Talk:Religion in Russia

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other religions: Assyrian 

message: 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: 
(sorry for my poor english, read it's easy but write...)--Robertoreggi 17:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About Neopagans

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes to be made in the Islam section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article locked 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2007 surveys demographics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   Islam in Russia 

message: * 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)
replies: text: Sreda Arena has already been discussed at length here, on this talk page, with consensus that it is the best source. If  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No need to  change the existing consensus. Sreda Arena 2012 has a much higher sample number.   JimRenge (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: Agreed. Sreda Arena remains the consensus source until another reliable source emerges. , 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm sorry, , 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Levada and Sreda Arena 2012 surveys

message: 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 GuyTalkContribs 10:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry , 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)

text: , 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I thank  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)

text:  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)

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

text:  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)
thread_title:  Edit Warring 

message: 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)
replies: text: I moved most of this content to a "Religious freedom" section. JimRenge (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions about US Commission on International Religious Freedom report 

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

message: i explained all above
--Отрок 12 (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This page is simply russophobia and aint providing any real data 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  POV and [[WP:DUEWEIGHT|due weight]] 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 , ,  and others who have long been patrolling these articles.--Wddan (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2018 

message: Hello .  I'm not sure what's up, it seems to be a technical issue: compare diffs:  (your edit, changing the date format to ymd rather than dmy),  (my revert, restoring the dmy format as established by the  template at the top of the page's source; then finally, your undo of my revert,  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  DMY 

message: 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 's who reverted my edit twice whitout giving any explanation. FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Chronological stats and the line chart 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Gerrymandering]] in the title 

message: 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)
thread_title: Seperate Sections

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mobile edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Using Jehovah's witnesses as an argument 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Old Data 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion