Talk:Religion in Russia

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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

Russia: Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force. Religion High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 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.

Shouldn't we get percentages?68.108.115.69 10:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I delinked this because it goes to a disambiguation page. If this refers to the Assyrian Church of the East it should be piped and put under one of the Christian categories. --Steven J. Anderson 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a 2005 research of the University of California, today there are about 9 million Neopagans divided between the populations of Russia and Ukraine. [Douglas Cowan, Rebecca Moore, Catherine Wessinger. Nova Religio, Volume 8. University of California Press, 2005] If we assume the presence of 9 million Neopagans in Russia, they should make up the 6.3% of the entire population.

This is wrong. The paper (Adrian Ivakhiv, In Search of Deeper Identities: Neopaganism and Native Faith in Contemporary Ukraine, Nova Religio 8.3, University of California Press, 2005) don't refers of 9 million of neopagans, but only:

the number of witches killed during the Inquisition was closer to 50,000 than to the nine million some had claimed (p. 29)

(sorry for my poor english, read it's easy but write...)--Robertoreggi 17:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently a distinction between people who believe in religion in Russia and people who practice it. I think think that the latter should be the "main" figure used in the article. According to the World Factbook, only 10-15% of the Russian population practice Russian orthodoxy

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html#People

If you just glance through the introduction, you see that "63% of respondents considered themselves Russian Orthodox" which might give the wrong impression that Russia is more religious than it really is. The author of this article uses that much higher number of believers as the figure that appears in the introduction and then just makes the fact that many of them are not practicing this religion a caveat. I think it should probably be the other way around, since that is what the CIA World Factbook, which is an authoritative source, does.SlaterDeterminant (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best would be to cite both figures and to explain what exactly they mean. We shouldn't be making an interpretation of which figure is "more correct" or "more important"; that is something up to our readers to decide. We should, however, disclose all stats and associated caveats to aide in that decision. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:17, May 29, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the CIA World Factbook is definetly not a source, which you can get correct statistics about Russia from. First - it's politically engaged. Second - it doesn't have any reliable sources and doesn,t conducts any researches in Russia, so all its numbers based on estimates and assumptions. I think Rosstat or VTSIOM are way more credible data sources. VTSIOM (All-Russian Center of Society Opinion Research)for example gives proportion of Orthodox believers of around 75%. However the numbers given by CIA is complete non-sense. I've been noticing that the Factbook always marks down positive indexes about Russia and overstsates negative ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Челдон (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The factbook makes a note distinguishing practicing worshipers and non-practicing believers. This correlates with available poll data on the fact that of the Russians who declared themselves Christian, those who regularly practice their religion amount to around 2-5%. This is already covered in the "Sociological approaches" section. --illythr (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it says "Thence, the federal subjects of Russia with an absolute majority (more than 50%) are Kabardino-Balkaria (55%) and Dagestan (51%). Significant percentages (over 5%) can be found in Karachay-Cherkessia (48%), Bashkortostan (38%), Tatarstan (32%), Yamalia (17%), Adygea (12%), Astrakhan Oblast (14%), Orenburg Oblast (11%) and Yugra (6%)"
However, according to the source, this should be:

• Kabardino-Balkaria - (5% Sunni + 1% Shia + 49% Unaffiliated) = 55%, same as that given in the article.
• Dagestan - (49% + 2% + 10%) = 61% (In the article given as 51%)
• Karachay-Cherkessia - (13% + 1% + 34%) = 48%, same as that given in the article.
• Bashkortostan - (2% + 0% + 38%) = 40%
• Tatarstan - (2% + 1% + 31%) = 34%
• Yamalia - (4% + 1% + 13%) = 18% (There is a large disparity with Russian Census of 2002. This is because the survey took in to account the illegal immigrants employed in the oil and natural sector of Yamalia, who are mostly Azeris)
• Adygea - (2% + 1% + 11%) = 14%
• Astrakhan Oblast - (3% + 1% + 11%) = 15%
• Orenburg Oblast - (2% + 0% + 12%) = 14%
• Yugra - (5% + 1% + 6*%) = 12%
• Ingushetia - Definitely much more religious than Dagestan. Should be around 80-90%.
• Chechenya - Should be 90%+ Axxn (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I missed out some of the small percentages. However, Dagestan is 4%+ non-denominational-Muslim, not 10%, so the total is ~55%, and for Yugra the same, and the total is ~10%.--188.10.92.249 (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the continuing edit-warring content dispute, I have locked the article for 3 days. I strongly urge the involved editors to discuss the dispute on the talk page and seek

Accurate information can be found here (Second Map, 4th Column in top) Axxn (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it relevant for the page to give such a big importance to this Internet surveys? It only shows the religious affiliations of the Russian population using the Internet in 2007, as it's said, and the figures differ a lot from the ones for the total population. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove this section because it appears to be outdated, not reliable and misleading (Russian population using the Internet). JimRenge (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this so called estimate or complete maddness. Orthodoxy, the traditional religion of Russia outnumbered by followers of Rodism? Jews outnumbering as many as 10 million Muslims? Huhh!Septate (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that assumptions should not be made according to what appears (POV) to be wrong and might appear to be right. In the first instance, factoring in that more of the population is irreligious than religious, it is entirely likely that the largest numbers of irreligious peoples are to be found amidst Russian Eastern Slavic populations who would have 'traditionally' been Russian Orthodox. The same may apply to ethnic groups who were 'traditionally' Muslim. As regards the numbers of Jews, the concept of Jewishness is far more complex than that of other religions as it represents an ethnicity, therefore irreligious Jews may still identify as being Jewish. Adhering to statistics (through secondary sources), not personal impressions or various internet polls possibly working on the premise that everyone has a religious affiliation, is encyclopaedic. The point is to examine the sources for any inbuilt bias, polling techniques, etc. If the polling methodology is not transparent, or is run by dubious sources they should be examined per

WP:BIASED so long as attribution is clear within the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This census does not include statistics about religion in Chechnya and Ingushetia which are traditionally Muslim majority republics and home to at least 2 million Muslims (If 90% of the population is considered as Muslim, which seems likely because they are conservative societies). If a person is not mad then 2 million people are not insignificant for him. What really disturbs me is that exclusion of Chechnya and Ingushetia from census only impacts Muslim population in Russia. There are few Russians in these republics, therefore there in no impact on orthodox population. The only other federal subject that was not included in census was Nenetsia autonomous okrug (probably has orthodox majority), but its population is less then 50,000, so it is insignificant. Furthermore, other reliable and highly reputable sources severely contradict these census when it comes to Muslim population.

• BBC gives a Muslim population of 16 million.
• CIA gives an estimate of 10-15% Muslims.
• Pew research centre gives a Muslim population of 10%.

Among these pew research source is most recent one (2010) and its method of collecting data using samples is similar to the above mentioned census. Keeping in mind the above mentioned reliable sources, 6.5% figure is exceptionally low.

My humble suggestion is that pew estimates should be used instead of this census. The statistics of the above mentioned census should only be used on individual federal subjects i.e oblasts because this census is important for individual federal subjects and not whole Russia because it does not cover all 83 federal subjects.Septate (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Atlas of Religions and Nationalities of the Russian. is is not a census. It is a survey of 56,900 people - it uses a sampling to be representative. It gives a figure of 6.53%.

Pew Research Center, Table: Religious Composition by Country, in Percentages gives a 10% figure, but it is unclear how that figure was arrived at. Arena Atlas is in that respect much better.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per my

WP:BIASED but, given that I've carefully gone through the Pew site in order to establish how the figures were arrived at and have, like Toddy1, not found any information, I'd eliminate their statistics as being unreliable. The Arena Atlas, on the other hand, does describe 500-600 surveyed per region and seems fine for use so long as it is attributed (even if only via an inline notation). Encyclopaedic articles - particularly articles of this nature - do not have to claim or stand by an absolute figure as long as the reader understands where variations in figures have come from and we have cite checked as honestly as possible. The primary concern is to avoid choosing to prefer certain figures over others for POV purposes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

As an addendum, my personal position on Pew and other 'research' centres is that they have a place, but should be treated with great care. Having worked with statistical analysis via a top ranking university's Economics department specialising in questionnaires, I know that many questionnaire techniques used by supposedly reputable institutions work on template formulas that aren't carefully and specifically tailored for the type of data they are trying to collate. In other words, they are fundamentally flawed or, at the least, seriously compromised (leading, confusing, leaving too much room to manoeuvre or not enough room for the person being questioned to manoeuvre, etc.). Further to that, having encountered much of their output being used in various articles, their sample groups are invariably too small, and no indication is given as to how the subjects were selected other than 'randomly'. Randomly as they left work at a particular factory? Randomly during the day while they were shopping and having lunch in a well-to-do area? 'Randomly' is not an objective term unless it is clearly defined. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy,Toddy1

Following link is useful regarding methodology of PEW.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

It states that The study is based on a country-by-country analysis of data from more than 2,500 national censuses, large-scale surveys and official population registers that were collected, evaluated and standardized by the Pew Forum’s demographers and other research staff. This shows that pew is much reliable compared to Arena atlas. Furthurmore, my initial question remained unaswered. Arena Atlas cannot be a reliable source because it does not include estimates for Chechnya, Ingushetia and nenetsia autonomous okrung!PEW on the other hand is much reliable because its estimates cover Russia's 83 federal subjects.Septate (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Pew (details of their methodology by country), "Religious identity is sometimes linked to ethnic identity, particularly for religious minorities. In a small number of countries where the census did not measure religious affiliation or where survey data on religious affiliation had sampling limitations, researchers used ethnicity data to estimate the religious affiliation of small groups. For example, ethnicity data from the 2002 Russian census was used together with 2005 Generations and Gender Survey data to estimate the proportion of Muslims in Russia. The survey did not adequately sample the country’s predominantly Muslim areas but it did provide information on the share of Muslims within ethnic groups associated with Islam. This information, combined with census ethnicity data, was used to adjust the Muslim composition estimate in regions the survey sampled inadequately." To be honest, I'm dubious of this methodology as it makes assumptions about minority populations according to preconceived notions as to their actually being adherents to a 'traditional' faith. There is far more in the way of 'guestimation' than the Arena study. Nor does it provide an enumeration of the ethnic groups. (FYE: The downloadable PDF for methodology is exactly the same as the HTML online version.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna HarpySorry,but your point is baseless. Eurobarometer shows that a minority of Britons believe in god but interestingly census showed that majority are Christians. Is there a Christianity with out god?Obviously Not! There main reason is because it is part of there culture. Arena atlas says that it has not included chechnia and Ingushetia in its estimates meaning that 2 million possible Muslims were excluded. It can't be reliable. When it comes to PEW it is much reliable because it has estimate for whole russia and there is nothing wrong with it. A lot of religion related articles on wikipedia use it as the main source. Arena atlas estimates can be used on individual oblast articles and interestingly it is already present there. Most of the oblast articles have a section dedicated to religion e.g., Magadan Oblast. But it can't be used as the main statistics for Russia as a whole.Septate (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with

WP:CHERRYPICKING. JimRenge (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks JimRenge for your opinion. But can please explain how can Arena atlas be a reliable when it is not including Muslim majority republics of Chechnia and ingushetia? Furthermore, Christiansciencemonitor, reuters and BBC are neutral sources. Christiansciencemonitor gives an estimate of 20% for Muslims. BBC estimates 16 million Muslims and Reuters gives an estimate of 14%. Should we prefer arena atlas over these sources which is unable to cover Russia's 83 federal subjects?Septate (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Septate, I wish you would be more precise about sources. We cannot read what they say if you do not do that.

It is hard to be precise without proper data. For example, Svanberg and Westerlund's Islam Outside the Arab World page 410 says: "Moscow, the capital of the Russian Federation, is believed to have a Muslim population of around 10 per cent of the total population." But the Arena survey credits Moscow with population of 3.50% practising Moslems, and Moscow Oblast with 2.12% practising Moslems. Arena's real data would seem vastly more reliable than Svanberg and Westerlund's estimate.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a 2005 BBC article claiming 10% Moslems in Russia, and predicting that "by 2020 one out of five Russians will be Muslim." This is why you need proper data like Arena's. Throwaway alarmist statements go down well in news stories; they are often untrue.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pew Data. The article cites Muslim Statistics Mapping the Muslim Population: Europe as a source for the percentage of population of Russia that is Muslim being 11.7%. The source for the Muslim Statistics website article is Data Sources by Country Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life Mapping the Global Muslim Population. There are links to documents, including Appendix C: Data Sources by Country. Under Russia it says:

"Based on ethnicity data in 2002 Census. Obtained from Heleniak, Timothy. “ ‘Table 4: Russia’s Ethnic Muslim Population by Region, 1989 and 2002,’ Regional Distribution of the Muslim Population of Russia.” Eurasian Geography and Economics. Volume 47, No. 4. 2006." (See also the full report.)

Assuming people's religion based on their race is nowhere near as reliable as doing a survey.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed "Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source, since p418 did not mention the statements it was being cited as a source for. Page 418 concerns Azerbaijan. The book was being cited for the 6.5% Muslims in Russia statement in the text. It was also being cited for a statement about Ahmadis.

<ref name="ahmadi">{{cite book | url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jTVjWTllOGgC&pg=PA418&dq&hl=en&sa=X&ei=upGtU7K9LcPQ7Abl6ID4DQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false | title=Islam Outside the Arab World | publisher=Routledge | author=Ingvar Svanberg, David Westerlund | page=418 | isbn=0-7007-1124-4 | accessdate=June 27, 2014}}</ref>

--Toddy1 (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot dear Toddy1. This book source was cited only for ahmadis.This link was added by peaceworld111. Has has been deceiving me and other users using book sources because I cannot verify book sources. His main purpose is to mention ahmadis on every religion and Islam related article by any means. Hey Iryna Harpy look at this. You were a major supporter of this user.Septate (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

ANI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@Iryna Harpy.Ok. I am sorry but at least you should realize that I was not wrong when I asked that this user should provide those sources which every one can verify and not book sources.Septate (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know it can be frustrating, but Wikipedia encourages the use of scholarly resources and

WP:AGF that the citation is valid. Having checked the source, I see that the page in question is not available as a public resource on Google books, and assume that Toddy1 has access to JSTOR or a hard copy of the source in order to positively identify that there is no such assertion on pg 418 (or one of the pages near it, as sometimes the wrong page is cited). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Iryna Harpy. Now please tell me what should I do about rest of religion related articles. There are a lot of articles where user peaceworld has used book sources in order to add info regarding ahmadis. There is no proof that they are true or simply fake just like the above mentioned example.Septate (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Septate: Repeating what I said here, stop harassing Peaceworld111. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, thank you for your comment.--Peaceworld 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dear Toddy1, it was me who added the source and it was not intended to be a source for the 6.5% figure. Although the section in the source is about Azerbaijan, the relevant paragraph actually discusses about Soviet Russia in general.--Peaceworld 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which statements in the article is it a source for?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Toddy1, please don't trust User:Peaceworld111. This source was used for ahmadis only. Arena atlas already states that Muslims are 6.5% of the population. He added the source and ahmadis at the same time. See history of the article. This link shows that ahmadiyya and the book source were added at the same time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/614652615 Septate (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Toddy1, "Traditional Muslim organisations in Russia fear that they may have difficulties in competing with the much better organised and better-off Ahmadiyya and try to condemn its activities in the country" and "The well-organised and international Ahmadiyya movement is also active, especially in spreading their own Russian and other translations of the Quran".--Peaceworld 09:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quote User:Peaceworld111. JimRenge (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Peaceworld111. I've been able to access the relevant page today (for books still under copyright, Google Books, as I think I've noted, seem to change which pages are accessible and which are not on a regular basis). I've captured page 418 as a PNG image and can confirm that it states the above verbatim. If anyone wishes to keep a copy for their own future reference, I am happy to supply them with the capture. Just email me and I will forward it as an attachment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this category, because it is not relevant for article, it is relevant for category Category:Religion in Russia, where it is with categories Buddhism in Russia, Christianity in Russia etc Cathry (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in as much as Category:Religion in Russia is the top level category. There's no need for including subcats. Wikilinks and 'See also' and, most prominently, a hatnote to the main article on Islam in Russia are provided in the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A ban of what? Is it obvious?Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed not obvious, but according to the source being cited, it's a ban of Bhagavat Gita. I've amended the sentence accordingly. Thanks for catching this.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2016; 15:38 (UTC)

• Levada 2012, was conducted on a sample of 1596 people (area and methodology are not specified), as the article says.
• VCIOM 2010, was conducted on a sample of 1,600 people.
• Sreda Arena 2012, was conducted on a sample of 56,900 people from each region of Russia, through interviewing methods, as the official website says.

Ultimately, Sreda Arena 2012 is the most reliable survey of religion in Russia to date, as it was made clear by the press when its results were published, and in spite of what user "Отрок 12" claims. This user has recently replaced Arena- with Levada-results in this article (Religion in Russia) as well as in the article "Russia" claiming that Levada is more reliable than Sreda Arena. Both the edits should be reversed.--79.16.78.55 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sreda Arena has already been discussed at length

challenge the current consensus, an explanation as to why the Levada Centre poll is superior needs to be brought here, although I see no valid argument for its inclusion, much less why it should usurp the Arena stats. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

its just nonsence to claim russia had 40% of orthodox in 2012. all major sources, Levada, VCIOM (goverment agency), pewresearch gave 73-75% numbers. i bet arena research was internet survey, based on internet polls, or else reason for such numbers. in province amount of orthodox people close to 100%. i dont see any reliable source of 40% number. and its not a consensus, its one crappy source. ALL MAJOR sources give 73-75% in 2012. using minor agency once made a survey isnt consensus. there arent any evidence that arena is reliable source, arent any evidence how they did they survey and else. thoose numbers are taken from air. while Levada, VCIOM, and PewResearch are old reliable sources which all give 73-75% for 2012. so how it can be 40%??? till it exist 3 independent from each other sources with same number (73-75%), which reliable, well known for objective surveys for decades, and we have in wikipedia published numbers from unknown unreliable source? how did they get thoose numbers? from internet? okay lets make political survey on 4chan or reddit, would be so revelant. thoose numbers are totally fake, or audience of surveys was particular group of people "moscow middle class/hipsters like people". yeah that for sure would be 40%. 40% for russia? heh. that arena survey arent anyhow reliable and thoose numbers arent mean a thing. no consensus, it isnt consensus --Отрок 12 (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pew Research is not a survey and it is dated 2010 (and it was already outdated when it was published in 2012). Levada and VCIOM are small-sampled and their methods are not made clear. I hypothesize that theirs are phone surveys, while Arena is ascertained that is not (their website clearly states that they surveyed 56,900 people from each region of Russia, through interviewing methods). Sreda Arena compiled their data through joint work with Public Opinion Foundation (FOM). I also hypothesize that Levada and VCIOM are not nation-wide surveys, but they predominantly sample people from Western Russia, where most of Russian Orthodox Church members live. You say, "in province amount of orthodox people close to 100%" but you can't prove this; it's your personal opinion and facts may be very different from it.--79.25.147.211 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to change the existing consensus. Sreda Arena 2012 has a much higher sample number. JimRenge (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its claimed sample that never was approved. Its unknown one day firm that once made a survey, how it can be reliable against 3 (THREE) super reliable sources which gave same numbers, independent from each other and on of the source is western agency? all gave 73-75% while arena gave other numbers. Arena cant be reliable i live in russia i russian and arena is totally not show situation with religion here i would stand against this numbers no matter what. No consencsus. Till i disagree its not a consensus. Between you americans and australians talking about russia maybe you got consensus till i russian here no you wouldnt. Its fake nubers that have nothing to do with reality. You would be able to put it in arcticle on my watch. Cheers. Americans telling me russians that they know life here better than me. Lol. Survey that made between middle class in big cities cost nothing. Big cities and provincial russia is two different things. Dont forget that in USA every big city voted for Hillary while province voted for Trump. So big cities statistic show nothing at all. Like surveys made in big cities of Usa shown that hillary would won. Ha! Hold you horses mates. 40% number is valid for 10 big cities of russia. so i sure it where this survey was made. But in province number of orthodox people is almost 100%. 75% is legit number for 2012 for russia in general i woild go with it. You had concensus, not you havent till i here. Till i here and disagree you cant have a consesus. It wikipedia rules. Till i disagree its no consensus.--Отрок 12 (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sreda Arena remains the consensus source until another

WP:NPOV from the best (largest sample group and transparency of methodology) sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Irina. You australian with ukranian/russian ancestry. You even dont know russian enough to understand what happening here (you profile show that you cant talk russian as native speaker) so what we discussing. Please hold you australian opinion about religion in russia and in general to yourself. You opinion is external view for other side of planet while im live here 30 years. Particular group? ha! that how you talking on west... No its russian nation out of big cities middle class snobs. Confusing? LOL so i living here 30 years confused and you australian citizen arent about russia? no till i here you wouldnt put thoose numbers in article. No consensus you dont have consensus here. we dont have consensus whatever you would say. Cheers--Отрок 12 (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on which source is more suitable to use, but I just popped into say I have blocked Отрок 12 for 24 hours for edit-warring and generally being unpleasant. Keep the discussion on the content and the sources, and don't assume somebody is disagreeing with you because they're stupid or don't like the country you live in. Now play nice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

drop the stick. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I did a little research Iryna, which show pefectly that there is no consensus, and it wouldnt be till we would have same opinion how this article shoud look. Dont try to have a hope to ditch this talk till i here. No hopes. I would make this article great again and you gonna make consensus here. First. I went through Arena's reserch in details. Surprise surprise. Its not their own reserach, its written on their site. They paid to Public Opinion Foundation to make this survey. And here surprise surprise what we found? Hey we found out that surprise surprise Public Opinion Foundation making religion statistic EVERY YEAR for itself. Guess what Iryna. try to guess please. Can't? I'll help you. So Public Opinion Foundation statistic How many Orthodox Christians in russia for 2012 is badumtssss 68%. On site of arena written that they interpreted statistic by themselves, POF only made survey and arena interpreted it in their own way. So IRYNA TELL ME IF YOU SEE ARENA'S STATISTIC LEGIT, THEN HOW YOU CAN DENY THAT POF WHICH MADE SURVEY ITSELF LEGIT [into your own words that you had written before here]. SO IF WE GO TO POF own statistic its 68% OF ORTHODOX PEOPLE in russia in 2012.... SO iF YOU SAID ARENA IS LEGIT THAN POF IN YOU WORDS (WHO ACTUALLY MADE RESEARCH not arena itself) IS LEGIT BY YOU WORDS ALSO. so we have 68% for 2012 by POF own statistic. and arena interpretation therefore less legit. how you like it? based on this information i wait till you answer few days and than changing article to actual numbers of POF that they gained itself when nobody interpreted it. cheers my dear --Отрок 12 (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also i just now found one more survey made by Russian Academy of Scieny if you know what it is (biggest russian science institute), for 2013 statistic is 79% of orthodox. therefore it latest survey i changing article to this numbers cause its the latest, made by most reliable source and published in one of the most reliable russian newspaper. --Отрок 12 (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new source than you brought today has the same unreliability issues of Levada 2012; it is just a press article, and does not specify methodology and sample.--82.48.11.193 (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

arguments built on what you like and don't like. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with

WP:IDONTLIKETHAT.--Jobas (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry,

WP:WEIGHT. The sources being invoked are weak and misleading at best. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay Iryna, you hate orthodoxy,i get it. I seen it perfetcly and now when you deleted my messages where i pointing it out, it seems crystal clear. Okay Lets go under rules. So: You said that ARENA is reliable cause big sample. But what would you say if we go to ARENA site http://sreda.org/arena/about-project/megafom , what we see there? Its clearly written there that survey they bought from Public Opinion Foundation and interpreted by themselves, okay lets go to public opinon foundation internet page http://fom.ru/obshchestvo/10953. Here what we see? 64% orthodox on 2013. Different numbers heh? Thats for question is ARENA reliable source or not. The second. Arena is absolute unknown organization in Russia, nobody ever heard about it. Really, its small group of people nobody know who and nobody know why. Public Opinion Foundation is one of reliable sources, but not most reliable. Most reliable russian sources are VCIOM (goverment statistical agency) 75% orthodox in 2010 https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=13365 then Levada (whick is basically number one in russia, it exist for almost 20 years it biggest independent source and most reliable in Russia) 74% of orthodox in 2012 http://www.levada.ru/2012/12/17/v-rossii-74-pravoslavnyh-i-7-musulman then also Russian Academy of Science is exist for HUNDREDS of years. its biggest russian science foundation and it have reputation. their numbers is 79% orthodox in 2013 https://rg.ru/2013/01/15/sociologia.html what else we need to discuss and why i cant include this numbers in article if they arent violate any wikipedia rules? So lets just include it in article and go with it. Arena is unknown source, it not just unreliable it just stupid to use it in wikipedia article. Just looking at their site making me suspicious about them, i went to their vk.vom group and its seems whole organization consist of 1 women. VCIOM, Levada, RAS is biggest organizations with hundreds of stuff while this is organization consist of 1 women? are we gonna trust this or use really reliable sources. Thank you --Отрок 12 (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Arena" is the name of the research project mapping religions and nationalities in Russia. The name of the organization is "Sreda", and they conducted the survey in joint work with the FOP (they did not "bought" FOP's numbers, it's a different survey). Sreda is an independent scholarly research organization whose members are many young scholars. Its research project "Arena" was presented by the press as the "first-ever of its kind", and was even published by journals aligned with the Russian Orthodox Church. On the Russian article about Sreda it is defined as "not subordinate to state or church structures, as well as to foreign companies", while the

talk) 16:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

When i typed Arena's site and vk.com group i meant Sreda's site and vk.com group cause it same organization and they share same site/group in vk.com. What is written in their site aint give me any confidence that they are anyhow reliable. They can write anything, but just go to their vk.com public and see for yourself. I found only contact of one real member of organization and nobody else. There are no real people no specialists nobody. Site look like it wasnt updated for past 5 years and poorly made. Reliable? Well, yeah, maybe, but for sure not as reliable as Levada, VCIOM, and Russian Academy of Science which all have hundreds of stuff and exist for decades, of for hundreds of years like RAS. Also Levada always considered as most reliable russian source. If you can read on russian then you concealed part of information. Public Opinion Foundantion selling sourveys results to anybody. Its written on theirs main page, big button "buy a survey". And on sreda/arena site its clearly written that they bought survey from Public Opinion Foundation. Also public Opinion Foundation arent biggest russian statistical agency and not most reliable. I see no one good evidence sreda/arena claimed about itself. You go to their site and there is no contacts of real stuff (except for one woman i told above), and site seems like it wasnt updated from 2010 year. No serious works, no one evidence of work, no stuff, is it some ghost organization? All surveys they clamed as their own are bought from Public Opinion Foundation and interpreted or taken from other sources. Site seems so poorly made and outdated that i not just doubt i would never believe that organization that making such big as they claim surveys cant afford 150$ for updating site to modern look, and there no work on site it seems abandoned, few news on site that reposted from other sourse on abandoned cheap looking site and you want me to consider it as serious source, over Levada (big corporation), VCIOM (goverment statistical agency), and Russian Academy of Science, biggets Russia's science organization that exist for hundreds of years? Yes man that how you edit wikipedia? So reliable. That nonsence, its not a reliable way to write an article but truly deceit. Sreda is unknown source it's oragnization which about almost nobody heard. I never agree to reliability of this source. When it exist three not just much but overwhelmingly much reliable sources putting this in article would be not just nonsence but making from wikipedia purposeless source of inrormation, and you cant not to agree with me here. So i suggest to put Russian Academy of Science as latest source which is 100% reliable, unlike arena/sreda --Отрок 12 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"published by journals aligned with the Russian Orthodox Church" man, concealing part of information aint truth. part of truth aint truth. it was published not on serious web sites, or Russian Orthodox Church affilated sites, but on sites that claim themselves as relating to orthodoxy. No one site of Russian Orthodox Church ever published that source --Отрок 12 (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arena survey was acclaimed on Pramvir, which is the major journal of the Orthodox Church in Russia, see their article Religions in Russia: a New Framework. As for Sreda and Arena main websites, they are constantly updated, especially in their Russian language versions.--

talk) 10:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Pravmir have nothing to do with official Russian orthodox Church sites, its self relating to orthodoxy site, never approved as anyhow official by Russian Orthodox Church, thats nonsence. Sreda/arena websites making few news reposts in a month (two little news in this month, both reposts) from other sources, and that is only visible activity on the site. This source cant be considered as anyhow reliable. Also why do you against Russian Academy of Science survey? Its best, latest and Russian Academy of Science authority is bigger than any other source here. By now its most reliable and basically only survey which can be called 100% reliable. Arena's survey isnt reliable, its just a visible deceit. I live in Russia and i can see with my eyes number of people affilated with orthodoxy. You even not russian and not live here. I am the only russian here and i cant put truth that i see with my eyes in article. Based on some ghost site of ghost organization which nobody ever heard about and which isnt basically do any visible activity for years agains Russian Academy of Science most reliable source here you against my edits? Are you serious? No it not gonna be. Americans telling me what i must write to article about my native land are just hilarious. Guys i know better thank you i would put real numbers without your help. Also consider that orthodox numbers in russia constantly grows for past 25 years. So i think numbers now bigger than in RAS survey, i d bet on 80%-85%. I tired of all of you. Americans telling me what write in articale about russia is nonsence. I live here guys you not. You telling me russian what russian source is more or less reliable you telling me russian nonsence things that you try to impose from abroad. Look for articles about you countries guys please dont waste your time here on my country. Cheers, good day, Bye --Отрок 12 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

@Wddan, FrankCesco26, and Отрок 12: All three of you are edit-warring, and probably both FrankCesco26 and Wddan can be blocked. This doesn't help the article if you ever want to get it to GA, much less FA. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

talk) 11:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 11:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

For what I have observed, both FrankCesco26 and Отрок 12 are driven by the intention to introduce in Wikipedia's articles like this one data showing larger percentages of Christians, regardless of consensus and source reliability. I have tried to explain FrankCesco26 that "more recent" does not necessarily qualify as "more reliable", and that there is plenty of random websites that publish completely invented data and are not linked to respectable research organizations. In reply, he has deleted my comment on his talk page. We are dealing with (a) radicalized Christian user(s); there is no way for them to understand these reliability issues.--

talk) 12:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

So you are a radicalized Atheist user that don't like any type of sources that show more real data and it's in line with other sources of the major statistical exponents? Are other statistical center all radicalized Christian only becouse show percentages that you don't like? Religion doesn't matter.— Probably you didn't read the

WP:NPA. Thank you also for the insults in my talk page and the accuse of being a multi-account user. I removed them, I don't want trash in my talk page. You behavior is critical, change it and calm down.FrankCesco26 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It is a matter of source reliability, not of "sources that show more real data", as you write, but now it is clear that you are completely unable to understand what a reliable survey is. The issue has been discussed at length hereinabove, so I will not repeat myself or others' positions. There is a consensus, and you are not respecting it. And, by the way, I did not leave "trash" on your talk page; it is not the first time that you remove messages and administration tags from your talk page. You are not collaborating, and this is against how things work here in Wikipedia.--

talk) 14:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

And what about insults and menaces you made to me? Is this "against how things work here in Wikipedia"? Also, what about

WP:NPA? Is your behavior "collaborating"? FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

There were no insults or menaces in my message. Do not play the victim. You are deviating from the focal issue of this discussion and Wikipedia, which is≈ consensus and source reliability.--

talk) 15:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

These are your words: I suggest you and your multiple accounts to stop this campaign of disruption of articles about religion in Slavic (and other) countries [...] otherwise I will report you to the administration (menace) , there is no way for them to understand these reliability issues (in practice you said that I'm stupid); you should read how really how things work here in Wikipedia, as written in

WP:NPA (that you didn't read) an user should comment on contributions (I would add without unfounded allegations) and not comment on an other user. So, you can't give me teachings on how things work here in Wikipedia if you don't know the most basilar Wikipedia rules. About what you've written before, or that according to you the most important statistical offices invent the data just because you do not like it, I'm telling you that you are nothing to judge whether a source invents the data or not, So calm down and do not get angry if things do not go as you say. FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@FrankCesco26: There's more than a little irony in your invoking NPA and following it up with, "So you are a radicalized Atheist user that don't like any type of sources that show more real data...", and your activity in changing the content of this article is an extension of the recent edit warring you engaged in on the Religion in Ukraine article.

Thanks for intervening,

I thank

talk) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

WUT????? IRYNA I EXPLAINED LIKE 3 TIMES ABOVE WHY ARENA AINT RELIABLE AND WHY IT WOULDNT BE PART OF ARTICLE go read please. arena wouldnt be in the arcticle. pewrearch gave orthodox 72 reuslt in 2010, 73 in 2012, Russian academy of science (most reliable source, biggest russian science organization existed for hundreds of years) gave 79 2013, levada (russian-american company always considered as most reliable russian statistical agency ever) gave 72 in 2012, vciom gave 75 in 2012 (goverment statistical agency), and some ghost site that dont work by now (no visible activity for years even in vk.com group which looks like whole organizaton consist of one woman while all serious organizations have well made vk.com group page cause vk.com is top source in russia for newsfeed and other things, like communicate and promotion) and sreda bought surveys from public opinion foundation which isnt most reliable russian source and interpreted it for itself cause public opinion foundation giving 64% orthodox in 2012. one source that cant be considered as reliable due to its ghost organization (whatever they claim about themselves) against 4 very reliable soucres and one of them is pewresearch one of the most reliable sources on west? come on. --Отрок 12 (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also please stop insult frankcesco --Отрок 12 (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also by now its 3 editors (me, francesco and Jobas they both expirienced editors and i am expirienced editor of russian wikipedia) against you. and two guys without profiles. so its not a consensus by now. consensus is exist only when there is an agreement by now there is no agreement so by now there is exist no consensus therefore article should be rewritten and current state aint have consensus and cant be considered as consensus. so it need edits and we gonna decide which. also you cant relate for past state of article by now as to consensus cause currently its no consensus, therefore we cant keep it but it need to be edited and totally rewritten --Отрок 12 (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then ban iryna also. She is constantly reverting edits, which 3 editors considering as reliable --Отрок 12 (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the recent addition in the lede of the 2017 report from the

I moved most of this content to a "Religious freedom" section. JimRenge (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should add a table like the one in "Religion in Ukraine" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Ukraine#Religions_by_year) that shows and compare data from multiple sources. FrankCesco26 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i explained all above --Отрок 12 (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this page is to discuss improvements to the article, it is not a forum (

WP:NOTFORUM). Although you seem to be discussing the article, without specific criticism and change recommendations, that comment is not very constructive. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 06:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This article seems to rely disproportionately on one source for its figures (%) on the various religions in Russia. Where even the Russian Wikipedia article ru:Религия в России, relies on 3 different sources, each offering a different % breakdown. The more up-to-date figures are present in the article, but not in the lead section or graph, where they are most likely to be read by readers. I think the article requires some clean up and editing. DA1 (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing has been discussed in depth above, and reasons for rejecting two of the sources you are referring have been explained to the nth degree. Please bear

WP:POVPUSHing for the use of the sources only reflects the fact that the editor has managed to get the content through on that article, not that they can be considered to be reliable. Feel free to check the corresponding talk page on the Russian Wikipedia article. There has been no discussion since 2016 (prior the changes to content), nor is the Russian version watched by many editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

unreliable? any proof Iryna, please? we talked much and you set many arguments and none of them was that other sources unreliable, it wasnt said not once. all sources which provide numbers 70-79% of russian orthodox is highly reliable its best and biggest russian statistical agencies, and one government agency. furthermore, PewResearch provides number of orthodox in russia for 2015 as 71%. and furthermore, that one agency that now presented in graph in header of article is made by most unreliable source in the page. its unknown agency which about no one heard. i did researches and went to their site, to their vk.com (russian facebook analogue and main social network in russia) page, and they dont have normal site, its old crappy site made for few dollars in 2000-s their vk.com page look like agency have no stuff, except for one woman, and even this page look suspiciously. all saying only one thing, it (ARENA survey) was one day project to get money and disappear in the air. also, their survey which presented in graph in article they bought from POF (public opinion foundation) its clearly written on their site. and POF numbers for orthodox people in 2012 is 65%, not 41% which provides Arena, and all of that making it look so suspicious and unreliable that i just wonder how that data get to serious wiki page? --Отрок 12 (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i reread you message Iryna " Given that the majority of the content from the 2 unreliable sources in Russian Wikipedia article has been added by the same WP:BATTLEGROUND editor" ahahahhahahah its 2 most reliable russian sources. most long existed (from 1989) and famous and reliable and biggest independent statistical agency, and russian academy of science, oldest (300 years) and biggest russian science foundation. i added them, to page, exactly because its only two most reliable sources. learn russian, live in russia, than you could say what sources are reliable here. --Отрок 12 (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:DUEWEIGHT as well. DA1 (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified 5 external links on Religion in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117013643/http://www.fgi-tbff.org/sites/default/files/elfinder/FGIImages/Research/fromresearchtopolicy/ipsos_mori_briefing_pack.pdf to http://www.fgi-tbff.org/sites/default/files/elfinder/FGIImages/Research/fromresearchtopolicy/ipsos_mori_briefing_pack.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170513130508/http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/05/10104119/CEUP-FULL-REPORT.pdf to http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/05/10104119/CEUP-FULL-REPORT.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109010927/https://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569000_6/Russia.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569000_6/Russia.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120712122740/http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/gita-row-snowballs-india-raises-issue-at-highest-levels/articleshow/11180045.cms to http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/gita-row-snowballs-india-raises-issue-at-highest-levels/articleshow/11180045.cms
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108011714/http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=393903&catid=36 to http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=393903&catid=36

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reverted an attempt to replace the excellent Arena Atlas data with the results of a small survey with a sample of 1000 people held by the

Both surveys are raliable, the only difference is that Arena Atalas has more sample. Also, only the 2012 study of World Religion Futures have been in correlation with the Templeton Foundation, as you can see from the title of the project (Pew-Templeton). Other surveys are really reliable. Sample based surveys take in consideration only the answers of the respondents (so they don't take in account census, also why should they?), and have a margin of error depending of the number of interviewed people.

Also, the "overestimation of Christians" pointed out by you doesn't exist:

• For Hungary, survey results are very similar of the respondents population.
• For Belarus, there hasn't been a census in 2011 (the most recent one in 2009), and data in the Pie Chart is only an estimate by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
• The results for Russia are very similar with their of many other different surveys, so the difference beetween these and the Arena one is that Arena has has an additional option for "Spiritual but not Religious". Surely many cultural Christian choosed this life stance rather than a religion.
• The results of Czech Republic are very similar to the census' respondent population.
• For Estonia, results are different from the census likely becouse of the option "Other Christians", not included in the census.

Then, if you

don't like the Pew Research Center's results is a your problem, deal with it. Don't try to construe some evidence of unreliability every time you don't like a source. Those surveys have been widely used in Wikipedia for their reliability, and are generally accepted.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Stop with your verbose provocations and consider reviewing your English skills. Your interventions are uncritical, illogical, one-directional and therefore unconstructive. If you will continue in this vein I'll consider reporting you again to the admins' noticeboard.--

talk) 11:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't menace me, I only said my own views of the situation. I gave completely neutral and logical considerations you didn't have. Focus on what this section has been made for. --FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who indulges in

talk) 11:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

That's your view of the situation, I only remembered you to use a

neutral point of view.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I would know the opinion of also Nillurcheier, Erp and JimRenge, as users interested in the religion articles.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we have direct data from census or religious bodies' own counts, PEW is one of the best and most reliable sources I know. We will not be able to avoid contradicting data, so we have to report all of them if a certain level of quality is secured. --Nillurcheier (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pew is among the more reliable sources I'm aware of (I would certainly put it above teh CIA fact book). We could go through each of the sources and address the pros and cons for each. An initial list is:

• Institut Montaigne. 2016 used for the pie chart and last column chrono stats table (btw I'm disinclined to call it a chrono statistic table since the sources aren't exactly covering the same stuff, though that is a minor point) also Christianity section
• CSA data (up to 2006 in the Chrono table)
• IPSOS global trends 2016 (Chrono table and Christianity). IPSO also apparently found more Catholics than Christians (compare Christian and Catholic sections though the Catholic in text says IPSOS and ref is Le Monde)
• the two statistical diagrams CSA require references (we have two CSA sources)
• Institut français d'opinion publique, for Protestantism section

So thoughts on each? In the meantime I'm going to check some of the sources. --Erp (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Pew Research Center's reliability is seriously undermined by its links to the Templeton Foundation, and therefore to the American Evangelical Christian lobbies (Templeton itself was founded as an institution with a strong Evangelical or generally religious orientation). Moreover, its methodology is not disclosed and for its 2010-2012 study of worldwide religion demography it is glaring that it used one or two-decades old census data.

talk) 09:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay lets found out traces of ARENA survey... All is written above. ARENA is less reliable here. I can agree to many sources but not to ARENA. never. also just go to streets of russia and ask people what is their religion, you would hardly find atheist. thats modern realities now. while europe and usa moving further from faith, russians are only gaining it --Отрок 12 (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]