer (Pianoguy) wants further citations in support of this article's summary statement. It is not clear that further details would either help make this a better encyclopedic entry, nor is it clear that adding all that data would ameliorate Pianoguy's concerns. Mr Pete 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some previous comments and talk

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia guidelines, but I've got to say that calling a third of the world's population "Unevangelized Peoples" seems questionable. It sounds just as bad as calling them "Infidels" or something. Perhaps 'Non-Christians' or even just "demographics for the 10/40 window, by religion:"?

Pasta Salad 06:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that it can be viewed as derogatory, your suggestions don't imply the same thing. Evangelism quite literally means "spreading the good news", so people who have heard the "good news of Jesus Christ" without converting I believe are considered evangelized. That is why the numbers are much lower than the population in the region as a whole. Viewed in this context I don't think it's an offensive term, but if there are less inflammatory alternatives with the same meaning I'm open to it changing.

Senor fjord 23:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

people who have heard the "good news of Jesus Christ" without converting I believe are considered evangelized.

That's correct.

Complicating it even further, the traditional demographic sources are census-based. This leads to cultural measurements (e.g. "if you're European or American then of course you're Christian"). As a result, it's quite possible to be a follower of Jesus without leaving Islam. Apparently, there are even "Messianic Mosques"!

Mr Pete 17:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

A better way to call this would be "Non-white" world, and realize that vast majority of European populations aren't particuarly that religious at this point. Just admit it, it's about racism.

Actually, it would more accurately be called: "non-European", (as the Hispanics aren't exactly white). However, there is a significant portion of (black) Africa, that isn't included. So I guess "non-European" wouldn't that good of a term either.

User: unknown

Whoever made the above comment is seriously uninformed. Christianity ceased to be predominantly even semi-European many decades ago.

I'm reverting several recent edits, as they are non-factual:

• Removed the comment about South Korea. The "10/40 Window" is exactly a geographic definition, proven by the exceptions both inside and outside. South Korea is inside, and distinctly Christian. Indonesia is outside, and distinctly non-Christian and unreached. Some have complained "that's the wrong Window!"... it is what it is. A simple geographic rectangle, and an analysis of the nations whose land mass is at least 50% inside that area.

• Restored the sentence about predominant religions in the 10/40 Window. That's one of the primary attributes and valuable understandings brought by the concept; ridiculous to remove the statement.

• Removed the (ungrammatic) phrase ", by Christian organizations." -- the 10/40 Window has been recognized in Time Magazine among many other sources.

• 5 million Jews => 6 million (just recalculated based on database at http://www.joshuaproject.net). Yes, whoever put the original numbers here gave the world population of Jews, an obvious mistake.

• 1 billion Hindus => 550 million. The total population of India is not Hindu. And, even the official census misconstrues the Hindu population by self-determination measures. I'll mention this, although eventually someone will discover this statement and be upset (because it is controversial for obvious reasons): the scheduled castes (aka outcastes), approximately 300 million, are only "Hindu" for others' political/economic purposes. They hardly consider themselves real Hindus -- after all, they can't even enter a Hindu temple. Bottom line: 550 million is a pretty reasonable estimate. Yes, needs an update, but it is better than a billion.

Mr Pete 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting more edits:

Both Koreas are in the Window

North and South Korea are both in the Window. This is apparently hard for people to believe. Please check out the Wikipedia map for North Korea. Note that South Korea is completely below 40 degrees and inside the Window. Note that most of North Korea is below 40 degrees and inside the Window.

The population statistics are not about evangelized/unevangelized. They are a count of non-Christians.

Please, if you are motivated to re-edit these issues, first talk about it on this page! All recent edits have introduced errors. Check the original sources cited in the article.

Mr Pete 11:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Purpose Controversy

Recent edits have introduced a needlessly controversial perspective not found in the 10/40 research.

The user at 75.37.25.3 introduced the idea that the "Christian" part of the analysis was based on percentages of Christians with a goal of proselytizing. Yet the cited study used overall investment figures, not numbers of Christians: less than 7% of Christian resources were going to that part of the world. For example, World Vision, a large children-at-risk development organization with UN ties, made some significant shifts in their investment strategy as a result of the 10/40 research (citation needed if possible.)

Mr Pete 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

I designed and uploaded a map that shows the actual countries that this "window" was designed to encompass, I felt it would better illustrate than a dry list. Danthemankhan 04:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nations 'controversy'

Various people seem to be intent on removing South Korea from the Window. South Korea is only one of many "anomalies" that help prove the point that the Window is simply a helpful generalization. It would be nice if this could be appreciated!

I've created a new paragraph that describes some of the interesting anomalies, including South Korea. I hope this information will help make the article acceptable!

--Mr Pete 09:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Amazing how this happens over and over. Both Koreas, North and South are 10/40 Window nations. That's because most of North Korea's land mass is inside the 10/40 Window, and all of South Korea is inside. Folks, it's a geographic definition. Yes, South Korea is majority Christian and North Korea is not. That's ok.

Mr Pete 10:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent addition of Italy to the list, and added a citation referencing the portion of the original article that provides the appropriate data. Italy is not part of the 10/40 Window. Likewise, I've corrected several other factual errors about 10/40 nations that were added in recent edits:

• Russia is usually not considered a "least evangelized" nation. It has a large Orthodox Church, for example, and the Christian message is widely available in print, radio and other forms. (The key question used is whether people have access to the Christian message, i.e. could they learn it if they wanted to?)
• The edited 'controversy' section implies that the GIS analysis is invalid. The analysis did not simply show a lack of Christian influence in the 10/40 Window. In spite of the strong economies of nations such as Japan and South Korea, the region demonstrates a far higher proportion of deep poverty and painful life issues than any other region of the world.

Mr Pete 03:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

More reverts. The newly-edited summary suggested that India is part of Central Asia (it is not) and needlessly complicated the description of what is or is not in the Window area. Simplified to point to Wikipedia articles covering each of the sub-regions of the Asian continent.

Mr Pete 05:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This needs secondary sources.

Tagged it {{Primarysources}} as it even says it's been verified against primary sources. We really need some secondary sources here else it slips into the world of neologisms and WP:OR. Ttiotsw 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A number of secondary sources added. {{Primarysources}} tag removed. Mr Pete 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Map

Does all of West Africa count here? I only ask because some of it is technically Western Hemisphere.Young Skywalker 06:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what anyone thinks but Luis Bush who invented this neologism. That is a point though - is it only Luis Bush who uses this ?. Should this article be deleted/merged back into Luis Bush as so far we have no secondary sources. Ttiotsw 07:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A wide variety of independent secondary source references added, from many POV's. Merge tag removed; this is clearly no longer one person's term. Mr Pete 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Luis Bush ? or not.

This has been tagged as having no secondary sources for quite a while. It's simply a copy (more or less) of what Luis Bush has got on this topic. Who else uses this term ?. I feel it should be merged into the Luis Bush article unless we have cites from reliable sources as to who else uses this. Ttiotsw 08:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A simple Google search would prove that it is not just Bush using this term. Time Magazine had a major story on the phenomenon in 2003, and it is common coin among missiologists, pastors, and people interested in missions around the world. Bush may have coined the term, but it is a far larger concept than just Bush at this moment. Robert Johnson 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a copy date for that Time article ?. The issue is there are no cites as to who uses the term (it is for the editors who want the text to stay who must provide the cites) and the notability of the others (i.e. missiologists, pastors, and people interested in missions) using this term is unclear. Without notable people using the term it still remains simply a concept of Luis Bush which others borrow. Ttiotsw 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I hope including the Time cite will resolve this question for this non-Christian audience. This term is used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, and is a major concept for much of the evangelical church around the world. "Notable people" is of course a cultural-context question. You could ask Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Paul Cedar, and any of thousands of other Christian leaders worldwide about this term, and they would all know it. Mr Pete 14:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

I have done some NPOV editing on this article, but even still the article seems to imply that there is a causal relation between poverty and lack of Christianity. This problem could be remedied by including material indicating whether the inventor of the 10/40 Window actually posits such a causal relationship, and/or summarizing critical views about the utility of the 10/40 Window. —Psychonaut 02:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to posit a causal relationship between poverty and lack of Christian influence. In this case there's a long-term significant correlation between the two. Mr Pete 14:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Added many citations from various POV's towards Christian mission efforts. I can find no reference that is critical of the utility of the term. It is simply a description of a research result that anyone with access to GIS tools can replicate today. It is actually a good example of what can be discovered using GIS tools: the data had been available for years, but was never "seen" because GIS was not available. NPOV controversy tag removed, anticipating that the plethora of proper sources takes care of this question. Mr Pete 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest change Atheist" to "non-religious" in introduction.

Propose to change the term "Atheist" to "non-religious" and link to Irreligion. We're comparing religions and atheism isn't a religion per-se; if we want to compare like for like we would have to specify the actual moral/ethical worldview e.g. secular humanist or rationalist etc and I would imagine that no statistic exists for that. Vietnam as an example the census just said that 'x' percent were non-religious. As atheism has risen during the post-Enlightenment and goes hand-in-hand with the rise of the scientific method, I would say that in fact the lack of atheism across all these countries is a proxy for the poverty as much as there is a lack of science and technology to make these people solve their unique living problems and generate wealth. As we have seen with Vietnam it was the more recent free-market reforms that have pushed up Vietnam not the Christian missionary work that dates back so many years (The Christians in American certainly helped the message with the supply of holy carpet bombs). There is nothing intrinsically Christian about economic theories of markets. Ttiotsw 08:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should expand to Atheist and Irreligous. It's relatively easy to measure these things, actually. At a national level, some nations are officially Atheist. At a Census level, Atheist is one of several options, depending on the nation. Those who study such things argue over how best to analyze the situation, but one common method is to accept whatever people say on the census. Because of such sources, it would be a mistake to simply remove Atheist. It is not identical to Irreligious. Some people care a whole lot about being Atheist, others just don't care.

Economics and poverty, whether Vietnam or otherwise, is far more complex than insinuated above. The source of most grief in Vietnam is OT here of course. So is any question of the presence or lack of Christian roots to economics. Mr Pete 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Gold Seal Campaign

For the sake of Wikipedia and controversial articles...

Gold Seal Campaign:

What do you think of this? The administrators of Wikipedia establish a Gold Seal campaign for certain articles. This “Gold Seal” will indicate for a given article it’s factuality and lack of vandalism. Basically it will show..

1-This page is properly cited.

2-This page has been verified.

This will be an important step for Wikipedia. It means students, high school included will be able to cite Wikipedia in their work. As of now many schools do not allow students to this.

As for editing an article, It will still be allowed yet a person can easily revert to the Gold Sealed, verified page on Wikipedia. This will be an amazing step for Wikipedia, though difficult, it will allow readers to know for sure what they are reading is true. It will surely improve Wikipedia’s image in the public sphere. Of course someone will have to organize this, but in then it will be sufficient use of labour. — mattawa

Two problems I can see just by cursory examination

1. The map excludes N. Korea, although the weblink cited as a source specifically includes N. Korea. Why?
   • Can't understand your complaint. The map includes N. Korea. It's just north of South Korea, and west of Japan?!
2. The article includes the erroneous notion that there are 17 million Jews in the world. That number is 3 or 4 (possibly 5) million people "too high". I wish it were a severe 90% underestimation, but the fact is that the Jewish population is between 12-14 million, not 17 million, and while the website referenced indicates that the Jewish population is 17 million in 134 countries (if I recall the cited page correctly), the vast majority of the 134 countries where Jews live do not, in fact, fall within the 10/40 Window, nor do the majority of Jews live within this Window. Tomer^talk 07:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
   • While one could quibble with your 14 million total (because that's a census number that's widely disputed: many, many Jews do not identify themselves as such in censuses), I agree that the 17 million number is too high. I believe it is an estimated world total, not a 10/40 total. How best to correct such an error from a cited source? Just delete that line and keep the rest? I don't find other sources with similar info; Wikipedia is not about publishing original research; and it does seem like useful info.

Not Focused

The 10/40 window is primarily a way of recognizing that nations within this geographic area represent the primary area of the world: 1) that is not Christian; and 2) that is dominated by one of three other major religions. Thus, if you believe that Christianity is the "true" religion - then identifying this window may be a overwhelming motivating factor to send missionaries to in order to "present" the Gospel to those who have not heard. This area is primarily Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim. I have listened to speakers discuss this for OVER a decade, and no one I have ever heard has presented this as anything other than a missions issue. Alleviating poverty, etc., is a major focus of some large Christian organizations (ie Samaritan's Purse), but it diffuses the primary focus of the "10/40' window phrase to bring in ancilliary issues to a phrase that is a basis of focusing evangelistic resources. Even if India continues on it's way to becoming an economic powerhouse and becomes wealthy, it will still be viewed by conservative Christians who used this phrase as being in the 10/40 window because it is the world's largest Hindu nation and one of the largest Muslim populations centers - the same can be said about Dubai. No one will remove these nations and adjust the window if they remain nations where Jesus has not been presented to the population. You may be opposed to this or be in favor of this mission's focus, but it's not about poverty or education (and may not be about whether the nations respond positively to the message about Jesus) - but it's about presenting the message to "people groups" that have not heard due to an overwhelming saturation by another religious group. Any focus on poverty as part of this is secondary. And the POV is going to have Christian resources, but this is an important article, whatever your religious views. A group of South Koreans just got freed in Afghanistan (those that were not killed) - understanding the 10/40 window as it is viewed by missiologists is critical to understanding why South Koreans were there in such numbers. If the muslims had a "window", it may be Europe and North America - it would not be inaccurate even if the sources for the POV were Islamic - it would explain their mission activities and be newsworthy. Last, the "10/40 window" is very, very similar to President Bush's "Axis of Evil" concept - a way of making a simplifying statement that our "sound bite" world can get its head around and understand. (I hate to link this to a political party's use of a phrase, especially when he is increasingly unpopular - but geographic word phrases are not limited to religious issues.) It needs to remain focused on the primary issue - South Koreans are not primarily dieing in Afghanistan for better education for the Afghans or even to allevaite poverty. With all due respect (and I have been criticized for some of my articles, too), this article is too diffused. Clinton said "it's the economy, stupid" in the 1992 campaign and this phrase should be "it's missions" (delete stupid - it's not Christian enough). Having said that, I am not going to edit it. It's tough to write this stuff accurate, and I respect everyone taking on this hot button issue. I will go back to my little corner outside the 10/40 window now. --Baxterguy 16:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, BaxterGuy ;)... Not that your experience is uncommon, but I think you've simply had a too-narrow experience of "missions". Sure, to many people, "missions" is about only one thing -- spiritual life. And improving the human condition is only about one thing -- spiritual life. But that doesn't make their perspective correct or even prevalent among "mission minded" Christians. Even Jesus would disagree with such a view. When he came, he *first* met physical needs: healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, fed thousands, etc etc. Only after all that did he talk about heart issues. He saw it as all connected. And so do lots of others. Read the Lausanne Covenant ("we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive.") Look at the writings of Dr. Ralph Winter, who created the U.S. Center for World Mission. He's a modern-day hero to most "mission-minded" Christians. For years he's been emphasizing the need to be holistic in sharing God's love around the world, whether in beating back the scourge of malaria or freeing people from economic injustice. Look at his editorials in [Mission Frontiers] going wayyy back. The same must be said of many others. You're correct that the Koreans did not go to Afghanistan just to educate or alleviate poverty. Theirs was a holistic mission, as is true of many if not most followers of Jesus who give their lives for others. You're also right that it's a hot button issue, and so I too will let it rest for now :) Mr Pete (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Map and country list

Why are countries like Portugal, Greece, and the Philippines (where Christianity is very well established) -- not to mention Ethiopia, with its long Christian-dominated history -- being indiscriminately lumped together with Libya and Pakistan? Frankly, I question the usefulness of any concept which does not meaningfully distinguish between Libya and the Philippines... AnonMoos (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Just about any real-world data analysis will have outliers, noise and other aspects that do not precisely fit whatever hypothesis is being studied. In this case, a simple "box" was drawn around a rather large chunk of the world. I would question the usefulness of any concept that manages to analyze such a huge body of data and fails to have a few anomalous data points! The exceptions such as noted by AnonMoos (and others -- South Korea for example) help show that this is a real-world analysis. Mr Pete (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)