Talk:Religion in Italy

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

not complete list[edit]

the percents only add up to 98.4, where is the other 1.6% Slash's snakepit 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

the percents add up to 92.8%, the remaining 7.2% is Atheist or Non Religious, but as it is not a precise figure ('cos it is produced by a subtraction of the other figures from 100%) I thought it was better to not add it in the article. --Checco 09:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Consistency between Eurobarometer data and Christian sources[edit]

I am not a registered user, I just stumbled upon this article. I'd like to point out that, according to the Eurobarometer Poll data shown on this page, roughly 90% of Italian citizens believe in God or some kind of spirit or life force. On the other hand, denominational sources (i.e., the Annuario Pontificio or those listed in the references section) report that more than 91% of Italians belong to the Christian faith. That is, at least 600,000 Italians are non-believing Christians. Aside from any remarks about the percentage of non practicing Christians and the difference between the number of baptized citizens and that of believers, I guess that those data should be edited somehow to avoid bizarre inconsistencies. (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem: different polls almost always give different results. In this case the results are very similar and consistent with each other, thus it is not the case to worry about it. --Checco (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

2011 Ipsos MORI survey[edit]

Concerning [1].

On the graph I see—on page 41 of the PDF I have (pages aren't numbered within the document)—"Islam" is given the light green colour, and for Italy is clearly enough marked with a "1". "Any other religion" is given the pink colour and is very clearly marked with a "2". --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 06:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Atethnekos. The PDF download link is a dead link now, I'm afraid. I've tried to find it elsewhere. No joy. If you or Septate could send it to me as an attachment, I'll have something to work from. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy:, yeah sure, send me off an email Special:EmailUser/Atethnekos and then I can reply with the attachment. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 06:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@Atethnekos: Received with thanks. Islam is definitely 1%, while 'other' is 2%. I'll revert the chart to the correct figures now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy,Atethnekos. Thanks for correcting mistake.Septate (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, Septate. Thanks for self-reverting when you realised you'd made a mistake. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Images (message for User:115ash)[edit]

@User:115ash: It is not good to discuss through edit summaries, thus I'm going to explain a few things about this article and my edits fixing yours (this article is not mine, but I worked on it a lot). You wanted to include a different image of the Mosque of Rome and the image of the Florence Cathedral. Fair enough. As you have seen, I have incorporated your proposals and I added the Milan Cathedral: please don't remove it, as is more relevant from a religious point of view (the "Florence cathedral is one of the greatest works in the architecture", but this is not "Architecture of Italy"!), or the cathedral of the Italo-Albanian Eparchy of Piana degli Albanesi. Please also understand that images are ordered following the order of the article (Catholic Church, Italo-Albanian Church, Protestant churches, Jews and Muslims—it would be great to have an image of an Assemblies of God's temple too), with the exception of the Milan and Florence cathedrals, which are basically fillers. Finally, I removed the two references on the Florence Cathedral because, again, they're not very relevant to this article and one can find all the useful information in the dedicated article. Feel free to edit the article as you want, but please try to seek consensus and avoid total roollbacks. Cheers, --Checco (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Checco. Thanks for having created a discussion here. The Florence Cathedral is very influential and is a masterpiece of world architecture. Anyway, in bottom should be fine. With regard to the mosque, although Islam is not that large in Italy, I believe it should be on above, as it very famous and the biggest in the Western World. Thanks--115ash→(☏) 10:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand, but I also think that images should follow the articele's flow. For obvious reasons, Jews are cited before Muslims, thus it is better and, indeed, more logical to have the Mosque after the Synagogue of Florence, but, if you will, before San Giorgio dei Greci. --Checco (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to place the Mosque after the Synagogue, for the reasons explained above. --Checco (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Jews are cited before Muslims"? Islam is currently the 2nd largest both in the world and Italy.--115ash→(☏) 14:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The "Overview" follows a logic: Catholics, the other two Italian "native" churches, the Jews and finally the religions brought to Italy mainly by immigrants. Images should follow the same, identical logic. --Checco (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Two observations:
1) I don't see any logical or policy/guideline-based reason to treat this as if priorities are rooted in a chronological basis.
2) The article in overburdened with images as it stands. If anything needs to be discussed, it is trimming back the number of images to comply with WP:LAYIM. A gallery could be used if considered that WP:ITSIMPORTANT to depict numerous buildings, but I would remind you that the WP:TITLE is "Religion in Italy", not "Religious architectural features in Italy". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree. In fact, I was not among the users who added most of the images. It would be easy for me to remove the Milan and Florence cathedrals because I feel they are completely redundant, but what about creating a gallery of images at the bottom of the article or removing all the images except two or three of them? I'm not sure which of the two solutions I'm proposing is better. --Checco (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree , but as there many mosques in Italy, at least the biggest can be put on the top.--115ash→(☏) 10:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
There are more Protestant churches than mosques in Italy, so what? Please refrain from moving the images and wait for consensus to be formed. Until a new consensus is formed, it is generally wise to leave the established version of the article. Therefore, I'm going to rollback your edit regarding the image of the Mosque of Rome. Btw, do you have any sources on "one of the largest Islamic centres in western world"? --Checco (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to moving it down. Abou what sources are you talking about? If it is the largest outside the Islamic world, then obviously it is one of the largest in the Western world.--115ash→(☏) 14:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
And there is no impelling reason for moving it up, so you wait for consensus to be formed. The source says that the Mosque of Rome is Europe's largest and doesn't say anything else, thus there is no source on "the largest outside the Islamic world" or "one of the largest in the Western world". Please refrain from making edits which are not supported by consensus nor sources: seek consensus first and beaware that the current consensus is the established version. I'm quite an inclusive guy and, in fact, as I did with your edits, I usually avoid total rollbacks and try to find the good that is in them. Please do the same. This edit of yours, while we are discussing, is a little bit disruptive. --Checco (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Ps: This edit of mine contains a wrong edit summary. I wanted to write "no consensus and no source for "one of the largest in the Western world".
There are several reasons why the mosque should be on top. Please avoid from starting an edit war.--115ash→(☏) 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You provided for just one. If there is an edit war here, you started it. --Checco (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Btw, do you agree with moving most of the images to a gallery so that only a few images, mainly St. Peter's Basilica and the Mosque of Rome, will be in the main part of the article? --Checco (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Addressing the issue of a gallery, I think I've already made it clear that in light of the WP:TITLE all arguments for creating a gallery fall under WP:PPOV. If you check other articles on this subject matter for any other country, there are no galleries, therefore as a matter of parity I don't see how this article is any different to a standard that's been established for Wikipedia, nor do I see any reason to break with this standard.
115ash, as regards the Mosque of Rome, no WP:OR. The entire argument for 'biggest in the Western world' is both WP:SYNTH and redundant unless there are WP:RS to back up the assertion. As to where it is positioned, please don't POV push. Two or three examples of religious centres is ample. This is not a competition, and the number of images detracts from the primary content: being text-based. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Source provided. However that isn't the largest in Europe. Turkey's ones are larger. A gallery should be a better option. Just added.--115ash→(☏) 08:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No, your content changes were by no means a solution. Essentially, all you did was add a gallery in an inappropriate part of the article and duplicate the images already cluttering the page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So what will the solution be?--115ash→(☏) 10:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure. At this point there have only been three editors involved in the discussion, and Checco hasn't been active on Wikipedia for a few days. For the moment, I'd suggest that we leave the content as it stands for a few more days until the discussion is revived. After that, we could ask for an experienced, neutral 3rd party to take a look and make an assessment. Failing that, there are other methods for finding consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Following Iryna Harpy's reasoning, I rollbacked 115ash's latest edit. I support any of the following three options:
  • the current version (even though I think that the Milan and Florence cathedrals are redundant);
  • the introduction of a gallery (even though Iryna Harpy is right when she says that "in light of the WP:TITLE all arguments for creating a gallery fall under WP:PPOV" and that "all [115ash] did was add a gallery in an inappropriate part of the article and duplicate the images already cluttering the page";
  • leaving only a few images, like St. Peter's Basilica, the Mosque of Rome and the Great Synagogue of Florence.
--Checco (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Checco's 3rd option could be better, but still it is not clear why the mosque should be on bottom of the synagogue.--115ash→(☏) 09:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The third option is also my preference. As to the order, I really have no great preference other than 1) Christianity (Catholicism) is the major religion and established itself in Europe under the Roman Empire (i.e., historical context); 2) There have been a long-established and ongoing Jewish communities (including Jewish quarters) throughout Italian history (more specifically it's historical proto-territories before the 19th creation of the Italian state), whereas there is little in the way of an Islamic presence historically. Why not pop in a Protestant church... or something else altogether? Why is the depiction of a mosque before a synagogue such a huge content problem? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's go with the third option (without including a Prostant church, in my view; in case you want to include it, I would also include an Orthodox church). St. Peter's Basilica should go at the top of the page, the Great Synagogue of Florence in correspondence of the explanation on Judaism in Italy and the Mosque of Rome in correspondence of its citation. I don't think this should be controversial. --Checco (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
My last edit could be fine.--115ash→(☏) 09:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Could... in fact, I don't support it, while I favour placing the images consistently with the text. --Checco (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Even the GALLERY was a good option. --115ash→(☏) 14:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree with Checco. In plain language, the number of images is pure overkill, and it's best to keep the images in line with the text... so three images is ample. Again, I only saw a gallery as a compromise if other editors were keen to use the page as display brochure for architectural styles to be found around Italy, but it's not. I think it would be far more constructive simply add a WikiCommons link "Category:Religion in Italy" to the external links section of this article. That's the standard for parallel articles on Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:115ash: Your latest edits are clearly against consensus and sources:
  • the two images you are removing have been there for years, so there was consensus for them and, as the above discussion shows, no other consensus was formed (despite the fact that both User:Iryna Harpy and I would remove some images, including that of the Florence cathedral);
  • we have a source saying that the Mosque of Rome is Europe's largest, so what's your problem with it?
--Checco (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems likely that the Mosque of Rome is the largest in Europe, larger than the Baitul Futuh and the Moscow Cathedral Mosque. But that reference[1] is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. It's a website promoting archaeological tours in Rome, so has a WP:COI in emphasising the glory of Rome, it is not the work of authorities on modern religious buildings of Europe (see the FAQ for the organisations concerned) and it is not being meticulously updated (see again the FAQ for the boilerplate Latin "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...."). Can you provide a WP:RS? NebY (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
We can definitely find a better source (go ahead, please! it looks like you know Rome, Latin and the issue itself better than me). I did not add the source, in fact. Anyway, there is no reason why removing "Europe's largest" and its inadequate source, while leaving "one of the largest in the Western world" without any source. --Checco (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you NebY, I have removed [2] because it is not a reliable source. JimRenge (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Marco Placidi. "La Moschea di Roma". 
  2. ^ Marco Placidi. "La Moschea di Roma". 

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We clearly haven't resolved the issue of de-cluttering the image component of the article. I've gone further and removed the Krishna temple (please bear in mind that the Krishna movement is an offshoot of Hinduism, but is not recognised as Hinduism). Multiple images representing minor religious sects - which is what the Hare Krishnas' are - is UNDUE clutter. I realise that I'm taking a bit of an upside-down approach to this by letting it stand at 115ash's latest removals + an additional removal of my own, but it might be a good starting point for a fresh take on which images should take precedence. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The images of the Albanian church and the Waldensian one have long been part of the article, the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church and the Waldensian Evangelical Church being native churches of Italy. Moreover, the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church has three or four times the membership of Judaism in Italy, while Waldensians are probably little more than Jews. This said, I agree that the Hare Krishna's temple was out-of-scope here and I always agreed that the article has too many images, but we haven't found a consensus yet. After Iryna Harpy's bold move, I decided that it is time for me to be bold too and that was time to remove the Greek Orthodox cathedral in Venice and the Catholic cathedrals of Milan and Florence: Greek Orthodox Christians are a tiny minority (far less important than Italo-Albanians and Waldensians from a historical point of view), while Catholics are already represented by St Peter's Basilica. --Checco (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Ciao Checco, I find your removal of pictures ok, but I have a little remark: St. Peter lies in Vatican city, not in Italy, so I think that it is out of scope here. It would be better to use another church (St. John, the Duomo in Milan, Santa Maria del Fiore). Alex2006 (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
That is undoubtely true, but we should eschew such a formality/technicality in this case: it is more relevant and coherent to the article's content to underline, through an image, that Rome (and, thus, Italy) is home to the Vatican and the Holy See. --Checco (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Then maybe it would be better to underline this in the caption, since a similar picture has already been removed from the religion section of the "Italy" article. Alex2006 (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with that change in Italy.
While not seeing any need for it, I will improve the caption. Please edit it as you like.
--Checco (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
~Thanks! Then you can try to reinsert it. I think that it was removed about six months ago. Alex2006 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Catholic patron saints[edit]

I think the sentence about the Catholic patron saints should be removed from the lead. This is an information which is very specific to one religion and I think it shouldn't be one of the two sentences in the lead. I already added the sentence to the article on Catholicism in Italy, where I think is more appropriate. I'm waiting for opinions on this. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As you are probably aware of, the Italian Republic and the Catholic Church have been and are closely tied. The day of St. Francis feast, 4 October, was long a public holiday in Italy. St. Francis and the feast are quite felt in Italy also by non-Catholics. The Five Star Movement, for instance, was launched on the day of St. Francis. In fact, St. Catherine and, especially, St. Francis are effectively the country's patron saints, more than simply the country's Catholic patron saints (as St. Patrick is for the Irish). For all this reasons I support keeping the reference to them in lead. --Checco (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Italy is a secular state. Putting this reference in the lead is misleading and against WP:NPOV. The fact that for historical reasons many national holidays are coincident with Catholic religious holidays is irrelevant in my opinion. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I would like if Italy were more secular than what it is now and, in fact, I would argue that Italy is not a properly secular state (the Constitution recognises a too big role to the Catholic Church, in my view). We probably agree on all this, but this is not the matter of our discussion. The patron saints are recognised also by the republican institutions, indeed (see, for instance, here). --Checco (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The separation of church and state is most certainly not clear. Whatever the case, I can't see any particular argument for its being WP:OFFTOPIC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I would like to reach a compromise, then. I think it would be better to explain all this in the lead, clarifying the non-perfect nature of the separation of church and state and the predominant role of the Catholic church, citing as an example the national holidays. Then it would make much more sense in my opinion. Thank you for your replies. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I consider your proposal as very good and I welcome it with excitement: great idea! Generally speaking, the lead should be a little bit larger than what it is now and there are more important issues to be cited in the lead than the patron saints, who should anyway stay in my personal view. What about you, Ita140188, showing your boldness by expanding the lead? Of course, we should be careful with topics which are inherently at risk of POV, but Iryna Harpy (I guess) and I are here to help. --Checco (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That's fine by me, so long as it isn't used as a WP:COATRACK. The relationship between church and state would need to be reliably sourced. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ISTAT source[edit]

When citing church attendance statistics, ISTAT is used as a source, but in fact the link points to the homepage ( which is useless, and should be fixed. There is also another source for that section, this corriere della sera article, but it just talks about Campania. Also, it does not state that those percentage are for weekly church attendance, but only for attendance "on a regular basis". I think that until better sources are found, the whole sentence should be marked as "citation needed". --Urticante (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The ISTAT source was OK: you just needed to search for the data.
I found out that there were updated data, thus I updated the article accordingly.
--Checco (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Checco: My preference is also for using ISTAT data. Unfortunately, I can only navigate the English language option and all I can find is this. Do you have the urls for data you found in Italian? If it's broken up into a few different urls, I don't mind adding them to the relevant percentages. I think it's necessary for all editors to be able to find them considering that, as we well know, vandals and POVers can tamper with them and there's no way of verifying the correct stats unless we have access to the data. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Checco: Could you tell me what exactly you searched? I tried but could not find those data. --Urticante (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Urticante: On the left menu in the english version select Social participation > Religious observances > Regions and type of municipalities --Ita140188 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Ita140188:. Should we explain how to reach the data in the ref? I don't know what's the wikipedia style in this cases, but it "makes sense" to me --Urticante (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Why not? Could be a very good idea. Sorry for answering too late. --Checco (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry for late reply! --Ita140188 (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Church Attendance by region or macro-regions (the case of Insular Italy)[edit]

It's senseless group Sardinia with Sicily in the macro region called Insular Italy, because unlike the other macro regions called Central Italy, Southern Italy, North Western and North Eastern Italy, there aren't historical, cultural and social similarities between the two main italian islands, infact church attendance differs completely, Sardinia ranks one of the lowest church attendance in Italy 21.9% while Sicily the highest 37.3 %. The percentage referred to the Insular Italy is highly questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, but your edits were hardly a solution: you did remove the percentage for the South, left "Insular" instead of "Insular Italy" and inserted several inappropriate spaces. I'll fix all that. But, please, be more careful. --Checco (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Demography section table[edit]

As mentioned in a previous comment, the table in the Demography section does not add up to the total. Should we add "Other/no religion" at the end to account for the rest? This would make the table more clear and provide a reference for comparison of religious and not religious people in the country. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not? It seems a good idea to me. Even more important, let's check and update the data all the time! --Checco (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Data according to which source?[edit]

Sorry, but I reverted your change again, since I could not find any sources backing your data. The cited data confirms by figures. What is yours? Nillurcheier (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

For the chart, it's better to use data comprising both Italian citizens and foreign residents --Checco (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 chart[edit]

@Checco:: This one is the version of the chart that you yourself supported as of 11 December. It does not include only Italian citizens but the whole population of Italy, including both citizens and residents.-- (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The chart is nice, but it is not supported by sources. Look at the source and you will see that most of the figures included in the chart are not mentioned in the source. Moreover, those data do not include foreign residents. I was wrong in the first place. --Checco (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The chart is based on the same data contained in the table, "total population" row.-- (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Eurobarometer data.[edit]

Hi, I found data that from Eurobarometer 2012 ( page 233) thatr could be better than the Pew data becouse shows more religions and denominations. I add an other pie chart. Eurobarometer 2012 data have also been used for Belgium. It includes probably only italian citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankCesco26 (talkcontribs) 18:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that the chart on Eurobarometer 2012 is useful as it does not give particularly different results and its figures look less detailed. Moreover, it possibly covers only Italian citizens. The Pew Forum's chart is enough, in my view. --Checco (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Checco. Multiple pie charts are distracting for the reader and give WP:UNDUE weight to less reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Does Eurispes covers only italian citizens?[edit]

Non è molto chiaro se il rapporto Eurispes copra solo i cittadini italiani (come da tabella) oppure tutta la popolazione residente, non è un problema da sottovalutare dato che i numeri cambierebbero considerevolmente. Checco tu cosa ne pensi? --FrankCesco26 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello FrankCesco26, this is en.Wiki: please speak in English, otherwise most users won't understand. --Checco (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I will translate it. It isn't very clear if Eurispes covers only italian citizens (as in the table) or all of italian population, it isn't a problem to be underestimated since the numbers would change considerably.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
(Out of chronology.) Responding to the question inserted as name of this section, I think that Eurispes covers only Italian citizens. Do you have reasons or evidence proving that Eurispes covers all Italian residents, including citizens and foreign residents? Thanks, --Checco (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the report says 71.3% of the italians is catholic. It doesn't says 71,3% of the italian citizens, so it is unclear. "Italian" is a very generic term and it could be also "people in Italy" so I don't know if it should be used as in the table.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
So what can be done here?--FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It is quite clear to me that "Italians" includes only citizens, thus I wouldn't do anything.
Btw, the poll mentions 71.1%, not 71.3%: correct? --Checco (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is 71.1% but thr problem is that the source first cites 71.1% for non specified "italians", later cites religions of italian citizens and freign residents so it isn't very clear. I won't use it for italian citizens nor italian population. --User:FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The source includes only italian citizems, but it isn't write in Riforma article, but it is written in Eurispes website of the source. It's written that data were from a population of 1.120 italian citizens.--User:FrankCesco26 (talk) 6:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We should use a different source for catholics in the table[edit]

I change the source for catholics in the table from the 2016 Eurispes to the 2016 8xmille (founding of religious association) data that is more accurate becouse:

  • the sample of the 2016 Eurispes is only 1.120 people, and it's unknown how many people didn't answer to the religion question. 8xmille data is more complete becouse 18.817.796 people choose the religious association to support (for religious people) or founding the state (for non religious people)
  • geographical distribution is unknown in the 2016 Eurispes, meanwhile it's known in 2016 8xmille

2016 8xmille source here:

I'll update data, talk here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankCesco26 (talkcontribs) 08:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted this per WP:BRD. The use of Eurispes has already been discussed above. You are already aware of WP:NOR and the use of dubious sources for the content of articles based on your own inclinations and personal preferences. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong. This source is extremely accurated since it count 18.817.796 people. 18.817.796 people are the 31.8% of the population (extremely high number). Let's see what other people think, for now, don't revert. Eurispes counts only 1.120 people (0.002% of the total population) so it isn't good for entire Italy and their geographic position is unknown. It is an important factor becouse religion is different from, for example Emilia-Romagna (high number of atheist people) and Sicily (highest number of Catholics). I didn't add this government source (look becouse is my favourite one, but becouse this is the most reliable one. Maybe you don't want sources you don't like? I remember that you wanted to change Eurobarometer datas in Religion in Belgium article becouse they showed a large number of Christians (65%) with an outdated 2009 data that showed a larger number of atheist people, later, when you didn't reach consensous, you left Eurobarometer data but you removed pie chart saying that you wouldn't add it again until you find a new source (possibly with less amount of Christians), but you didn't find it. Be more serious, I used objective data. Let's see also the Checco's ideas, who improved the page for years.
--FrankCesco26 (talk) 5:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
8xmille is not a survey, thus is completely irrelevant to understand the religious composition of the country. People can give money to the state even though they are catholic, and vice versa. Moreover, there is no indication whatsoever that those who actually chose to give a preference are a representative part of the population. I will revert. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I know it's not a survey, but it's absolutely relevant becouse catholics would fund the Catholic Church, atheists or other religious would fund the state. An atheist or an other religious would almost never fund the Catholic Church. It is clear. Less than 19 *million* people are rapresentative of the nation more than 1.120 unknown people chosen by Eurispes. If you want to revert in future again, revert with a better source.
--FrankCesco26 (talk) 9:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This is at best original research, at worst it's bad faith. The representation of a sample is not related only to the size, but also to how it is chosen, and there is no evidence that those 19 million people are representative. Nor there is evidence of what you are saying about who would fund who. For example, people that define themselves as agnostic or even atheist may want to give money to the church because of its charitable activities. I will not revert personally since I don't want to get into pointless edit wars, but I ask other people to do it since as it is that section is a joke. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, Checco please join the discussion if you want. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not a joke, it's a good faith change. You say that a sample of unknown 1.120 people is more rapresentative of a "sample" of 19 million people, I think not. If you want to revert, you can, but you should use a different source, since Eurispes source is very problematic. I reccomend using (if I should discard this great source) Doxa's poll of 2014 ( ). In this poll, the sample is 2.016, the geographic position of interwieved people is known, it is more clear and it is not part of a more big survey (as the Eurispes one), so data is more precise.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Both data sets are meaningful and should be used in the article. One is a typical sample-based survey as they are used by the dozen in many articles. This one should be used for religious statistics, since the question fits to it. The other is also interesting data, which shows a donation preference and hence indirectly a proximity or distance towards a religious organization. This 8mille data should be used as additional information but not as membership reference. BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I support your ideas! Both of two data (Doxa and 8 per 1000) should included. Doxa instead of Eurispes and 8 per 1000 in a separate table and for regional data.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree to add the data about the 8xmille. But please reinstate the poll results that you removed before, since these are two different types of information. --Ita140188 (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Eurispes data are very problematic and they shouldn't added in the table anymore. I will add Doxa data for total population's catholics (it's wrote in the source that data is for total population) and I will add a table for regional distribution of Catholics with 8 per 1000 data and an other one for % of religions of 8xmille.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 6:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain why Eurispes data "are very problematic"? --Ita140188 (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I have already explained it three times...
I will rewrite my motivations:
  • the sample of Eurispes it's extremely small (1.120) and it's not sufficient to give an exact situation of religion for all of Italy;
  • the religion question is part of a more big survey, so some people could have not answered to the question, but they are unknown.
  • we don't know the age and the geographic position of the interviewed people, since data can vary with age (elders are more likely religious than young people) and region (as I said, for example, Tuscany, Emilia Romagna and the North West is less religious than Southern Italy,Lombardy and Veneto)
I know that you wouldn't use 8 per 1000 data becouse it doesn't say exactly the religious affiliation of people, so I propose using Doxa data becouse it is a religion survey (so it is not part of a bigger survey), Doxa's sample (2.016) is also bigger than Eurispes' one (1.120) and Doxa's data also show geographic position of the interviewed people and the age's pyramid.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no time to read all the discussion now. However, there is clearly no consensus for FrankCesco26's version. Moreover to count the 8x1000 makes no sense: I know several Catholics giving their 8x1000 to the Waldensians, the Jews or the state. --Checco (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted this and this edit. FrankCesco26, please desist from WP:BLUDGEONing other editors and edit warring your content into the article. You have been reverted per WP:BRD a number of times, yet you persist in changing content and using sources other editors do not consider to be reliable or relevant to the article. Consensus versions always stand while the content is under discussion, not to be overwritten by your preferred version. What you are engaging in is WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This is not the only article on religion in numerous countries you have approached with the same behavioural patterns, and it's getting very, very tedious. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not edit warring, if you want to revert someone's changes, you can do but not pretending edit wars where they aren't. If you think Euripes data are better than Doxa's ones, write here, and then revert. As you said Wikipedia is not a battleground, so calm and explain what you don't like from my edits. I explained my motivations up, so if you have yours, good, if not, don't revert. Simple. Also, you have no consensous to remove Doxa's data. Actually two people (me and Nillurcheier) support Doxa's ones and only one doesn't accept them (only you). Also, they were already included in the article. --FrankCesco26 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. Nillurcheier made a generalised statement about 'it would be good if', but has not involved himself beyond that. Over and above that, you have misrepresented comments by Ita140188 and Checco who have both questioned why you are discounting the Eurispes data and removing it to create your own version of the pie chart. There was no consensus to remove or change the pie chart as it stood prior your refactoring of the article. I suggest, very strongly, that you self-revert now to demonstrate good faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
We can discuss how much we want, but as of now there is no consensus on FrankCesco26's version. I will revert. We could add also the Doxa results, but Eurispes' data should be used in the table. --Checco (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy your ideas of the situation aren't clear, so before you declare an other edit war without any motivation or send me link to Wikipedia community pages when you haven't explanations, I will give you a quick account of the situation. I started this discussion becouse I think that Eurispes data are problematic, so I gave *four* explanations for wich we should change Eurispes data. Later, I searched on the internet the best data I found, 8 per 1000 data, but we discussed about it and I removed it myself. Then, I added Doxa's data to the table (and not the pie chart) becouse t it is the most reliable source. I will rewrite here my motivation (since you didn't read the discussion) becouse I changed and we should change Eurispes data:
  • the sample of Eurispes it's extremely small (1.120) and it's not sufficient to give an exact situation of religion for all of Italy;
  • the religion question is part of a more big survey, so some people could have not answered to the question, but they are unknown.
  • we don't know the age and the geographic position of the interviewed people, since data can vary with age (elders are more likely religious than young people) and region (as I said, for example, Tuscany, Emilia Romagna and the North West is less religious than Southern Italy,Lombardy and Veneto)
Later, I explained why I added Doxa's data:
it is a religion survey (so it is not part of a bigger survey), Doxa's sample (2.016) is also bigger than Eurispes' one (1.120) and Doxa's data also show geographic position of the interviewed people and the age's pyramid.
In this discussion I still didn't see one motivation in favour of Eurispes data, but the article has been reverted five times in favour of those. Now that you know how things happend, you can make your explanations on datas, not on contributor, since you didn't read WP:NPA. If we still think that for changing something we need to make an edit war and not using the intelligence for understand other's, Wikipedia articles won't have a future FrankCesco26(talkcontribs)
The main problem is that Doxa's poll seems not to include foreign residents. It is OK to cite the poll (I have just added it to the intro), but I wouldn't use it as the article's primary source. I will add alos infos on 8x1000. --Checco (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
No, when there is the pie chart, it says "Base: popolazione totale italiana" so includes also foreigners (if not the "other religion" label could have not reached 5%). So they are more reliable than the other ones.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
They are equally reliable then. What matters is not how large, but how good the sample is. I have no opinion on which sample is better, but Eurispes is surely a much better known and well regarded institute. --Checco (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Doxa has no reputation as a reliable source other than its own promotional information. Wikipedia uses sources known to be reliable (i.e., Eurispes actually names its experts, etc.). It is irrelevant how many 'research companies' conduct polls/surveys on any given subject: unless they are a known quantity, they should not be used as sources, full stop. There are literally thousands of such research companies around the world, but the fact that they exist does not make them credible sources. Who pays for their services? Is it an interest group with their own agenda. Unless we know that the paying party is neutral, we know that surveys are tailored to elicit responses and outcomes favourable the the paying group. As we follow WP:NPOV, the introduction of any content just because it exists is a contravention of WP:NOR, and is WP:UNDUE (not to mention WP:SYNTH). It's that simple. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Still you didn't write what is wrong with Doxa's data. Its sample is better, as I explained up. Find me a source that says that Doxa's is unreliable and I will keep the Eurispes data. You're just complaining about society because there's nothing bad about data, you just do not like it. For now, I restore Doxa's data since you didn't give me a clear explanation on data. Checco clearly explained that both sources are reliable, you haven't consensous. --FrankCesco26 (talk) 7:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Apart from the absolutely right considerations written by Iryna Harpy (many of such information agencies are paid to promote a certain view of reality), the Doxa poll has no reson to be presented in the table together with CESNUR data, since they were taken in different years (Doxa in 2014, CESNUR in 2016). Eurispes is a nationally-acknowledged institute which provides data on religion demography every 10 years, and the latest is from 2016. Claiming that Doxa data are more reliable because they are based on a sample of around 2000 people while Eurispes data on a sample of only 1100 people is unwarranted, because the difference is minimal.-- (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
You can't claiming that Doxa data are less reliable than Eurispes only for the year. Here is a list of *sourced* reasons (so not own interpretations) why I choose Doxa: I paste again my motivations:
  • the sample of Eurispes it's extremely small (1.120) and it's not sufficient to give an exact situation of religion for all of Italy;
  • the religion question is part of a more big survey, so some people could have not answered to the question, but they are unknown.
  • we don't know the age and the geographic position of the interviewed people, since data can vary with age (elders are more likely religious than young people) and region (as I said, for example, Tuscany, Emilia Romagna and the North West is less religious than Southern Italy,Lombardy and Veneto)
Later, I explained why I added Doxa's data:
it is a religion survey (so it is not part of a bigger survey), Doxa's sample (2.016) is also bigger than Eurispes' one (1.120) and Doxa's data also show geographic position of the interviewed peopleand the age's pyramid.
As said Iryna Harpy in the discussion for data on religion in Russia, year doesn't count if a survey is more reliable than the newer one. Also, difference isn't minimal, it's near the double.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankCesco26 (talkcontribs) 17:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You have failed to produce any sources that would suggest that Doxa is a reliable source. It only meets with WP:V, but is a questionable source. Outside of that, you are conflating information (for a chart, no less), while eliminating a reliable source (in Eurispes) because you don't like it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You do not know how to discuss, you have not yet given a source that says that the Eurispes data is reliable. The fact is that I have given four sourced reasons, you zero. You told me to the administrators because it's the only thing you know and can do, always do it when you're in trouble. The truth is that you, being moved by a strong anti-religious sentiment, hate all the sources you do not like (even the ones that are more reliable than those for which you are fighting), as you did in multiple pages such as "Religion in Ukraine" , (Where you failed to get the consensus, and now the page is great without your manipulations). Or just to mention "Religion in Belgium" where you were fighting to take away the Eurobarometer data because they seemed unrealistic to you and you tried to introduce strongly contradictory data (on the pretext that they were newer when they were actually 8 years old) When I removed the strange data, you asked for more data, but all you found went against your strong anti-religious convictions, then you left those who were before. Now that I have demonstrated with four arguments from the sources that Doxa data are more reliable than those of Eurispes, I signal for reverts made against your lack of logical arguments, which are not yet. So the fact remains that Eurispes is not reliable if not for the fact that you and Ita140188 like for your religious beliefs.FrankCesco26 (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
You said you have given 4 reasons. Let's consider these reasons.
  1. the sample of Eurispes it's extremely small (1.120) and it's not sufficient to give an exact situation of religion for all of Italy - Please demonstrate that the sample is not sufficient to give an exact situation.
  2. the religion question is part of a more big survey, so some people could have not answered to the question, but they are unknown. - How does the fact that it is part of bigger survey influence the results? Please elaborate. People refuse to answer questions in polls all the time, and statisticians adjust for this factor regularly.
  3. we don't know the age and the geographic position of the interviewed people, since data can vary with age (elders are more likely religious than young people) and region (as I said, for example, Tuscany, Emilia Romagna and the North West is less religious than Southern Italy,Lombardy and Veneto) - Since we use aggregate data for the country in the article, knowing the geographical distribution is irrelevant. The choice of the population to survey is precisely the point of having a well-chosen sample, discussed before, for which we all agree (except you) that Eurispes is a better source.
  4. Later, I explained why I added Doxa's data: it is a religion survey (so it is not part of a bigger survey), Doxa's sample (2.016) is also bigger than Eurispes' one (1.120) and Doxa's data also show geographic position of the interviewed peopleand the age's pyramid. - See above. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

October 2017 discussion[edit]

Iryna Harpy, Ita140188: Here is an ongoing discussion about an issue pertaining to articles about religion demographics. As users involved in the topic, your opinions about the matter would be welcome. I also notify this discussion about the unreliability of the Pew Research Center.--Wddan (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I also notify that FrankCesco26 has lately been able to accomplish the same agenda which he tried to impose here last June in the Italian-language corresponding article. He has completely wiped out Eurispes data from the article, unduly mixing CESNUR data about the immigrant population with Pew Research Center data (which is unclear what kind of population they represent, while Eurispes data perfectly fit CESNUR data as they represent only Italian citizenry).--Wddan (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Better late than never, isn't it? Please continue to seek consensus before editing. --Checco (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I had the consensous in the italian page to do that, and you shouldn't attack me. In the English article, I only restored the consensual version of the article. The pie chart including the match beetween CESNUR and Eurispes is not consensual. I want to notify you that Checco restored twice this change, giving a very clear information here [[2]]. I want to remember you also [this[3]] that explains better this situation. I didn't remove anything in this article, you removed Pew Research Center's data only becouse you don't like it, as you explained in the talk page of Religion in Russia, trying to construe the unreliability of this generally accepted source (as a confirm of this, Erp and Nillurchier were favoreble with this source. Also, don't make hasty changes without seeking consensous.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Checco we are having new problems here. The user Wddan is again starting an edit war for the pie chart data.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This time, I totally side with you! --Checco (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I noticed that you already removed this change in January, giving very clear motivations [4].-FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry user Checco, but your motivation for the revert (cite: "rv — please avoid total rollbacks; why don't you edit just the chart or discuss the issue in the talk page? I actually don't support a chart which includes only Italian citizens and which is not supported by given sources") does not reflect the reality of the edit. The pie chart that I restored was precisely that which included both Italian citizens and resident immigrants, reflecting the table that is found in the body of the article, presenting Eurispes and CESNUR data.--Wddan (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The motivation is this.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Checco, you are allowing FrankCesco26 to make a dog's breakfast of the article by introducing yet more PEW results and bits 'n pieces collated from everywhere. You are also incorrect about rolling back: there is absolutely nothing wrong, or unprecedented, about reverting to a previous WP:CON version. You don't have to compromise with a single purpose account editor because they are WP:BLUDGEONING the process and it'll make life easier if you go along with it. In fact, FrankCesco26, it is not Wddan who is engaging in WP:SYNTH but you. All the attribution in the world does not make for encyclopaedic article content where multiple sources not deemed to be reliable or due are introduced to create SYNTH. PEW's "Spring 2016 Survey Data" is generic codswallop covering a massive spectrum of global social, economic, etc. issues. It is not, repeat not in any shape or form, to be understood to be a tailored study into religion in Italy. In fact, the reference hasn't been linked properly, but merely demonstrates the massive scope of what is being addressed in their study. This article needs to be brought back into line pronto. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not hold a strong opinion on this. I just rephrased the content because the wording was not OK. --Checco (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, Checco. That's fair enough. I know you don't work on parallel articles for other nation-states, but these mix and match activities have been introduced into a number of them over this past year. I think that the line needs to be drawn as to what is DUE, and what is actually RS for the calibre of Wikipedia. Articles in tertiary sources such as Britannica do not throw in every study in order to accommodate generalised studies, nor depict them because they are more recent than sources deemed to be reliable. These articles are not breaking news and recentism, therefore crowding them with content is not edifying for the reader if the quality of all the information is treated as being equal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy: Then, is it a good solution to add this pie chart which matches the figures of the table (that is to say the synchronically-matching Eurispes 2016 and CESNUR 2016 figures about the citizen population and the foreign resident population)?
At the same time, I notify to the interested ones that in the Italian version of the article FrankCesco26 keeps edit warring with other users (also editing as an IP) by deleting Eurispes data and introducing his own, totally undue, synthesis of diachronic Pew 2017 and CESNUR 2016 data.--Wddan (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)