From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Puerto Rico is not a country.[edit]

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States of America, like the US Virgin Islands, which was not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Azerbaijan percentage way off.[edit]

According to this article, >70% of Azerbaijanis are non-religious, but the article on Azerbaijan says 95% of the country is Muslim. One of those is wrong, and I'm guessing it's this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't actually base articles on guesswork, and I'd point out that there is nothing to prevent anyone being both nominally Muslim, and indifferent to it - which is one of the definitions of 'irreligion' our article offers. Our article on Religion in Azerbaijan describes it as being "of the most irreligious countries in the world", which is justified by a Gallup Poll which apparently reports (the link doesn't seem to find the relevant data) that around 50% of the Azerbaijani population saw religion as having little or no importance in their lives. Now, 70% and 50% are two different figures, but either way, there are clearly a lot of nominally-Muslim Azerbaijanis who fit into an 'irreligious' category. As it happens, I think that the 'Irreligion in the world' table in this article is of little real utility, given that it combines data from multiple sources that may very well be defining 'irreligion' differently, and may not always be particularly reliable - but broadly speaking, in the case of Azerbaijan, it appears not to be wildly inaccurate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Since when self-reporting is considered as a reliable source of information in Wikipedia? Would you trust a poll that asked people their daily calorie intake? -- (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
There's a difference between ethnicity/culture, and religiousness. Being Muslim doesn't necessarily mean you practice it, both of those numbers may be correct, depending on how the question was asked. Nerfer (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

An unsigned edit by on 16 September changed Azerbaijan from >70% to 0.8%, and removed the Gallup reference which supported >70% and replaced it with a Pew research centre report which claims 99.2% of the population is Muslim. Given the proceeding discussion, and that this figure seems to be wildly contentious, perhaps it's best to remove Azerbaijan from the list altogether? miracleworker5263 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations in lead section[edit]

WP:LEADCITE (bold added) "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." Editor2020 (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Removing citations from lede is far too often a way of hiding editor bias & restricting comprehensiveness. Also, there's little to this article besides the lede--JimWae (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

POV: Why is this article listed in the Christianity Portal?[edit]

It is an article about irreligion, right? So why is it in the Christianity protal and not the Islam portal, not the Judaism portal, not the Hinduism portal, not any other religion's portal. This is very curious and very telling -- the authors have a special bile to dish out at their favorite religion to hate -- the one that it is safe to degrade in public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Three points:
  • New sections go at the bottom of the page.
  • Before you rant about a vast conspiracy of Wikipedians against some religion, take a closer look.
  • This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Have you put for the least bit of effort to try to improve what you criticize so harshly? Cresix (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
No one is ranting, you did not answer the question. Why is this in the Christianity portal? I also learned something about the people who devote their lives to the wiki -- they like edit wars, and for that reason, the persons who linked this article to Christianity need to remove the portal link themselves, and frankly, I do not appreciate or want to participate in the barracks-lawyer subculture of "wikipedians", so why is the Christianity portal here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Pls see WP:WikiProject coordinationMoxy (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Anon, if you do not "want to participate", there's a very simple solution: go away and leave Wikipedia alone. Cresix (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No thank you, I will use it on my terms. So again, why is the Christianity portal link still up on the talk page and why is it relevant? Since you appear to have no answer for that and since you refused to justify the link the Christianity portal, I removed it from the talk page. That is an improvement in your book, correct? So please do not restore the Christianity portal link on the talk page unless you are willing to link the article to every other religion as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
You may read Wikipedia on your terms, but you will not edit Wikipedia on your terms. If you choose to edit Wikipedia, you will do so on Wikipedia's terms (i.e., Wikipedia's policies and procedures) or you will be blocked from editing. Cresix (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted your deletion of the project banner. Banners are placed by members of the projects to assess articles connected to the subject of the project. This banner was placed by a member of WikiProject Christianity (a user who by the way self-proclaims as a Christian on their user page). You could ask the user or on the Wikiproject why they have chosen to include this article in their scope, but please do not remove the banner without the permission of the project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello User:Saddhiyama, I added the banner because I added information about Christians who identify themselves as nonreligious. Apparently, this information has been removed although I am unsure why this was done, especially when this school of thought has given rise to popular videos such as Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus. If the information is restored in the article, it makes sense to keep the banner. If you decide not to, then feel free to remove it. I'll let you all decide whether the information is worth restoring or not. Have a nice day! With regards, AnupamTalk 16:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Anupam. At this point there is no consensus to remove the banner, so it will remain. Cresix (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Then for consistency, it needs to be linked to every other religion's portal as well. The impression is that irreligion is simply a rejection/reaction of Christianity only. I think that Anupam's discourse here does not indicate that there is a warrant for Christianity remaining. In addition, Christianity can be accessed through the overall religion portal put above anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I repeat: There is no consensus to remove it here. If you want to discuss adding it to other portals, feel free to suggest that at the respective talk pages, but do not try to take ownership and make a unilateral decisions without regard to other opinions and the consensus process. Cresix (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You are simply asserting that there is no consensus. It is clear from the discourse of the person who added the link to the portal that he or she is fine with it being removed. For some reason, you are more attached to linking the talk page with Christianity, why is that exactly? Then it is incumbent on you to be fair and add the pages yourself, unless it is YOUR agenda to associate irreligion with Christianity, and thereby take the same ownership that you claim wish to prevent me from asserting. The only person here making any unilateral judgements is you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to edit anything, those who put up nonsense should be the ones removing it. The reality is as it stands, irreligion is associated ONLY with Christianity. This is a SERIOUS POV issue and those who put the portal link need to address this question. It does NOT logically follow that one group of Christians' views should lead to this portal link being placed in the talk page to the exclusion of all other religions. It is frankly speaking an attempt to frame the article in a manner that targets one religion, and that is not acceptable at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to edit anything: Your choice to edit or just gripe and make wild accusations of an anti-religion conspiracy. Cresix (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hardly wild, look at your insistence on keeping ONLY Christianity linked, even when the original author indicates a far more flexible attitude. You have four choices: 1) Exiting this discussion and keeping your intellectual honesty, 2) insisting that Christianity alone be linked to irreligion on the talk page, without providing a reason, or 3) Adding the remaining religins yourself, or 4) Providing a valid reason for the inclusion of only one religion's portal on the discussion page. That some Christians do not believe that they follow a religion is no such thing. And I am making "wild accusations of an anti-religion conspiracy," where did I use that term? This is a naked attempt at argumentum ad hominem. Finally, using words like Gripe suggest some serious projection issues on your part and are also ad hominem. You still have not answered the basic POV issue -- why Christianity ALONE?
And a final point before checking off on this obviously futile discussion -- you suggested that I should make a change and then saw to it that it is reverted. And after that, you suggested that I should be blocked. In light of this barracks-lawyer culture of yours, why would any sane person edit anything? You way of being is fascinating in and of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that you remove the banner without a consensus. I suggested that you consider editing Wikipedia (which includes talk page discussion). That was not a license to assume ownership and make unilateral decisions without consideration of others' opinions. And while we're on the topic of suggestions, I also suggest that you be careful about the personalized comments in discussions. Comment on the issues, not the editors. Personal attacks can also get you blocked. Cresix (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, I will leave the page as is as was my first position, and you can claim "victory." Enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not a competition. It is supposed to be a discussion about the community's opinions about the banner. Cresix (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It may not have been a competition, but discussion cannot take place with threats of blockade and other forms of argumentum ad baculum. A competition would be fairer than this. It is simply become a matter of who can use the rule book as a tool and not only that use it without addressing the issue. I do not believe in touching work others have done, and the subsequent events showed why. I suggest that since what I said is not of value in your view, you go ahead and delete this thread ... I will have no objection whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I am seeing no block threats at all, however you did start out your OP by stating that "This is very curious and very telling -- the authors have a special bile to dish out at their favorite religion to hate -- the one that it is safe to degrade in public". An example of bad faith as well as an accusation that obviously had no foundation in reality. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The "threats of blockade" were for your violation of policies and your threat to violate policy ("I will use it on my terms"), not for normal discussion here. Cresix (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing further to say, goodnight and goodbye, permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
@IP - Sorry for this ruff intro to Wikipedia - As for being able to contribute to Wikipedia all are welcome ...and encouraged to review our HELP topics to get started. See Help:Contents - You may also wish to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Morocco where you will find editors from your country who can help with editing. To quote our policy about the banner above = If a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article. If you believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity is in error pls bring that up at the project.Moxy (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian percentage does not stand[edit]

I read that around 42% of Ukrainians do not consider religion as part of their lives in this article. I have also read on the article "Christianity by country" that 91% or more of the Ukrainian population is Christian. I am not sure what definition you use for "irreligion" but the two articles' numbers do not match. I am guessing the article on Ukraine's irreligion is wrong as the source used for Ukraine's numbers is Dentsu. While Dentsu might be useful for the East Asian countries I am very doubtful of its accuracy on Ukraine and other Slavic countries. I would appreciate if someone could look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not the 18th Century/POV pusing[edit]

Here and at irreligion by country there's a POV evident pushing deism as an element of the list at that article "(encompassing atheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, antireligion, skepticism, freethought, antitheism, apatheism, non-belief, secular humanism, or deism)". It's not. It's a form of spirituality. The Pew question "Do you believe in a god or universal spirit" properly captures this. The lame support for it here apparently is some state of affairs in the eighteenth century. (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with [[Importance of religion by country]][edit]

This seems to duplicate the demographics section in Irreligion Dougweller (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe your mistaken - did you mean the article Irreligion by country should be merged? As Importance of religion by country is about how much people believe religion is important in there daily lives. This articles data is about people who identify as being not religious as with the article Irreligion by country. Moxy (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was going to (and have) withdrawn it as an error, but I took a break for breakfast, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Difficulties in measuring irreligion and religiosity[edit]

I see some discussion here on accuracy of numbers, and in general surveys there is wide variation in numbers. This depends in large part on how the question is asked. Religiosity, as referenced in the top part of the article, is hardly the same as belief. Asking if you go to a church/synogogue/mosque regularly is not the same as asking if you believe in a higher power.

In many aspects, religion is as much a cultural identity as it is a belief in a diety. Being a Jew is different than being Jewish. That might be the issue of Azerbaijani - 99% might call themselves Muslim, because they know they're not Christian or Jew, but that doesn't necessarily mean they pray 5 times a day. What about non-practicing people who still feel there is some form of life after death, or follow horoscopes? Each survey, unless done by the same group with the same questions the same way is likely to yield different results and probably not comparable to each other. This should be addressed in some form in the article. Nerfer (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Off topic chat
Silent consent is open to be used to abuse

Don't put me down as 'non-religion' in statistics, I have no religion or that I am 100% certain there is no God, you might as well ask me do I believe in pink elephants? Nonsensical, though interesting concepts for fiction. I am certain there are more people who are put in the 'non religion' bracket when they are like me and find all the choices interesting but unnecessary. I would say many would be unsure about the existence of God which does differ from mine and others position. Pretty certain these kind of silent consent can be massively abused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their respective articles, not for general discussion of the topics. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

US numbers do not match up[edit]

After reading source 22: Unaffiliated on the rise in the U.S. the numbers for the U.S. do not stand it says in the article that just under 20% are either agnostic or atheist. Also do agnostics really count as irreligious. The basic theme of agnostic is that they recognize the possibility of a deity/ies but also recognize the possibility that a deity/ies may not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


It says " For example, 67.5% of the Swedish population belongs to Lutheran Christian Church."

Most people in Sweden identify as Christian. That even if they do not believe Jesus was the son of God or a single word in the Bible. Only 10% of the population believe in a personal God (e.g. Yahweh) according to the World Values Survey, while as many as 70-80% consider themselves Christian.

Having that said, most people in Sweden do not know that they "belong" to the Lutheran Christian Church. "Lutheran Christian Church" is virtually never uttered in Sweden. You say "the Church" or "the State Church." If you would ask them to specify what that church is, the question would make no sense to most of them.


For your information: Talk:Irreligion in the United States#New name.
DLG-34-34-87 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC).

I believe there is an error in the map. Australia is colored darker than the United States, though its score is lower on the chart. What's the best way to regenerate the map to ensure correct coloration?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Irreligion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkey's percentage and place on the list[edit]

That 2.5% is only the people who identify as atheist/agnostic but, 73% of Turkish citizens who identify as "Muslim" (cultural Muslim) are irreligious according to this study.

WIN-Gallup International's Global Index of Religiousity and Atheism project — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)