Talk:Religion in Canada
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Canada||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|A fact from Religion in Canada appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 14 April 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
- 1 Jedi in canada
- 2 Religioustolerance
- 3 Head of State, Succession
- 4 Separation of church and state
- 5 Christian Orthodox #s
- 6 Schism?
- 7 Neopaganism?
- 8 Incorrect entry: perhaps you might consider deleting
- 9 Census 2006
- 10 ISO or Month day, year for refs
- 11 Medium growth projection for 2006 and 2031
- 12 Define other communities or not
- 13 Sources
- 14 "Dharmic religions"
Jedi in canada
There are 20,000 Jedi's living in Canada, I feel they are not represented by this page http://www.jedichurch.org/webapps/site/4448/5930/news/news-more.html?info_id=32311 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Head of State, Succession
The article states: "The succession laws forbid Roman Catholics and their spouses from occupying the throne, and the reigning monarch is also ex officio Supreme Governor of the Church of England."
Yes, but the Statute of Westminister clearly released Canada and other members of the Commonwealth from rules governing succession to the throne. The question is, are there laws currently in place in Canada which would forbid a Roman Catholic from being Canada's head-of-state? No law requires us to recognize Elizabeth's eventual successor.--Ggbroad 00:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Separation of church and state
I'm from the U.S. and am curious to what degree Canada does or does not require or practice separation of church and state. Is the government ever prohibited from funding religious activities or messages, or can it do whatever it wants? Is there a line beyond which state involvement in religion becomes controversial? Do politicians make a big deal about religion when running for office? When did Canada stop having a state religion (when it was part of the UK, it was presumably the Church of England)? -- Beland 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- As far as the article on state religion says, the Church of England was disestablished in 1854 as the state religion of the province of Canada. So, since independence Canada has not had a state religion. The restrictions governing the involvement of religion and state are found in Supreme Court cases referring to freedom of religion and the striking down of religious laws due to a perception of discrimination against those of other or no faith. But no, there exists no strict separation of church and state, which has led to a muted pluralism in Canadian policy. Homagetocatalonia (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Christian Orthodox #s
People are adding stats for the smallest groups of this small group. THis gives the wrong impression about relative %s. The largest groups are Greek Orthodox & n.i.e.s. If you are going to add your group please add the rest too. Here are the numbers for 2001 - but I doubt we should be including groups of 0.02%. Details are at: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/themes/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2001&PID=55822&APATH=3&GID=431515&METH=1&PTYPE=55440&THEME=56&FOCUS=0&AID=0&PLACENAME=0&PROVINCE=0&SEARCH=0&GC=99&GK=NA&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&FL=0&RL=0&FREE=0
- Christian Orthodox 495,245
- Antiochian Orthodox Christian 5,680
- Armenian Orthodox 11,875
- Coptic Orthodox 10,285
- Greek Orthodox 223,820
- Romanian Orthodox 4,675
- Russian Orthodox 15,610
- Serbian Orthodox 20,520
- Ukrainian Orthodox 32,720
- Orthodox, n.i.e. 170,060
--JimWae 00:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Where? I do not see it. Maybe this question is just no longer valid? Carlaude:Talk 05:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
There are a lot of religions left out of this. How can neopaganism be left out (and others I'm sure), when there isn't even an "other" category? I mean, the percentages only add up to 99.9%, but I still think more than 0.1% of Canadians are some religion other than those listed here. Even if the number is that small, perhaps it should be listed as other? Spock of Vulcan (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I just realised that there is an other category. Sorry about that! However, that makes me even more curious about where that extra 0.1% is. Maybe people who refused to answer? I wish these surveys would be more thorough and not group so many people into "other". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock of Vulcan (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect entry: perhaps you might consider deleting
Religion in Canada
The paragraph “While the majority of Québécois are still professed Latin rite Roman Catholics, rates of church attendance are today extremely low, in fact, they are the lowest of any region in North America today. “ is incorrect. According to Stats Canada, the highest level of non church attendance is British Columbia. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/c-g/4097584-eng.htm The Catholic Church in Quebec does not practice a Latin Rite, though permitted, on the grounds that they say there is a lack of interest amongst Catholics.
This also applies to “There are very few evangelicals in Quebec and in the largest urban areas, which are generally secular, although there are several congregations above 1000 in most large cities.” This may be an opinion but there is no evidence to support this highly debatably proposition that ‘large urban areas’ in Quebec are any more secular than large urban areas anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
ISO or Month day, year for refs
Apparently we must keep "keep yyyy-mm-dd for accessdates (and archivedates) per 2009-MAR-21 edit". I vote that it's not a natural format and would prefer Month day, year so that it matches dates as used in the article. We are free to change that as WP:DATERET and certainly MOS:DATEUNIFY only applies to body copy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have recently change my mind on this point - as per a talk I saw about date confusion because of the many formats we use. I came around because I agree that its always best to make it as easy as possible for our readers to know with a quick glance what is being said. Without dough taking the time to write out the month like January 01, 2010 is going to be much easier to decipher then 2010-10-01 for our readers. So basically I am saying to hell with any MOS on dates that does not take readability into account as its main concern first. ....Just my opinion based on Wikipedia:The rules are principles - . -- Moxy (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Walter's assertion that WP:DATERET & MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT apply only to body dates is not supported by those guidelines. If we do not adhere to RETAIN guidelines, we have no guidelines to reduce edit warring. Having people changing formats in the hope that nobody notices is not an acceptable effort at collaboration.--JimWae (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- if one argues that DATEUNIFY applies only to body text, you have lost any argument about having ref dates consistent. All the ref dates should be of the same format as one another - either the same as in the body or YMD (this is pretty much a paraphrase of the guideline)--JimWae (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- it is possible to have 3 dates (& maybe more) for any ref entry. Having the accessdate & archivedate in YMD format makes it easier to scan the ref entry for the date wanted.--JimWae (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- No Jim Wae, MOS:DATEUNIFY cleary states it's for body text. I believe you'll have to prove that it applies to reference dates. If you're implying that I'm "people" who change date formats in the hope that nobody notices is ignorant at best and slanderous at worst. If you can't prove your point regarding those guidelines applying to reference dates I will be applying them again and you can take me to ANI and as far as ARBCOM. I feel you're using a hammer here that doesn't apply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Quoting MOS:DATEUNIFY: Access and archive dates in references should all have the same format – either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD. --JimWae (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. And "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk." from WP:DATERET. That doesn't say "if the refs used one format and the article used another each should retain its own separate date format. You're conflating MoSes and guidelines to imply things that they do not state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Common sense tells us one format is best (either or does not matter) - its a no brainier in my opinion to use a consistent format throughout the article No comments on readability anyone? -- Moxy (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Walter, first you repeatedly say DATEUNIFY does not apply to refs, then your "exactly" suggests what follows is from DATEUNIFY. Nowhere does MOS:DATEUNIFY say what you just claimed it does. WP:DATERET says that -- but does not pay attention to any possible exceptions (except a brief reference to STRONGNAT - which is right above it). However, [[MOS:DATEUNIFY] & WP:STRONGNAT explicitly state YMD is acceptable in accessdates & archivedates - regardless of any other format for other dates. Your reply is unresponsive to DATEUNIFY & STRONGNAT--JimWae (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article had YMD in accessdates from 2009-MAR-21 to 2013-JUL-14 until you ignored RETAIN - with no consensus - and changed to MDY on 2013-JUL-14. If we are not guided by principles & guidelines regarding RETAIN, there would be nothing to settle edit wars except brute force. It is not up to the whim of editors (with or without scripts which ignore guidelines) to abandon principles of collaboration and make changes based only on what they find acceptable (in opposition to other reliable editors). --JimWae (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Medium growth projection for 2006 and 2031
I propose deleting this section. It is very much out of date (using projections from 2001). Specifically, based upon the latest national household survey, is already wrong (as of 2011) and it's projecting to 2031!!! Very silly to include this as it's own section. Mattximus (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- The reference is from March 2010. That's not at all out-of-date. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter when the reference is from, it's when the data used by the reference is from. It uses data from the 2001 census that is already out of date. I can see no reason to keep this in as it is inaccurate. It does offer historical value (what we thought would have been the data in 2013 using 2001 data), but since we have 2011 data, why not use it? Mattximus (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Define other communities or not
- I added this info as a note for the the column "Other religions" in the table in the Census section. I'm all in favor of the addition of more religions in the "Other religions" section if we have sources, but this reference is used by Statistics Canada as a definition of "Other religions" in its census, it doesn`t say that those religions are present in Canada or not; the way the reference was used on the article in the sub-section that I removed was a misuse of this reference. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
In mid-1870s Hutterites moved from Europe to the Dakota Territory in the United States to avoid military service and other persecutions. During World War I Hutterites suffered from persecutions in the United States because they are pacifist and refused military service. They then moved almost all of their communities to Canada in the Western provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In the mid-1970s Hutterites expanded in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan. Today, more than 75% of the world's Hutterite colonies are located in Canada, mainly in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the rest being almost exclusively in the United States. The Canadian Hutterite population is somewhere between 30,000 and 38,000 people.
The topic of "Dharmic religions has been extensively discussed at Wikipedia; it's definitely not WP:COMMONNAME, and not accepted at Wikipedia.
- WP:COMMONNAME - Count of usage:
- Google Scholar gives 78 (seventy-eight) hits for "Dharmic religions", and 7.430 for "Indian religions". Google Books gives 73 hits for "Dharmic religions", and 93.000 hits for "Indian religions".
- Google Books gives 73 hits for "Dharmic religions", and 93.000 hits for "Indian religions". When we exclude "Wikipedia, "Dharmic religions" gives 66, and "Indian religions" gives 236.000 - an amazing growth of numbers, which raises questions on this search-engine, but nevertheless, it's a ratio of 1:1208, or 1:3576.
- Bing: Inidian Religions with 41,100,000 and Dharmic Religions with 121,000. Basically 340 to 1 in favor of Indian Religions.
- WP:COMMONNAMES - Previous concensus:
- "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced."
There has been previous concencus for the deletion of "Dharmic" pages and categories:
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 2#Category:Dharmic_religions
- Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board/Archive 3#Dharmic Religions
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 10#Category:Dharmic writers
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 30#Category:Eastern religions writers
The issue has also been extensiveley discussed at Talk:Indian religions, previously "Dharmic religions":
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 4#Indian-based Religions are 'Dharmic Religions'
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#The term "Religion" applied to Dharmic Traditions is culturally insensitive and engenders an insidious cultural bias
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#Better cite sources for your unencyclopedic edits
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#The democracy of Truth
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#Dharmic vs Indian religious tradition
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 2#Dharmic traditions
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 1#Basic Question
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 1##merge
- Not common to a layperson, but it is when speaking about religions, which is what this article is about. It's about the Dharmic religions, not all of which people with origins in India, which is a racist and ignorant comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- The term "Dharmic religions" is completely unknown to most persons
; apart from that, you too have to follow Wiki-policies. see the long list of links above.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- The term "Dharmic religions" is completely unknown to most persons