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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/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.
• 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)