Talk:Religion in Russia

Percentages

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

Other religions: Assyrian

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)

About Neopagans

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)

What figure to cite

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)

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)

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)

Changes to be made in the Islam section

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)
  • 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)

Article locked

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 dispute resolution if the dispute cannot be resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Detailed Information

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

2007 surveys demographics

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)

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)

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)

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:QUESTIONABLE. In some cases, where the polling technique is described, they can be used per WP:BIASED so long as attribution is clear within the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this census reliable?

The census mentioned in the article states that only 6.5% of the population is Muslim.

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)

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)

Per my comment above, there are certainly sources that can be used despite being 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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

I agree with Iryna Harpy and Toddy1, the Arena Atlas is the most recent (2012) and most reliable survey available. It is a large-scale survey based on interviews with 56,900 people from different federal states and should be preferred to Pew Research estimates based on ethnic groups. CIA is not a neutral source because one of their aims is to influence public opinion. Septate, your choice of sources of statistical data in the past (Islam/religion in country xy) appears to be dubious. Wikipedia adheres to a policy of a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV and we should avoid WP:CHERRYPICKING. JimRenge (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source

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)

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)

@Septate: Allow me to refresh your memory regarding my 'support' of the user you have named on this article talk page, as well as the circumstances under which this so-called 'support' was rendered here, here and here. Allow me to remind you (yet again) about WP:TE, and that your edits and personal attacks don't just disappear because you delete them (per this [1] as just one of many examples of attacks on editors). You now have a long-standing track record of treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND for your WP:POV pushing. I suggest that you drop the stick and learn to exercise discretion before you land in the middle of an ANI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@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)

I know it can be frustrating, but Wikipedia encourages the use of scholarly resources and paywall online journals and newspapers, even if they are not freely accessible to the public. Sometimes, we simply have to take it as 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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.

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/614652615 Septate (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@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)

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

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)

Islam in Russia

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)

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)

had demanded a ban

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

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 and Sreda Arena 2012 surveys

• 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)

Sreda Arena has already been discussed at length here, on this talk page, with consensus that it is the best source. If Отрок 12 wishes to 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Agreed. Sreda Arena remains the consensus source until another reliable source emerges. Отрок 12, I think you are confusing being born into a particular ethnic group with religion. What Arena represents is individual identification with a given religion (i.e. actual belief systems). This has nothing to do with family tradition; whether you were baptised Russian Orthodox; what your personal opinion is. Wikipedia represents WP:NPOV from the best (largest sample group and transparency of methodology) sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Отрок 12: Evidently, you haven't comprehended what consensus means. It certainly does not mean that you persist with getting your way in an unpleasant and relentless manner because you, personally, believe something to be so. We follow WP:RS and make decisions per WP:NPOV. It also does not mean that attacks on other editors are acceptable, nor that you are in a position to ascertain what other editors do or don't know. The consensus remains with Sreda Arena as the best source, so please drop the stick. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Отрок 12, please desist from these personal attacks directed at me and address the content, not the contributor. Your battleground behaviour has quickly escalated into harassment. Bludgeoning the process is not forming consensus, nor is consensus built on shouting and arguments built on what you like and don't like. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Отрок 12 that his perspective should not be censored since it is supported by a reliable source. So far, I haven't heard any good reasons why the information should not be included, other than WP:IDONTLIKETHAT.--Jobas (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jobas, but how is this WP:CENSOR? Conversely, you haven't presented a policy or guideline-based argument for the use of dubious content (with the arguments for the unreliability of tiny sample groups, etc. clearly outlined), but have taken the position of WP:ILIKEIT. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource that uses the best and most reliable sources and evaluates the content according to WP:WEIGHT. The sources being invoked are weak and misleading at best. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

"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 Levada Center has been revealed to have links with the United States. Besides, both Levada and VCIOM are not focused on research about religion, while Sreda is. The sampled 56.900 people were interviewed face-to-face at their home.--Wddan (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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.--Wddan (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

@Отрок 12: Please desist from your WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Despite being asked by Ritchie333 to 'play nice', you've just gone on and on (and on) with WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND and flouting WP:NPA to the nth degree. You have formed absolutely no consensus for the use of your sources or desired content changes here. Your behaviour has gone beyond WP:TEDIOUS, therefore I will take this up at the WP:ANI requesting that you be WP:TBANned should you engage in one more such outburst. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring

@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)

Sorry DatGuy, but there is an established consensus about which is the most reliable survey to be kept in the article's lede and pie chart, reached through the discussion just hereinabove. And there is also consensus about not introducing more than one pie chart in this kind of articles. FrankCesco26 and Отрок 12 persist in the disruption of such consensus as they try to impose their own preferred data.--Wddan (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

DatGuy, as you can see, just as we are writing here, FrankCesco26 has reverted the page again without any reasonable motivation and going against the established consensus, imposing his preferred data, which are in no way as reliable as the Arena Atlas, which is a wide and in-depth survey that was acclaimed even by the Orthodox Church's press. What I was doing by reverting his edits is to preserve the consensually approved version of the page.--Wddan (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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.--Wddan (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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:IDONTLIKETHAT and WP:BLUDGEON; also, you are attacking me and you wrote that I'm stupid. You should be banned for the three-reverts rule and 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)

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.--Wddan (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And what about insults and menaces you made to me? Is this "against how things work here in Wikipedia"? Also, what about WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NPA? Is your behavior "collaborating"? FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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.--Wddan (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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, DatGuy. Please note that the issue of Sredna Arena as a superior source has been discussed above, and that consensus has not changed. Reams of shouting and personal attacks are, as you're aware, not consensus but POV pushing, therefore Wddan has not been edit warring, but has been following the spirit of maintaining consensus. In fact, Wddan has managed to maintain his/her cool for a commendable length of time before being goaded into reacting to this protracted WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not of the understanding that FrankCesco26 is a sock (or even a meatpuppet), but has felt justified in continuing to edit war under the influence of Отрок 12's behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I thank Iryna Harpy for having taken my defenses, both here and in the administratiors' noticeboard. I just noticed that today there has been a new wave of edits against consensus both in the article "Religion in Russia" (from an anonymous IP) and in "Religion in Ukraine".--Wddan (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

Recent additions about US Commission on International Religious Freedom report

I think that the recent addition in the lede of the 2017 report from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom about violation of religious liberty by the Russian government is utter WP:UNDUE weight given to the biased views of a foreign political entity. The paragraph, that now occupies 2/3 of the lede, should be removed.--Wddan (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Adding a table

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

This page is simply russophobia and aint providing any real data

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

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)

POV and due weight

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)

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:WINARS in mind, which applies equally to articles from other language Wikipedias... and, yes, you are correct: WP:DUE applies (which is why they have been rejected). 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 as has been 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)

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)

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)

@Iryna Harpy: There are definitely issues with using only one source. Nonetheless, what is the order of the pie chart in the lede? It doesn't seem to be organized by numeric order. Is it by denomination; why would the minority take precedence over the larger group? The captions in the pie graph should be to be amended. The "prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" fall under WP:DUEWEIGHT as well. DA1 (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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)

About the unreliability of the Pew Research Center

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 Pew Research Center. Apart from the fact of the unreliability of this Pew Research Center's survey compared to Sreda's Arena Atlas, in the case of religion in Russia, it is worthwhile to put into question the reliability of Pew Research Center's studies overall, which have been uncritically used throughout Wikipedia. Their study of worldwide religion demographics dated 2010, published in 2012 (The Global Religious Landscape), was based in many cases on data which came from one or two decades-old censuses. Their most recent publication is this study about religion in Eastern Europe (based on a sample of 1000 people), which grossly overestimates the number of Christians in each one of the countries, totally ignoring the national censuses or major surveys (this is the case of Russia, Belarus, Hungary, but also Czechia and Estonia). To make matters worse, the Pew Research Center is related to the Templeton Foundation (some studies are published as "Pew-Templeton"), which is notorious for its Christian bias and links to American Evangelicals. See David Barash, The Truth About the Temple of Templeton, 15 March 2012. In my opinion, Wikipedia should not give undue weight to studies coming from this institution.--Wddan (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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.--Wddan (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

You are the one who indulges in WP:PA at every single comment.--Wddan (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

---

Iryna Harpy, as a user interested in the topic of religion in Russia, what do you think about this issue?--Wddan (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Erp, most of your comment should be moved to Talk:Religion in France, since here in Talk:Religion in Russia we are generally discussing Pew.--Wddan (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

Arena Atlas complete unreliable source without any proofs of data they provided, they claimed it, gained money in russia and dissapeared as an organization, while all other surveys made by wolrd-known organizations with great reputation, functioned for decades (some of them centuries) and still in business, while Arena Atlas appeared out of nowhere, get attention by scandalous numbers, got lot of money for it and dissapeared forever. Their site ain't work, their accounts in social networks dissapeared. And numbers they provided complete different from 90% of surveys made by such organizations as PewResearch and International Social Survey Programme. And most people who wants to use Arena Atlas data in this article - are not even russian. One editor is Ukranian-Australian, another some pagan from europe. I'm the only one real russian here guys --Отрок 12 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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/20080304231400/http://www.rferl.org/features/features_Article.aspx?m=07&y=2005&id=B7D5E783-749F-4E6A-B77E-8932ECE7AD53 to http://www.rferl.org/features/features_Article.aspx?m=07&y=2005&id=B7D5E783-749F-4E6A-B77E-8932ECE7AD53

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

This edit, in my opinion, borders vandalism, especially the removal of Ministry of Education (official) and European Social Survey, useful for chronological comparison with Arena 2012 (related to census 2010). The importance of Arena 2012 is undisputable as established by rational consensus.

As I wrote in the edit summary of my revert, the data for the tables are the best available: Those for 1998 are data published by the Ministry of Education, thus come from an official organ and should be given appropriate weight; those for 2007 are from the European Values Survey; and those for 2012 are from the Arena Atlas. The EVS could be omitted from the table, but since it is consistent with the others, and comes from an undisputably neutral source, it could also stay. All the other surveys (those which show large % of Orthodox etc.) are made by public opinion agencies, market research agencies and ideologised think tanks, either international or internal, which are absolutely not worth giving undue weight. This was discussed at length above.

The section "other surveys" illustrates as a pie chart the very recent (2018) survey of the young population by the Catholic St Mary's University. It deserves to be shown since it represents a different section of the population than the general one, similarly to the article about religion in the Netherlands, which in the "other surveys" section shows a pie chart representing the % of theism, nontheism and atheism among the population. So, I don't understand why FrankCesco26 hastily deleted the pie chart in this article while leaving that in the article about religion in the Netherlands.

Then, I would like to know the opinion of Iryna Harpy, Nillurcheier, JimRenge and others who have long been patrolling these articles.--Wddan (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

DMY

Hello Wojsław Brożyna. I'm not sure what's up, it seems to be a technical issue: compare diffs: [2] (your edit, changing the date format to ymd rather than dmy), [3] (my revert, restoring the dmy format as established by the {{Use dmy dates}} template at the top of the page's source; then finally, your undo of my revert, [4] but that one only affects spaces, not the date format. Maybe some visual editor bug? In any case, your revert did not restore the inconsistent date format, which was my concern. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I did what I want to did, I don't use visual editor. Template should contains spaces between parameters. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but I don't object to that change, only to the previous change of date format. So all is fine now, thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Chronological stats and the line chart

Hello contributors, I am making this discussion in order to talk about the line chart and the chronological statistics sections which, in my opinion, are irrelevant to the scope of the article. There isn't a single source, or multiple surveys from the same source, to be taken in consideration over the other ones. I don't think that the other surveys in the article, which show significantly different data than the three surveys in the charts, are all wrong, then IMO the sections should be removed. Also worth of notice is that the table and the chart mix up irreligion, atheism, other christian denominations and other religions than Islam, just as if they are grouped with the purpose of making the total percentage greater than Eastern Orthodoxy; and that the user who did the edit is now banned indefinitely having abused multiple accounts to break the rules. I would like to know your opinions, in particular Wojsław_Brożyna's who reverted my edit twice whitout giving any explanation. FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• There was no consensus before in this question, so stop pinging me and vandalising article. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensous about introducing that either, so I think it is legit to ask other contributors their opinion. Still, you haven't given an explanation about your three reverts and you broke the three reverts rule reintroducing dubious content. FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Gerrymandering in the title

Forcing religion as the ultimate hypernym doesn't constitute it the ultimate hypernym of personal belief.
The second metaphysical worldview is nontheism not Islam.
Not all personal beliefs are religions or religious.
That is a fact.
Forcing a hyponym as a hypernym is a form of gerrymandering.
Theist propagandists claim that the hypernym of religion is religion itself,
and that atheism is either nothing or a religion, even if academically that isn't accepted,
neither is by common sense.
That disrespect against atheists simply causes more atheism in Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411B:BA00:C861:3521:5891:B11C (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

About the unreliability of the Arena survey

please provide any actual links that this is trusted source. all other sources shows much more percentage of orthodox christians and are from trusted valued sources, arena is less reliable here and for unknown reason its represented as main source. diagrams made on unknown source instead of for an exaple Pew Research Center? Seriously? thats wikipedia one of the most important article? one of the main sources for information about Russia in the world have most wrong and untrustworthy source as main in article, seriously?

I traced everything that is relates to Arena survey. its totally unknown organization without and legitimacy as serious source for such a serious article. no web page, no visiable activity, just few copypasted articles on internet without any proofs of any serious work.

I changed diagrams in article to provided by www.isras.ru Institute of Sociology of Russian Academy of Sciences, most trustworthy source in such circumstances

Here is big study about religion in Russia made by them. any other source here can't be considered as more reliable

So i changed diagrams data to prodided by survey of Russian Institute of Sociology

Отрок 12 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak to the reliability of the Arena Atlas, but you've messed up the percentages given throughout the whole article, most of which are sourced to that atlas. Almost all the numbers will have to be replaced if others more knowledgeable than I about its reliability agree with your having removed it.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, looking back at your editing history (involving a lot of edit warring about this source in 2017), I'm going to go ahead and revert this. It appears there is a clear consensus in favor of this source.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

my past edits used to be such way for reason of anti-orthodox-christian lobby. its sometimes looking like nonsense. i bringing tons of legit sources and they choose less reliable (which is now presented as diagrams) but which they like. its absurd. i cant call it serious wikipedia editing. its propaganda and nothing more. Отрок 12 (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

right now its about 10 valid sources which all shows 70-80% of orthodox christian people in russia. only one and worst reliable show 42%. and exactly this source presented as main. really wikipedia? i can call it absurd and nothing nothing but absurd Отрок 12 (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

most agressive edits always was from ukranian-australian user who clearly have prejudice against russian people and russian church. it all was so biased that i went on rage mode cause in russian wiki i respected editor and we talked about legitimacy of different sources pretty much and all came to almost same conclusions while here this ukranian-australian editor use its reputation and image of good editor to bring russophobia (and clearly hateful towards russian orthodox church position) here. i dont think its fit any principles which on wikipedia based. dont fit at all and this is dramatically awfull that one man with such power can disinform such big amout of people by her power. its not wikipedia that way its propaganda Отрок 12 (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be resorting to personal attacks again. Where editors are from and what their backgrounds are are of no consequence to editing Wikipedia. I for one have not found your arguments convincing, as they seem to be highly inflected by your own point of view and make grand and outrageous claims about there being an "anti-Orthodox lobby".--Ermenrich (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ermen, i'm not a wiki stuff, i'm street photographer and my work is hard and dangerous. I'm not gonna talking here with british manners. You can leave it for yourself. Just check whole story, and whole discussion and you will see that user which i'm talking about (australian-ukranian) with british manners and under wikipedia rules (cause she is editor and know them well, i edit only russian wiki and we have different approach here) do everything against wikipedia rules. She just manipulates it as she wants using situation that her opponent - me - dont know english language enough and she editing page with unhidden russophobia. Thats just a hidden racism. Thank you. Отрок 12 (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion (I contributed to the article as "Wddan"), with some strong arguments in favour of Sreda Arena Atlas' data: I agree with Ermenrich, there is obviously no consensus for removing the Arena Atlas 2012 statistics. Consensus, reached with Iryna Harpy and other users, was that the Arena Atlas represents the best statistics available about religion in Russia. All the other minor polls are taken in western regions of Russia that, as demonstrated by the Arena Atlas itself, have a larger percentage of adherents to Orthodox Christianity. Moreover, the Arena Atlas is not a mere poll like the others. As it is said in this article of Russian Journal, the Arena Atlas was made to complete the 2010 census of Russia, a connection which is declared on the website of the Arena Atlas itself. Furthermore, the Arena Atlas was realised with the support of the Ministry of Justice, the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) and the Analytical Department of the Synodal Information Department of the Russian Orthodox Church itself. The Arena survey will even be repeated, probably with the 2020 census of Russia. Besides, I note that the Arena Atlas has been removed as the main statistics, and replaced with unreliable and unsourced statistics from the US government website, in the "religion" section of the "Russia" article, which should reflect this article.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm coming in with a tardy response to the ping, but I don't recall any consensus for removing the Arena Atlas figures, nor any arguments for it being unreliable other than some sort of skewed personal attack. I'm afraid I was out of action for some time, during which time the article seems to have been taken over. Just to say that I'm good with Aethelwolf Emsworth's latest round of edits (and that it was about time). There may be truth to there being an incredibly dramatic spike in religion, but I think Wikipedia needs to remain behind the ball with reliable sources. The Russian Wikipedia entry has 3 completely disparate charts (one being from the Levada Centre, the more recent figures for which proved to be problematic in their depiction by their counterparts in Ukraine). The general sourcing is seriously unreliable, heavily WP:BIASED and, essentially based on MOS:OPED pieces rather than quality sources. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Iryna, biggest problem with you is that you using phrases like "I'm good with" like if your opinion is somehow matters. It's wikipedia not you facebook page, here must reside most truthfull information that could be achieved, not information "you okay with", it's nonsese that you think that you must be okay with some information on wikipedia page. information itself must be okay, not your opinion must be okay with it. And as we can clearly see here you are complete biased about Russia. more recent figures for which proved to be problematic in their depiction by their counterparts in Ukraine, so their counterparts in Ukraine more recent figures for which proved to be problematic in their depiction by their counterparts in Russia and so what? who cares about your biased ukranian opinion on Russia? Why are you even allowed to edit this page? that is nonsense. like allowing neo-nazis edit "Israel" wiki page. i could only imagine how far it can go. and as i said in prior there is no consensus on using Arena Atlas; consensus between you and Aethelwolf Emsworth while all other editors on this Talk Page are against Arena Atlas using - is not consensus at all

yes, there was dramatic spike in religion un Russia in past years. and yes, Wikipedia needs to remain behind the wall with reliable sources, but that is not the sources "you must be okay with" it's just reliable sources. and sources "you okay with" is not reliable at all, you just like them most --Отрок 12 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Aethelwolf Emsworth, all you wrote is false information. First of all support of Ministry of Justice was calimed by Arena Atlas but never proven by Ministry of Justice itself. Link that you provided leads to Arena Atlas site. Public Opinion Foundation and the Analytical Department of the Synodal Information Department of the Russian Orthodox Church are also not anyhow related to survey; link you provided ain't work, and furthermore site which you reffering to is just another internet portal. It's not some serious organization, they just repost news and texts they took somehwere else. Nothing wrtitten on that site can be proof to anything.

So there is no 1) proofs from your side that Arena Atlas is anyhow reliable, while you used it to spoil the whole page with your enormous hard work 2) there is still not any concensus about reliability of Arena. ONLY two editors who want to use Arena Atlas data in this article is you and Iryna. All other editors on this Talk Page are mostly against using of Arena Atlas, so if we talking about consensus - most evident consensus is that MOST OF THE EDITORS ON THIS TALK PAGE ARE AGAINST USING OF ARENA ATLAS DATA --Отрок 12 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

What other editors? Please refer to recent discussion, not things years ago. The only one who wants this changed is you.—Ermenrich (talk)

Seperate Sections

There can be seperate sections in religion in russia page. The main heading of the section can be histroy. The subsections can include the religion in soviet union and post soviet union religion. This is because religion was officially banned during the soviet union's dictators except of Mikhail Gorbachev who introduced drastic reforms. Ntu129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Mobile edit

that was not vandalism, but a mistake. edit Wikipedia through mobile phone can be a real horror, really, it needs improvements and a new UI for mobile edits.--85.212.108.194 (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Using Jehovah's witnesses as an argument

I do not see as good idea to use the Jehovah's Witnesses as an argument: this organization is supposed by many as a sect. So reasoning, that Russia banned Jehovah's Witnesses is logically no argument for Russia problems with freedom of religion. It is needed to use real arguments, where real religion was banned. Otherwise it decreases truthwortness ot the article. 109.81.209.105 (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Old Data

Why is the pie chart in the top of the article using data gathered from a survey in 2012, which is over a decade ago? Demographic trends do change in that time and should be replaced with newer surveys or data. Surely there is a newer survey. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:103:D166:7626:76A8 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• A Russian Hindu girl.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Real Numbers

According to Institute of Sociology in Russia Academy of Science (biggest russian scientific organization) there are 79% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [5]

According to Levada-Center (biggest russian sociological organization) there are 74% of Orthodox Christians in Russia[6]

According to Pew Research (on of the biggest international sociological organization) there are 71% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [7][8]

According to VCIOM (Russian Public Opinion Research Center) there are 68% of Orthodox Christians in Russia[9]

According to Russian Church's officials there are 75% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [10]

According to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) there are from 70% to 80% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [11]

According to EUREL (sociological organization in University of Strasbourg) there are 80% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [12]

According to Acton Institute (american sociological institute) there are 70% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [13]

...

Then why this article contains such an outdated data as 47.4% ?

*

About Arena survey discussed above, and where from current data was taken: this survey was conducted between big urban areas, so I don't think it could be counted as reliable. All surveys that was held in rural parts of Russia are show numbers close to overwhelming majority. We can take such numbers as 75% - that would be pretty much the real median picture, if we're talking about not russian big cities, but about country overall.

So we surely can't count Arena survey as reliable and use its data as main source of infromation for the article.

Mumbling macaw (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a fair point - can we list both and cite sources? e.g. "one survey focused on urban areas said 47%, otherse with a larger survey showed 80%?"

Definitely could use some work on that statement... SpookyTwenty (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the 79% figure counts anyone who was baptized. It's been discussed before. Russia may want to present itself as "the last Christian country" but most Russians are not religious. You'll also note that the Arena survey numbers match more or less that figure if you include "Spiritual but not attached to any particular religious denomination" (that is, self-identification).--Ermenrich (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see the old discussion now, seems like an old issue around here haha SpookyTwenty (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not an issue, it's a misrepresentation about religiosity in Russia. Few years ago, when a lot of editors was interested in Russia topic - numbers was changed to correct (79%), but as long as interest went away - a few members changed it to wrong numbers. You can see in history of the page that for about 2-3 years (2016-2019) the number of orthodox christian people in Russia shown on page was stated as 79%. Mumbling macaw (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Compare also the Levada Center (from 2022): [14]. 71% of Russians say they are Russian orthodox, but only 43% go to religious services, and only 53% consider themselves "religious", 51% believe in "the kingdom of heaven", the same number in miracles and the evil eye. Keep in mind these numbers are of all Russians, not just of the Orthodox. Depending on how you define belonging to a religion (belief, attendance, official church membership), you're likely to get very different numbers, and the Arena survey's numbers don't look that out of place.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Then why we got 80% of christians in Ukraine, while it's nearly same countries in terms of religiosity? Seems like a bias for me Mumbling macaw (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

First, WP:PROVEIT, on "nearly same countries in terms of religiosity". Second, if there's an issue on Ukraine's page you should bring it up on Talk:Religion in Ukraine SpookyTwenty (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's well known fact about Russia. Urban dwellers are not that religious mostly, while in province nearly 90% of people are religious. You can see same picture in most of the northern countries.

And also I don't see any info on the site of "Arena" proving that they made a research in russian province, while old sociological organization, that well-known for a broad spectrum of respondents, are state same numbers - about 70-80% Mumbling macaw (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Source for your assertions on rural vs. city? As it is, I only see unsourced claims. And it does not behoove editors to suggest that Russia not being portrayed as religious as they want it to be comes from some sort of "bias" - because the wicked, secular (Satanist?) West doesn't want to admit to the Christian excellence of Holy Rus'? It doesn't make any sense. If you have a problem with how religion in Ukraine is portrayed, take it up at that article.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Known facts for everybody, if you want sources, I can bring it, but it's like proving that the sky is blue.

Same question: where's the proofs that Arena is most reliable source? All sources state numbers about 70-80% and the only one that contains 47% was placed in the article. Seems like bias for me and attempt to represent Russia in most bad light possible Mumbling macaw (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would Russia being less Orthodox "present Russia in most bad [sic] light possible"? Don't Western people (or whoever is behind this conspiracy) supposedly hate religion? That would mean that Russia being less religious would be portraying it in the best light possible.

As to Arena Atlas, there have been numerous discussions before, please see the archives and above.

And no, it is not "the sky is blue". You need to bring sources for your assertions or you can't expect anyone to act on them.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Mumbling macaw is a sockpuppet of Отрок 12: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Отрок 12/Archive. About the Sreda Arena Atlas, it is the most reliable survey of religion in Russia ever conducted, it was a complement to the 2010 census, and it was holden by the independent research organisation Sreda with the support of the Russian Ministry of Justice; it is therefore a set of official statistics related to government institutions. Those listed by Отрок 12 are small-sample surveys from private organisations, qualitatively not matching with the Sreda Arena Atlas.--Æo (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Some more information that shows that the Sreda Arena Atlas is probably not far off the mark depending on how you count: [15]: In Russia, for example, just 6% of Orthodox Christian adults say they attend church at least weekly, 15% say religion is “very important” in their lives, and 18% say they pray daily. Other former Soviet republics display similarly low levels of religious observance. Together, these countries are home to a majority of the world’s Orthodox Christians. That's from 2017, Pew.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Tengrist temple Dom Archy in Yakutsk, Yakutia.jpg
• Аал Луук Мас.jpg
• Кормление огня.jpg
• Осуохай.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Pie Chart?

Why is Judaism not included in the pie chart? 2605:B100:1100:21D3:7CFB:69A2:3837:73C5 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

More than this, why list Atheism if it isn't included in the chart? The percentages below the chart add up to 113%. Which of these is incorrect? Which categories do the atheists come from, if this is meant to be a supplementary category describing non-practicing members of the other categories?

The pie chart flatly contradicts the numbers in the Demographics section. DukeDunac (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone has very poorly replaced the old pie chart, without changing the attribution and without adding the numbers correctly. I've reverted to the correct numbers for the source used, the Arena Atlas. This page is the site of constant attention from various people who are really determined that Russia is a almost entirely Orthodox Christian and feel that the source we use is part of some sort of conspiracy to denigrate Russia. Unfortunately, it's not always possible to notice when they make edits like this, as it happens quite frequently.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Now all that said, I wonder if some sort of official source like the Sredna Arena Atlas has come out again since the last Russian census. 2012 is no longer the most up-to-date sourcing, but we've avoided going with Pew etc. for various reasons you can read above.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Well someone has come up with

• "Русская православная церковь" (in Russian). Фонд Общественное Мнение, ФОМ (Public Opinion Foundation). 2 May 2024. Archived from the original on 16 May 2024. Retrieved 10 June 2024.
• "Русская православная церковь" (in Russian). Фонд Общественное Мнение, ФОМ (Public Opinion Foundation). 2 May 2024. Archived from the original on 3 May 2024. Retrieved 10 June 2024.

which I suspect are the same thing. However it is difficult to figure out reliability since I don't know Russian. Erp (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ermenrich and Erp: I oppose the replacement. Despite being over a decade old, the Arena Atlas remains the most in-depth survey (with a sample of ≈60,000 people) and most detailed dataset available, and it is linked to the 2010 census. The new FOM data are based on a survey of 1500 people (you can read it in the linked reports), which is very small.--Æo (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there an alternative more recent source you'd like to suggest? I agree that sample size could be problematic.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is nothing new apart from those small-sampled polls, like those by FOM, whose results are unstable and vary with each release. The Arena Atlas survey was expected to be repeated around 2021/2022 (in a statement at the time of the first release, Sreda spokespeople said that the project would be on a ten-year basis), but the war probably halted any such initiatives. I tried to contact Sreda about the new round of surveys some time ago, but received no response. Æo (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the Russian government now would try to exaggerate the number of orthodox believers, just as various blocked users and IPs have traditionally done on this page. So a new accurate survey would not be welcome. Very well, let’s revert back.—-Ermenrich (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)