Talk:Religion in the United Kingdom

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


Separating off History of religion in the United Kingdom (or perhaps better still the British Isles)[edit]

I think this should be done. Anyone? Dunc| 20:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or might
  • History of religion in Wales
  • History of religion in Scotland
  • History of religion in England
  • History of religion in Ireland
be more easily handled (and understood)? Just a suggestion. Man vyi 22:21, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

[(Buddhism in Great Britain)][edit]

No mention is made of the Buddhist Society of Great Britain and Ireland which was founded pre the first world war and became moribund about 1922/3. I believe that an englishman called Bennet was involved in its foundation after he became a Buddhist monk in the east and returned to the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion in Scotland[edit]

Is this article ever going to be created? Scotland has such a rich religious history that it seems strange that no specific article exists on the subject. The same applies to the other constituent countries. --Bob 23:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph should be a good précis of the article. The current one does not serve this purpose very well. – Kaihsu 10:52, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

I agree - it was terrible. I have tried to address this. But the section on Christianity is still a mess, as it tries to conflate the history of the Anglican disestablishment with the current more general position in the constituent countries. Myopic Bookworm 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland[edit]

didnt The Church of Scotland Act 1921 and 1925 disestablish The Church of Scotland?

Atheism in the UK[edit]

I don't feel enough emphasis is placed on the prominence of atheism in modern Britain. While a majority of people still claim to be Christians, this is usually meant only in a nominal sense. The number of people who are actual practicing Christians is rather small, smaller in fact than the number who profess to believe in no god at all. It is therefore arguable, though admittedly controversial, that atheists actually form the largest religious group in the United Kingdom. For this reason, atheism sould really form a much larger part of any balanced discussion of religion in this country that is currently the case. Mcgibson 21:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. To disprove something is harder than to prove something. To believe that God does not exist takes a lot more faith than to believe. So I'd say it is definitely a faith but not really a religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Does any one have access to such figures as memebrship of the Evangelical Allience which might give an indication here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Matt (talkcontribs) 16:11, 14 October 2006‎

Are you saying that the majority of people who tick "Christian" on census forms are lying, or that the majority are of Christian faith but non-practising? Moreover, have you any reason to suppose that this "largest religious group" is atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, apatheism, deism or some other? Maybe there are lots of people in these groups, and no single one of these groups adds up to more than Christianity, but together they do.

I think the main problem is that for some reason or other a lot of forms don't list specific irreligions. It's hard to list them all, but it's puzzling that hardly any even list atheism. While this fundamental flaw isn't something we can resolve easily, there must be something we can find about the prevalence of atheism/agnosticism/apatheism in order to fill this ugly hole in the coverage of the article. That said, if a lot of people are lying on census forms, we would have to take any statistics with a bucketful of salt. — Smjg (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Selective target?[edit]


You have recently deleted Hinduism related links [1] in Religion in the United Kingdom article by calling it spam. How can you term ALL of these sites as spam and remove them without any explanation? Can you explain why you only picked Hinduism sites from others? Or you picked that because Indian Hindu had linked them there?

  • Site - List of Major Hindu Temples in Britain
  • Site - Swaminarayan Temple site (Largest temple of Hinduism in Europe)
  • Site - Hindu forum of Britian (One of most popular Hindu forum of Britain)
  • Site - Official site of ISCKON UK
  • Site - Chaorit festival site (Major popular Hindu event in UK)
  • Site - Official site of National council of Hindu temples in UK

Are these spams or Hinduism is Spam according to you? Is this your selective anti-Holy Ganga behaviour (because of your past actions, i think it is) or selective anti-Indian Hindu behaviour (as per your impression on numerous talk pages)?. - Holy Ganga talk 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Anwar you reverted again with a message "are you going to give links to every temple in UK?".[2]

Atleast study the links atleast once before editing as per your personal ideology.

Official website of ISKCON UK, Official website of Largest temple of Hinduism in Europe, Informative site on popular Hindu event of UK (chaorit festival), informative site on list of major hindu temples, Official site of strongest Hindu forum...etc. Are these sites of every temple in UK? - Holy Ganga talk 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So, this is very surprising that even without even opening any site you came to know that All of them are Spams and you selectively reverted everything in an illogical way. By the way, this is not the first time you did this. Regards- Holy Ganga talk 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Link spam[edit]

Stop hand.png Stop linkspamming. UK is not a Hindu country. There needs to be a balance. Wikipedia is not the place for proselytisation. You may however add as many links as you like in India. Anwar 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't you differentiate between spams and informative sites? Linking informative sites about major Hinduism related things like largest temple of Hinduism in UK, Major popular festival of Hinduism in UK, Official site of "UK ISKCON" center, most popular Hinduism council etc. are not spams. The FACT is all these things are MAJOR things about Hinduism in UK. There is no rule on wikipedia that minority religions can't link more than one site and are not allowed to give complete information about religion in another religion majority countries. You are running from logical discussions and without providing any logical reason, you are doing revert war here.

Stop hand.png Even admins have asked you to Stop Such blatant style of editing.[3] - Holy Ganga talk 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anwar, please aim at less aggressive language. HG, we need to keep a measure of balance, there ~0.5 million Hinduists in the UK, with your additions, there are nearly as many sites as for Christinaity(!). That dosen't make sense; those links belong (no, Anwar, not in India) in Hinduism in the United Kingdom. Thanks. El_C 21:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank God, the page is protected. It's actually a non-issue. The new article you have noted looks a more appropriate destination for HG to stack all his links. Btw, can you have a look at another similar revert war where HG is pitted against several editors who distinguish between nationalists and fundamentalists. May be you can think of a solution. Anwar 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Anwar, why don't you explain me , How all of them are spams? After your first revert in haste, you even called them sites of every temple in UK (which they are not) and it prooved that your edits are selective. - Holy Ganga talk 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, EI_C. Actually, i don't have any problem if after discussion with Anwar ot anybody else, we reach to this or that conclusion. But after discussion and that is what we should do on wikipedia while dealing with major reverts but Anwar seems not interested in discussions with Indian Hindu wikipedians and want to make major reverts selectively and personally. OK 6-7 are too much but is there a rule that there can't be more than one, even if it is giving important information about minority religions? How can giving information of largest temple of Hinduism in UK (infact in Europe) can be a spam? How can site giving information about list of temples in UK (more than 140 major temples) can't be linked in Hinduism section of "Religion in UK"? It's better not to create separate section for other religion in External links, if more than 1 site is not allowed, even if it is giving important information. Regards, - Holy Ganga talk 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. It's not spam, that's why I told him to use less aggressive language, but it he's right that it's inappropriate. There are no precise rules for this, but try to think of the number of links per any religion in the UK as a sort of demographic extrapolation of its [UK] adherents, I think that makes sense. As for your other question, see my pre-RFC hair-brain scheme. Thanks. El_C 23:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Anwar saadat is has a phobia of islamophobes and is anti-Hindu. This is through past experience that I believe any Indian who has dealed with him can confirm. Thus his anti-Hindu edits should be rapidly reverted and respected editors should not be drawn in by his consistent reporting of Indian and Hindu users... Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
His position against having nearly as many Hindu links as Christian ones, is a sensible, albeit aggressively phrased one. This (article talk page) is not RfC, nor the arbcom. While anyone is free to initiate an RfC on Anwar, it would probably be recieved less favourably (and perhaps not even pass the trying and failing to resolve the dispute burden by the overseeing admin/s) if no attempts were made to follow my pre-RFC plan. El_C 15:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Atheist POV[edit]

"Atheism, on the basis of these statistics, is a belief held by at least 15% of the population."

No it doesn't, it could mean they are Deist or Agnostic as well. Atheist POV has snuck into this article as well I see.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The above came from someone or something (hiding behind an IP address of with an interesting POV regarding atheism based on similar edits around the same time but, their particular mental instability aside, it is true that the UK statistics office URL has "about 16%" as including "agnostics, atheists, heathens and those who wrote Jedi Knight." i.e. it wasn't atheists in particular.

The problem with the most topical example of 'Jedi' is actually part of the problem of classifying Atheism (or agnostics, heathens and obviously those who wrote Jedi Knight) as a "religion". It's unclear what criteria the UK goverment uses, if any, to classify religions. Though given that there are around 390,000 Jedis and they outnumber other mainstream religions it's possible that the other religions don't want the competition from this new and much larger group. It does seem useful for the UK goverment to lumber all of "agnostics, atheists, heathens and those who wrote Jedi Knight" as, to use the parlance of modern Social identity terminology, the 'Others Within'.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the 2001 census clearly states that over 390 thousand adults described their religion as Jedi / Jedi Knight.

It is NOT for us to decide whether or not they were genuine, that is the fact. Even if there were an Internet campaign to encourage this answer, it doesn't change the facts. As I recall, many of the other religions 'encouraged' their adherents to answer their way also. The Jedi figure is as valid as the Christian statistic, so clearly the Neutral POV is to report it.Splodgeness (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So the vandalism should stay as it does raise a valid point though its a bit like saying that Hitler did wonders for the German road building industry; it fails to mention other collateral damage. Ttiotsw 23:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Atheism literally means without religion. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist i.e. You aren't sure if there is a God and you don't subscribe to any religion. "No Religion" as stated officially in the census is synonymous to atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that 'no religion' is synonymous with atheism in this context. Surveys repeatedly show there are plenty of people in the UK who are non-religious yet believe in gods, and there are many people who do not believe in gods but would identify with a religion. The fundamental problem here is that the census questions were not designed to find out about people's religious beliefs but were designed to find out their religious affiliation. I think the article has struck the right balance by reporting the census results whilst expressing caution about using them to measure the prevalence of particular beliefs. --Duncan Keith 18:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I just took a quick browse around the UK National Statistics site, looking to confirm or refute the assertion above that "the census questions were not designed to find out about people's religious beliefs but were designed to find out their religious affiliation". I was unable to find this info there in the brief time I spent searching for it. I think that it would be a useful addition to the article to report, along with a supporting source citation, what questions were asked in order to elicit the response information which the census stats report. Additionally, if it is indeed true as asserted above that "Surveys repeatedly show there are plenty of people in the UK who are non-religious yet believe in gods, and there are many people who do not believe in gods but would identify with a religion.", I believe that it would be a useful addition to this article to report that information, along with appropriate supporting source citations. -- Boracay Bill 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The 2001 census form for England: [4]; See Q10 on page 6. The inclusion of a religion question in the 2001 census was somewhat controversial and came about as a result of a concerted lobbying from religious groups. During the deliberations a clear consensus emerged that the religion question should focus on affiliation rather than practice or belief.[5] A survey from 2006 has a cross table on page 57 comparing belief in 'a God or higher spiritual force' with the 'religion that you yourself belong to' showing that amongst Christians 63% are theistic and 14% are atheistic, and amongst those of no faith 10% are theistic and 69% atheistic.[6] --Duncan Keith 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. The question asked was: "What is your religion?" with checkboxes presented for None, Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant, and all other Christian denominations), Budhist, (unreadable — perhaps Hindu), Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Any other religion (please write in). Reading that, it is not clear to me whether the information being requested is about religious affiliation or about religious faith. If I were a non-practicing believer in any religion, named or un-named on the form, I would have probably responded according to my belief. If I had some vague belief that there must be some sort of "Higher Being" without having an affiliation with or preference for any specific organized religion, I probably would have checked "Other", with or without trying to write in a descriptive name — but that's just me reacting subjectively to the form. It's anyone's guess how the 7,709,267 individuals reported as "People stating religion as: No religion" reacted, and what portion of those are religious to some unknown degree but unaffiliated with a specific religion. Perhaps the Statistics section of the article should provide a bit of detail about how the question was asked and should cite the form image. If there is some significant controversy about whether those responding "None" should or should not be classed as "Atheist", and if that controversy is reported in verifiable and reliable sources, perhaps info about the controversy should be mentioned in the Statistics section of the article. -- Boracay Bill 03:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You might find the National Secular Society's take on the religion question illuminating.[7] --Duncan Keith 09:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Better Catholic Church picture?[edit]

The Catholic church in the UK does not seem well served by a picture of a Vatican flag on a gateway in front of a church that is out of sight. Can anyone substitute something more apt, say a picture of a notable (and visible) church? Examples that come to mind include Liverpool Metropolitan or Westminster cathedral, or the Catholic shrine church at Walsingham. Myopic Bookworm 09:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How about St. Chad's as first post-Reformation RC cathedral? I've moved the previous pic to Roman Catholicism in Great Britain (a sadly under-illustrated article) where it seems pertinent. If anyone has any better ideas... Man vyi 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
St Chad's seems fine to me. Myopic Bookworm 09:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable places of worship[edit]

While you may choose to lump it with 'history' rather than current religion, Stonehenge is a fairly high-profile place of worship in the UK. Druidism is included in the article (even if it is neo-druidism) and so it would appear logical that such a landmark be included. Prince of Cats 18:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes that makes a lot of sense.Vexorg 05:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


There's no mention of the Quaker belief, which originated in England and is still followed by several thousand people in the UK. Could have a link to the main article on Quakerism at least.

You missed the crafty link to Britain Yearly Meeting semi-disguised under Religious Society of Friends. That would probably be the most pertinent link for Religion in the United Kingdom - but no reason why some elaboration shouldn't be in order, I suppose. Man vyi 08:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

History of christianity in the UK especially Kent[edit]

I have access to a study carried out a number of years ago by Mrs Rosemary Brown into the history of "the church" in thanet and surrounding Kent. The report exists only in paper form (I understand) but if I gain access to it I shall add a summary to the talk page for disemination into the project.

It seems that "Saint" Augustine may have been beaten to the Isles by the organic spread of Chrisitianity (this is sometimes called celtic christianity). It is likely that this celtic form would not have been recognised by the Church of Rome and was probably quickly eliminated.

For reference the person who compiled the study happens to have the honor of being my mum.

YouGov statistics[edit]

"A 2004 YouGov poll found that 44 per cent of UK citizens believe in God, while 35 per cent do not"

The word 'God' (as a proper noun) can be either a definite reference to the Christian god or a deictic expression that usually references the speaker's preferred deity. The first of these is becoming less tenable in the increasingly multicultural population of English speakers, and it can be assumed that Wikipedia is not aligned with any particular god. Recommend that the term be replaced with 'the Christian god' or similar.

Also, 44 + 35 does not give 100, regardless of whatever rounding assumptions you make. Presumably the first figure represents those who believe in the Christian god and the second represents atheists (ie non-theists). The wording should reflect this.

Ilkali 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The original data shows that 44% believe in God and 35% do not, but the remaining 21% are not those who believe in a non-Christian God but those who didn't know. Furthermore, as the survey divides those who believe in God by religion and by the number of Gods they believe in, I do not think they meant 'God' as referring specifically to the Christian God. Finally, including this information without a reference would be original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 11:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


i am deeply offended, jedi is the fourth biggest religion in the UK but this not mention nor is it listed as one of the UK religions, this is clear bias against this new and fast growing religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I would support it being added to the table. Wikipedia is neutral and so I think the table should represent the raw statistics rather than our interpretation PiTalk - Contribs 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would support the addition of Jedi to the table cited as Source: UK 2001 Census."Religion In Britain". UK National Statistics Online. 2004. Retrieved 2007-10-04.  if the corresponding table in the UK census 2001 cited as a supporting source contained a figure for jedi. However, the the corresponding table in the UK census 2001 cited as a supporting source does not contain a figure for jedi. The cited supporting source contains several explanatory notes about the table, one of which says,"About sixteen per cent of the UK population stated that they had no religion. This category included agnostics, atheists, heathens and those who wrote Jedi Knight."
On a related note, I have removed the following from the article:

The 2001 UK census also included responses from 390,127 people (or 0.7% of the population of England and Wales) who gave their religion as Jedi. The answers were distorted by an internet campaign prior to the census that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not strictly true; though the Office of National Statistics does separately list religions with more than 50,000 adherents (rather than aggregating them into the 'Other' category), this separate listing has no constitutional or legal significance.[citation needed]

and replaced it with

At the time the Census was carried out, there was an internet campaign that encouraged people to answer the religion question "Jedi Knight". The number of people who stated Jedi was 390,000 (0.7 per cent of the population).

citing this as a supporting source. I have also cited this supplementary source. I suggest that anonymous writer take his concerns about being deeply offended to the UK Census office. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC).

IN a speech Yesterday to the general synod, the archbishop of york quoted several phrases from the star wars films. When these are reported on reputable sources, I think we shuold include them to illustrate that Jedi is more than a parody religion


i have tried to the NPOV problem. i'll add a picture to the article as well soon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Religion in Wales[edit]

The percentage for Islam in Wales, at 3.7% (22000 people) was blatantly wrong, so I have changed it to 0.7% as quoted by ONS at Claret 07:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My second reversion of edits by Foxley_of_Grim[edit]

I have today reverted for the second time edits to the Statistics section by User:Foxley_of_Grim. I would have raised this on his wikipedia talk page, but AFAICT he does not have a user page. his edits replaced material supported by cites to official UK census results with material which differed significantly and which was unsupported by source cites. I encourage User:Foxley_of_Grim to read WP:V -- Boracay Bill 12:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


the article is becoming overly long perhaps some of this content should be forked.

Christianity in the UK as the major religion[edit]

I'm not racist or anything but i just find it hard to believe that the goverment don't seem to want to call the UK a Christian country. It is though and they can put all these surveys and polls out saying that it isn't but it is obvious.

Nearly every village has a church, nearly every city a cathedral. The Head of State is a Christian (The Queen) and the second largest religion is Islam (No religion accepted) which I might add is only 2%.

We celebrate Christmas and Easter nationally, but Christians cannot be proud to be Christians because the government say we can't because it will offend non-Christians.

I talked to some of my (non-christian) friends back in Spain, (I am Spanish-in England on holiday) about it and they think it's absolutely stupid, even they realise it's a Christian country.

And i might add, that when people say about "Practicing Christians" is stupid, because to be a Christian you don't need to go to church every Sunday, even the priests say that. Church is a place of worship for you, a place to celebrate, to marry, to christen, to pray and have a timeout and heart-to-heart with God, that is being Christian, and practicing outside in the real world your Christian beliefs to help others etc.

Yes people abuse the rights that Christianity offers you sometimes but Christianity is one of the most tolerating religions and people should stand up more for Christianity and one of the major beliefs in Christianity is to respect all other religions, so that is what i do, so all non-christians out there please don't think that i am being discriminative against your religions, i am just trying to stick up for Christianity in the UK as the major religion. Nadal25 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should any of the millions of non-Christians have to put up with their country being labled as Christian? Diversity and secularity are what we should strive for; Ghandi had the right idea. --Calummaciver 18:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The UK is a secular countryVexorg 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It is an extremely Christian country. BBC$ (the radio station) broadcasts mass every sunday morning. There are many people who do not celebrate Christmas, but there is a presumption that everyone celebrates Christmas. Christmas is a marked holiday on all calendars. Other holidays are not recognized. The UK should be labeled a Christian Country because it is a Christian country. Those British who wish not to live in a Christian country must engage in a political struggle to ensure that there is no established religion, that no single relation is favored, etc. I do not fault Calummaciver for wishing these things to be sol, but wishing alone does not make them so. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

May I remind people that the English people were originally pagan (worshipping Woden, king of the gods, Thunor, god of lightning, Tiw, god of war etc.) and that our entire culture is actually based upon paganism? For example, every day of the week is named after a pagan god (Woden's-day = Wednsday, Tiw's-day = Tuesday etc.) except for Monday and Sunday, which are named after the moon and sun respectively. Every major holiday has a pagan history (Christmas was originally celebrated, under a different name, by the pagan English to celebrate that they were half way through winter; Easter is a holiday in celebration of Eastre (aka Eostre or Ostara, depending regionally), goddess of the dawn. In fact, eggs and hares (nowadays usually changed to rabbits) are associated with her, hence the traditions. Halloween dates to when people would dress up as evil spirits as they thought that on that day true spirits walked the Earth, and they believed that by dressing up as them they would not be recognised as humans and would be left alone, and trick or treating originated when children would pretend to be real spirits, demanding tribute in exchange for peacefully leaving homes alone). Even the Royal family proudly claim their heritage back to the ancient English kings such as Cerdic, who were pagan to the extreme. Yes, most people in England and the rest of Britain have been Christian since the conversions of the 7th - 8th centuries, but to claim that everything in our culture is Christian or that the fact that Easter (a 100% pagan holiday, which the Christians changed the backstory of after taking over) is Christian is wholely ignorant. Just because the nation has been Christian for a long time doesn't change the fact that we started pagan and have changed, culturally, very little since then. Thus, if anything it could be argued that we are a pagan nation, as that is the religion on which our culture is based, just with a non-pagan majority demographic as of the 21st century. (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No idea what this guy is on about, but the UK is one of the least religious countries in the world. The only reason the figures are inflated is because people identifiy with christianity but have never practiced it. (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You say you're 'not racist' - but race and religion are two completely different things. Also, as a Christian, I do not want Britain to be labelled as a 'Christian country'. I think it's unhelpful for everyone - the church included. (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of 'secular'[edit]

The UK is today a predominantly secular state with only 38%[1] of the population believing in a God. - If only 1% of the populace believed in God that wouldn't make the UK a secular or predominantly secular state. Secular in this context means that the apparatus of government is not linked with the apparatus of religious practice, and that is not the case in the UK. The Church of England is the established church and the role of government in intertwined with that of the church. The PM takes his authority from the Crown and the Crown is the head of the Church of England. The Lords Spiritual have seats in the upper chamber and Bishops of the Church of England are appointed by the PM. Being "predominantly secular" is like being a "only little bit pregnant" It don't happen. Jooler 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. 'Secular state' has the particular meaning that the state is free of institutional religious influence, and that is clearly not the case for the UK. Duncan Keith 03:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Secularity defines Secular state as "a nation that has a secular government.". Secular state defines that term as "A secular state is a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices". Compare with Modern secular society (a redirect to Secularization), which says, "Secularization or secularisation generally refers to the process of transformation by which a society migrates from close identification with religious institutions to a more separated relationship." -- Boracay Bill 04:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree that distinctions need to be made between 'state', 'country', and 'society'. By the definition you have given the UK is not a secular state, since Protestant Christianity retains some residual privileges in government, even if British society is generally secular. Duncan Keith 05:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Boracay Bill above. However I have removed the word state as to avoid confusion. Duncan mentions 'society' and I agree this is a better appointnment of the secularity of the UKVexorg 05:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I might add to the list above the ability of the General Synod to promote measures that pass into law. Jooler 12:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added my latest comments to this discussion in answeer to Viewfinder's hasty reversions over ath the UK/religion discussion. Vexorg 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Looking at this poll that's being used in the lead, its taken from For the UK the poll used breaks down as follows.

  • 38% I believe there is a God.
  • 40% I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force.
  • 20 I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force.
  • 2% Don't know.

So 78% have some sort of spiritual belief, and the level of atheism is actually far lower than one might imagine from the lead. All Buddhists would fall into that 40%. I'm not saying the 40% are all Buddhists, just that you wouldn't classify Buddhists or people with similar beliefs as not practising or having a religious belief. Jooler 08:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right to point out that belief in God is not the only sort of religious belief. Another recent poll reports 45% Yes & 33% No to the question 'Do you believe in a God or higher spiritual force?" (see p.57 of [8]). The difficulty here is that there is considerable ambiguity in what is meant by 'religious', 'atheist', etc. and opinion polls on religious questions are very sensitive to the exact wording and order of the questions. Perhaps we need a separate section on the extent of beliefs typically associated with religion to avoid the lead paragraphs being dominated by statistics? Duncan Keith 13:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Acutally Jooler is correct about the aspect of 'religious observence' and a the belief in a god. In view of that I changed to my original wording which I think makes more sense. It tells of the Church and State link still remaining and tells of the predominently secular nature of society these days.Vexorg 23:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding uppercase vs. lowercase, this is a direct quote from a cited supporting source. As such, it should be rendered as it was rendered in the cited supporting source. The cited supporting source capitalized the word "god" at that point. I have added an explanatory footnote about thet. If this had not been a direct quote, Wikipedia's style guideline on capitalization of names of religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents would have been nnot to capitalize the word "god" at this point. (see this). -- Boracay Bill 23:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia's style guideline on capitalization ... not to capitalize the word "god" at this point" - incorrect. That section says it should be capitalised. Jooler 07:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. The guideline says: Individual deities begin with a capital letter: God, Allah, Freya, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to important religious figures, such as Muhammad, by terms such as the Prophet. Groups of deities should not be capitalized (the Norse gods). Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter. in the example response: "I believe there is a God", the word "god" is being used as an abstract noun representing some sort of "supreme being" (see, e.g., see this); the word is not being used there as the name of any specific individual deity — at least that's my own interpretation of the offered example response. As is always the case in religious matters, individual interpretations may vary widely, and probably will do so. -- Boracay Bill 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're saying that 'God' is being used as a substitute for 'Supreme Being', have a look at Supreme Being and note the capitalisation. "God" is used a catch-all proper noun for the god of the various monotheistic religions. My understanding is that it is not correct to say the the name of the Christian god is "God". God speaks his name in Exodus and that is interpreted by some as Jehovah. Jooler 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Okay I admit I got confused with the "a God" thing with the poll. The poll wouldn't have made grammatical sense if it had said "I believe there is God", but clearly it meant the God of the Abrahamic tradition. Saying "proclaiming a belief in God" and "proclaiming a belief in a God" read subtly different. The Defender of the Faith bit is a bit of a red herring really as that was a title given to Henry VIII by the Pope Leo X. I think going in to this too much for the lead. Jooler 01:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't clearly mean the Abrahamic God at all, and why should it?Vexorg 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You really think it might have referred to Jupiter or Bacchus or Thor!? No of course not. It referred to the God capital G, of the monotheistic religions. Jooler 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
do you not think people who believe in non Abrahmaic gods also spell 'god' with a capital G ?? Please don't assume everyone who believes in a god believes in the abrahamic god. Captial G is fine but it's 'a God' Vexorg 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Look. It's a capital G because it is 'The God' of a monotheistic religion. It's a capital for the same reason we use a capital for the Queen, the Pope and the Devil etc. as opposed to 'a queen', a pope or 'a devil'. Jooler 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Secular again[edit]

The National Secular Society's remit (ref our article) is to ""challenging religious privilege,". The society campaigns for: the disestablishment of the Church of England; the withdrawal of state subsidies to religious schools; the end of tax exemption for churches; the abolition of the blasphemy law; and an end to the public funding of chaplains in prisons, hospitals and the armed services.". I do not think that secular is a valid word to use here for the UK. There is no equivalent in the UK to the banning of religious practice in schools as in France and the USA. I believe more than 50% of schools in the UK have a religious connection and are backed by the state. Jooler 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Secular is perfectly valid for the populace of the UK. Secular is not limited to banning religous practises at all, it is a framework for accepting people of ALL faiths and non-faiths.Vexorg 19:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please can we debate the use of the word secular here, not in the article. I am also concerned about this edit, in which it appears to me that Vexorg has awarded himself a barnstar. If I am right, then this is surely out of order. Viewfinder 22:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Jooler 22:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Giving myself a barnstar???? Is there something wrong with you? Why don't you ask the user who awarded it to me if you think that's the case? Vexorg 01:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, as Jooler has implicitly (and more appropriately) pointed out, the above mentioned edit was a transfer from the talk page of a barnstar awarded by another editor several weeks ago. But it still seems to me that Vexorg is adding material against the consensus of other editors, and is editing this article, and the religion section of the UK article, as though he owned them. Viewfinder 13:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


The Tearfund report itself says that the figures for religious affiliation are not comparable with the Census results, since different questions were asked. The Tearfund question was similar to the BSA question which has consistently reported just over 50% "belonging to" Christianity since the mid 1990s. Additionally I couldn't find a source for the "7% are practicing Christians" assertion in the Tearfund report. Duncan Keith 07:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that there was nothing wrong with that paragraph you blanket removed information with wasn't in your above assertions.Vexorg 01:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The Tearfund number for "belong to Christianity" does not confirm your assertion that Christianity has declined since 2001. It makes no sense to use a figure that the report itself says should not be compared to the census results whilst ignoring an annual series that shows no significant change since 2001. It may well be true that in some sense Christianity has declined since 2001, but better data that the Tearfund figure you quote is needed to back up that assertion. Please read p.10 of the Tearfund report where this question is discussed. Duncan Keith 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Theocratical section[edit]

I've moved the "The direct influence of the Anglican Communion has ....." to the politics section. But maybe we need a section in the article that deals with and highlights the theocratical aspect of religion in the UK?Vexorg 15:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Theocracy is not the right word. In a theocracy secular institutions are absent or subservient to religious authorities. In contrast the Church of England is subservient to secular authority. There is a long continuum between a fully secular state and a theocracy, and the UK is close to the secular end; However there is much to be said about the constitutional role of the established church, so I wouldn't object if you started such a section, albeit with a more accurate title. Duncan Keith 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I did say theocratical aspect :). I appreciate the UK is not a Theocracy as such. But such a section might tie in better with the Theocracy articleVexorg 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Denominational Breakdown of Christianity[edit]

Why are there no statistics on the denominational breakdown of generic "Christianity" in any of this article? The numbers just dont exist or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Duly added. Respondents in England and Wales were not asked about denominations in the 2001 census, so a recent survey was used. These figures are not directly comparable with the census results since a subtly different question was asked. Duncan Keith 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

English speaking 'Old Catholics' in the UK[edit]

Whilst this is a numerically small series of denominations in various parts of the UK, is there a way that we could include such denominations as a means of exploring how Christian faith and observance in the United Kingdom is moving towards a smaller style of Church and away from the larger denominations. There are quite a few sites on WP that could give some clues. What do you think?Spiorad (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of Muslims in Sheffield and Birmingham[edit]

After talking about Yemeni sailors, the article takes a sudden dizzying change of direction, and claims that there are 23,819 Muslims in Sheffield and Birmingham.

This is ambiguous - Does it mean "The sum of the number of Muslims in Sheffield and the number of Muslims in Birmingham is 23,819", or does it mean "There are 23,819 Muslims in Sheffield and there are 23,819 Muslims in Birmingham"?

It is also spuriously over-precise; even if it were ever a correct figure, it would be immediately invalidated as soon as one Sheffield-based Muslim goes on holiday!

Any chance of a fix or clarification from someone who (unlike me!) knows what they're talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the number was for Sheffield alone and was from the 2001 Census figures, but I agree that it doesn't belong there and have removed it. (You are of course free to make edits yourself -- see WP:BOLD Duncan Keith (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Figures for atheism?[edit]

Are there any statistics (reliable enough for us to use) that specifically cover the proportion of atheists (ie not including agnostics etc) in the UK? All I can find in the article is the bit from the British Humanist Society. I self-identify as atheist, but while I don't have any real objection to being calle humanist I wouldn't self-identify as such. So they're not necessarily the same thing. (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A YouGov survey in 2004 asked the 35% of respondents who did not believe in God whether they were an atheist (defined as "someone who believes there is no God") or an agnostic ("someone who is not sure whether there is a God"), with results of 35% atheist, 46% agnostic and 18% neither/DK, which suggests a core atheist population of at least 12%.[9] This is in line with a BSA survey in 2000 in which 12% selected 'Don't believe in God' from a range of options about belief in god.[10]. It also matches the 12% obtained by MORI in 2003 for "I am an atheist (convinced there's no God)".[11]. Duncan Keith (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of titles[edit]

I find the renaming of the section titles pre and post reformation a little problematic. It presumes an understanding of Christian History that a newcomer to the subject may not understand, especially if they are not a Christian. Maybe a line towards the start of the article explaining that religion in the UK has come to be defined by the events of the reformation may help. I would prefer to simply keep to dates or independent historical periods.

Any thoughts? johnmark† 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but it seems to have been resolved by the wikifying of 'reformation'. (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), or Jehovah's Witnesses.[edit]

There seems to be a strange omission of these 2 large denominations on the Religion in the UK page. Perhaps others too. My perspective is as a Latter-day Saint (also known as 'Mormon'). Latter-day Saints have been in the UK for about 170 years now. About 100000 joined the Church in the 1800s and emigrated to become half of the LDS population in the US, and since then most have stayed in the UK. The latest statistics on the Church's website are that there are 180000 members in the UK in 350 congregations, a lot more than some of the religions listed on this page, and I'm sure there are similar statistics for Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not sure how fussed the Jehovah's Witnesses area about being counted as a Christian denomination, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints certainly considers itself Christian - it's in the name! I'll try and add info if I get time, but meanwhile someone else might like to have a go. These are both steadily growing denominations last time I checked while half the UK Christian denominations are declining in numbers, so they aren't going away! Squiggle56% (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Their numbers in the 2011 census were small enough to only be considered "other". Mormonism has very much a fringe minority of believers in the UK, despite efforts to proselytise. I suspect British people have more sense than to believe in a religion based on utter nonsense.Gymnophoria (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


I'm sorry that User felt that my contribution to the Jedi section 'makes a mockery of a serious article' I worked quite hard in researching the threee sentences I added. I felt that it was important to add information without a POV, so I added one sentence explaining the origin of the Jedi religion, One sentence showing that the religion has an organisation, who indeed take it seriously, and one sentence showing how the Jedi philosophies have entered the cultural life in the UK, whatever our opinions, I feel it is important to report the facts.Splodgeness (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source demonstrating that anybody actually follows a Jedi religion? Ilkali (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've moved Jedi into a separate section, but kept all your work - hope this is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing claims of Jedi adherents[edit]

The only support given for the claim that anybody in the UK practices a Jedi religion is the census, which we all know was intentionally distorted. Unless further support can be given, those claims should be swiftly excised from the article. Ilkali (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I recall the christian church also encouraging people to fill in their census forms too, does that invalidate their claims? I personally don't know ANYONE in the UK who really practices any religion,(I assume that's because I'm from a self-selecting group) so none of this article rings true. The census information tells us that over half of the people who reported having a religion have NEVER attended a religious service - does that still make them adherents, even if they don't practice? Splodgeness (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Pretty much every religion is defined such that the only requirement to be classified as an adherent is that you believe. We have plenty of evidence that plenty of people in the UK believe in Christian dogma, even if the figures aren't exactly what the census says. We don't have any such evidence for Jedi. Ilkali (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The only 'evidence' you have is whether a person says they believe, this of course is the whole point, and why discussions about religion cannot be resolved. There are no facts, there is in fact a large degree of uncertainty about the census results anyway, but whether any of the religions encouraged people to answer in a certain way should be noted, but applies equally to ALL the answers.
as for a source demonstrating that anybody actually follows a Jedi religion a simple Internet search will bring up
On the first page !
Yes even in the UK -
and yes they did encourage people to fill in JEDI on their census forms -
and posts from REAL people who declare that they are JEDI -
I don't expect proof to sway anyone's POV, but I think we can safely say that; Some people follow the Jedi Religion, therefore the JEDI religion exists.
If it exists, and we only know if someone follows it by what they say and do (like filling in a form), then to dismiss the thousands of people who expressed this is just a point of view.
Remember that unlike the other religions, which count adherents by the numbers of baptisms of children who actually are too young to legally declare anything, the census was only sent to persons who had reached majority
I don't intend making any further changes to this page, it's not that important to me, I have no religion, but am interested to see that it is a numbers game.
for me "it doesn't matter who says it is true, or how many people say it is true, it doesn't make it true." Splodgeness (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"The only 'evidence' you have is whether a person says they believe". And people are not always truthful. Currently the article claims that a significant number of people follow a Jedi religion. The only piece of documented evidence you have for this claim is a poll that we all agree was distorted by a widely-publicised stunt encouraging false positives. It is not POV to discard the claim as unverifiable until better evidence emerges. Joke websites do not constitute such evidence. Self-identifying posts on internet forums do not constitute such evidence. Ilkali (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph blatantly ignores 2001 census data[edit]

38% of interviewees "believe there is a God", and a further 40% believe there is "some sort of spirit or life force". A United Nations report claims that in 2007 "two-thirds ... either did not claim membership of a religion or said that they never attended a religious service".

Sorry guys, but these figures appear ridiculous when compared to the 2001 UK Census which shows quite clearly that over three quarters of the population DO claim membership of a religion rather specifically. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a UK census is a far more reliable source of data than an EU opinion poll! -- Soulhunter123 (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced that the opening paragraph is a load of spin. The references to the "Eurobarometer Poll" don't even contain information about how the poll was conducted, the number of "interviewees" and so on, whereas the census was taken by over 92% of the population, with the religion question posed as an optional one. I think the Eurobarometer information should be removed from the opening paragraph, at least, and the cenus information expanded instead. It's quite clear which one's the more trustworthy source of information. -- Soulhunter123 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Eurobarometer has a detailed methodology, with a sample of around 1,300 in the UK (check the reference for the precise number) and conducted by TNS. It is professionally conducted and a reliable source, however, it is important to look at the different questions being asked. In Eurobarometer it asked "Which of these statements comes closet to your beliefs?". In the census it asks "What is your religion?" The results are not incompatible, and the spin can run both ways. I think any concentration on any single source which says that three-quarters of the population is religious, would not reflect reality. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph needs improving but the figures themselves are not contradictory: a majority of the population claim to have a religious identity/belief system but many of those do not attend services etc. (I personally know of two atheists who are also Elders in the Church of Scotland - they believe the church is a force for good in society but don't happen to believe there is a God!) Figures can be used to prove any point of view so care is needed - for example, more people attend religious services on a Sunday than attend football matches on a Saturday. What is surely not in dispute is that religious views continue to be held by many in society. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I do agree. The figure sets can both be seen as useful. In that respect, I have added just a few lines to clarify the "mixed bag" of results and their data sources, and have mentioned that the next UK census should assist in getting the new picture of religion in the UK, which could indeed have changed dramatically since 2001. Please keep an eye on the opening paragraph of this article to ensure it stays neutral and it doesn't lean towards one side as it did before (when no mention of the census was present). Thanks! -- Soulhunter123 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

    • {{cite web|url=|title=Eurobarometer on Social Values, Science and technology 2005 - page 11|accessdate=2007-05-05}}
    • {{cite web |url = |title = Eurobarometer: Social values, Science and Technology |date = 2005-06 |accessdate = 2008-08-09 |publisher = [[European Commission]] |format = PDF }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

First sentence of the lead section[edit]

The sentence "Religion in the United Kingdom deals with the development of religion ..." parses as "In the United Kingdom, religion deals with the development of religion ..." – until you realize that "Religion in the United Kingdom" refers to the article itself.
This ambiguous self-reference is ugly.
Also, Religion in the United Kingdom is merely a descriptive title for the article, it's not an actual name of the topic of the article, and thus it doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead section, and shouldn't be bolded (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#First sentences).
-- (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "This article is about ..." is better (note: acceptable self-reference).
-- (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I reverted this per WP:Lead section. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

8 ministers say they believe in God[edit]

Its from December last year, so its a little old, but I found this source from the dialy mail. It say only 8 out of 22 minister believe in God, should we include this? Source Ijanderson (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable places of worship[edit]

What makes these places 'notable'? If there is something specific, details should be included - if not, I think the entry should be removed. Any thoughts? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


This has just been added, quoting the Tearfund report at [12]. This is what the report actually says:

Two thirds of UK adults (66%) or 32.2 million people have no connection with church at present (nor with another religion). These people are evenly divided between those who have been in the past but have since left (16 million) and those who have never been in their lives (16.2 million).

2/3 is not the number with "no connection with any religion or church", it's the number that don't go to church and do not belong to a religion other then Christianity. The same report found that 53% of the UK identifies as Christian and a further 6% belong to another religion. It is certainly not true that this report indicates that most of the UK is irreligious. Hut 8.5 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Mosque picture[edit]

Baitul Futuh Mosque

AlphaGamma1991 is trying to get rid of Baitul Futuh mosque picture which had been there for a long time, for the suspected reason that it belongs to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Could editors help to decide which picture would be better. In my opinion Baitul Futuh mosque is better because it certainly looks better and is more unique. I don't think that just because it belongs to a relatively minority sect, it should be ignored. Otherwise there are other sects like Deobandi, Brelwi, Shia and so on... so no mosque will be "representative" as AlphaGamma1991 puts it. ThankYou Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it has been there for a long time doesn't mean anything. I actually think the Central Mosque is nicer and has more character than the Baitul, although this doesn't really matter here. I do agree with AlphaGamma because the Ahmadiyas are only a small minority of the Islamic community in the UK. Plus, this picture of Baitul Futu is already on many other articles such as England, Greater London, London, Surrey, Morden, London Borough of Merton, Great Britain, Religion in Europe, etc. --Local hero talk 19:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The baitul Futuh mosque is much nicer and has much more of a character. Not only that, it is listed in the top 50 buildings by the Spectator magazine. [13] Plus it is the largest mosque in western Europe, and therefore it is more unique.[14]. Ok even if that doesn't matter, the picture is not meant to represent a community, but rather a mosque. So, it doesn't matter to whom it belongs. So the only way to judge is through which mosque is more unique. I think it's baitul futuh. Also, there are many files and images that are attached to different articles. Should that mean that they should be removed? As long as they are on different articles it doesn't matter. Id give it, if it was on the same article. Thank You Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The picture is meant to represent the community that practises Islam in the UK, which is mostly not Ahmadiya. You've basically put this same picture of this same mosque on every article of every place that it is related to. I just think it's an overkill. --Local hero talk 21:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
A mosque is not shaped by to whom it belongs. Can you tell it belongs to Ahmadiyya by looking at the picture? Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No, but you can tell by clicking the link in the caption. An Ahmadi mosque doesn't represent the whole Muslim community in the UK. In fact, the Ahmadiyya movement is considered by many Muslims as non-Muslim. As I've stated in my previous comments, this same picture of this same mosque is already on every article of every place it's related to. So, it need not be included here also. --Local hero talk 23:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
But the point of a picture is to show the picture. The link is only given if an article is present, otherwise it is not necessary. If the fact that Ahmadiyya movement are considered by many non-muslims, does not mean it is a fact, but rather an opinion and that opinion should not be adopted by Wiki. Moreover for information, AlphaGamma1991 has been carrying out anti-Ahmadiyya edits, particularly for Ahmadis to be cited as non-muslims see Talk:Islam in Pakistan, should wiki take part in discrimination? Also, as i've stated before, images on different articles have nothing to do with what happens in other articles. But coming back to main the point, I was mentioning which picture is should be more suitable...having considered the character, better pic and so on... I would like to draw your attention to another point, the Neasden Temple has a unique feature associated with it, should the mosque not too? Thank You Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Ahmadis are muslims in not relevant to this discussion. The fact is that the group is such a small proportion of muslims that it is unrepresentative to use their mosque to illustrate this article. It would be like having a picture of Westboro Baptist Church to illustrate an article about christianity. This article generally uses representative pictures and that should continue. (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, the Neasden Temple and the Kagyu Samyé Ling Monastery and Tibetan Centre belong to relatively minority groups and therefore are not "representative" as you say. If a mosque looks like a mosque, it is representative enough. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Shah Jahan Mosque
Can I suggest a compromise solution to sidestep the controversy? The Shah Jahan Mosque was, according to its article the first purpose-built mosque in the UK - it's a historic listed building and we have an attractive image. What do people think? Man vyi (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it was the first mosque in England not UK. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Man vyi. It WAS the first PURPOSE-BUILT mosque in the UK. Perfectly appropriate. (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok I agree, that it is the first purpose built mosque, but don't you think that in modern day Britain, the largest mosque, would be more appropriate? Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at before changing the image and use wiki's dispute process before changing the mosque image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifkhanj (talkcontribs) 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Peaceworld111 - as I said in the Islam in the United Kingdom - you seem to have emotional attachment to a particular sect thus are putting that mosque up and giving vague personal reasons for doing so (e.g. foliage in the image, beauty, etc...) and I went on to get 3rd opinion as per wiki procedures. Please do not engage in warring and discuss, or follow wiki's policies to dispute. Asifkhanj (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

New Church of England study: "The Faith of Generation Y"[edit]

This new book published by Church House Publishing, the official publishing house of the Church of England, details a study of "over 300 young people who have participated in Christian youth and community outreach projects around England over the last five years."[15]

It's not a comprehensive study of the religious attitudes of all young people in England, obviously, but it does give an insight into the generational changes among those who have contact with the Church's outreach efforts. --TS 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Jediism[edit]

I fully support those discussions who advocate the removal or demotion of the presentation of "Jediism" as a religion. I think it makes this wikipedia article lack credibility.

"Jediism" is not an official religion and should be played down accordingly in this wiki article. At the moment it is presented as the UK's forth largest religion in the introduction. This is misleading. The fact that people consider themselves or claim to be "Jedi" in various surveys does not automatic make that it a religion, and Jediism should NOT appear in a list that implies it has the same status as established religions such as Islam and Judaism, as it does here.

In this article I think we need to a employ a strict criteria as to what actually is a religion, otherwise the word religion is in danger of losing its meaning. In my opinion the interest in Jediism ought to be catgeorised differently, and listed in separate section at the end of the article, with an explanation of its status in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is not so much whether "Jediism" is practised as a religion - which it apparently is, by some - or that relatively large numbers of people gave it as their religion in 2001 - which they did, and may do again in the Census this year. The issue is the prominence given to Jediism in this article, appearing to "outrank" religions such as Judaism, Sikhism and Buddhism, on the basis of those Census figures. It is apparent - see Jedi census phenomenon - that "the majority of self-reported Jedi claimed the religion for their own amusement, to poke fun at the government, or as a protest against the inclusion of the religion question on the census form." Thus, the numbers who self-reported as "Jediist" in no way reflects the number who actually follow Jediism as a religion - most of them did it (and this year again will do it) as a joke and/or a protest. In my view it does devalue this article - a serious encyclopedic article about religious adherence - to have the numbers who ticked the box on a Census form given as the actual number of adherents, and given prominence accordingly. Although we don't know precisely how many did treat it as a joke, it would be perfectly reasonable to take the view that it was a very high proportion, and accordingly that the section on "Jediism" should be placed below those on serious religions, that is after the section on Jainism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
And how many of any of the religions actually follow them? This is not a 'serious' encyclopaedia. It is an encyclopaedia that summarizes the facts as reported with a neutral point of view. It is not up to editors to adjust reality. Dmcq (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I re-edited the Jedi section a few weeks ago largely as an attempt to clarify the peculiarity of the result from the 2001 census. I think that this is pretty clear in the paragraph, which does indicate that the email encouraged people to use the form (among other reasons) "just to annoy people". I do not know if that is why people put this down on the form and I think we must leave readers to come to their own conclusions here. I think as long as the 2001 census is relevant that this should be kept. I would, I admit, find it more difficult if the section attempted to set out Jedi theology or structures, for which notability and relevance would have to be demonstrated. However, the 2001 census will not be the most relevant source for much longer and there will be a strong argument for re-structuring the article (and possibly removing this section) when those results become available. Until then, I really think it needs to stay to aid reader understanding.--SabreBD (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Repetition of information[edit]

A peculiarity of this article is that it repeats much of the same information. The information on Christianity appears under Religion in the United Kingdom#Christianity and then again under Religion in the United Kingdom#Religion per regions. There has to be a way of avoiding this and I think some bold editing may be called for. I will try to work something out so that nothing is lost soon unless there are reasoned objections.--SabreBD (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been sitting looking at this problem for some time and think that it would need a significant reorganisation. My suggestion is that we move the statistics to the top of the article, giving an overview and then deal with the denominations and different religions after that, feeding anything unique from the regions sections into this part. This is religion in the UK, readers wanting to find out details for each constitute part of the UK can be directed to the specific articles that already exist for each part of the state. This would be quite a major change in structure, so opinions welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a decent plan. Perhaps the sections on politics and media can be moved up earlier too, giving a more general overview. Should the leaders section simply be integrated into the individual religions sections? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I definitely agree on the politics and media sections. I am not sure about the leaders section, but I see what you mean. It might be difficult to keep in this proposed structure, so I suspect it will have to be integrated. Perhaps we can consider it if the changes are begun.--SabreBD (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to let editors know that I am still working on this. At the moment the Religion and education, Religion and politics, Religion and the media and Secularism, tolerance and anti-religious discrimination sections may have to stay at the bottom of the article because when I came to draft this it doesn't make seem to make sense to refer to churches and denominations without explaining what they are first. I am thinking of putting these in a religion and society section so that they are easier to find. I am also taking the opportunity to recast the introduction to fit with WP:lead and the new structure.--SabreBD (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This finally done. It proved a pretty difficult task as the repetition was not only in the text but in the statistics as well. I have broken these down under four sub-headings in the hope that it makes more sense and that future statistics can be added in a logical place. This article still needs a lot of work, not least filling in the gaps that are probably more evidence now that the repetition has been removed, but hopefully expansion will be easier now that there is a single (hopefully clear) structure. One more point, I left citations in the lead and strove for neutral language (partly borrowing from the much debated religion section of UK) because a lot of these statements or working is likely to be challenged. Hopefully all this will help with future development of the article.--SabreBD (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I admire you for taking on this task! The real difficulty is caused by the fact that there are clear differences between the countries in the UK, making it difficult if not misleading, to write an 'overall' view under different section headings. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head. There is also the danger that England statistically tends to overwhelm the rest of the UK. Unfortunately the overlap of different groups across national boundaries makes it extremely hard to write discrete sections within an article like this. The main point of these edits was at least to stop doing it twice (or more). I keep an open mind if a better solution about how to handle this is suggested.--SabreBD (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


Why is the census being used as an authority on religious adherence? 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the census asks questions about religious adherence, and the resulting statistics are relevant. They may not be perfect, but they are certainly worthy of mention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Data on the 2011 Census[edit]

Does anyone have a timetable for data from the 2011 Census? Apparently, Christianity has really declined and the Jedi thing was a one-time phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes this article needs updating with 2011 data - I've appended an out-of-date tag until this is complete.Gymnophoria (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You are right, it does need updating. I will get around to it eventually, but if anyone has the time and inclination to do it first - feel free.--SabreBD (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
There is information on the release of 2011 data here - Detailed information will not be available until some time in 2013. The tag is therefore pointless and misleading - it suggests that the information is now capable of being updated, which it is not. I've reverted. We should not tag all articles using 2001 census information - it is the most up-to-date information currently available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to say that since we cannot update for a while, does anyone object if we change the way this is referenced to the past tense - it probably is not indicating the situation now, even if it is our best guide at the moment?--SabreBD (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The 2001 data obviously isn't relevant now as it's 11 years out of date. The UK governmaent will 'start publishing' the 2011 census in the Autumn.

Out of date polls[edit]

Can I propose removing all polls older than 5 or 6 years old and placing the remaining ones in a chronological list or table so they're easier to access and read? Currently, poll results form sentences in paragraphs in a random order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMcLoughlin1975 (talkcontribs) 16:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


Note that LeeMcLoughlin1975 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked as a sock of Lee McLoughlin Leicester (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverted changes[edit]

I reverted a series of good faith edits that created a lot of problems of format, guidelines and readability. I am open to discussion about integrating any of these, but it would be a good idea to take them slowly and discuss them here first.

  • Starting with the lead: the problem here is that the guidelines at WP:lead state that the title of the article should be in the first sentence, which is the reason for the very general definition containing the term. Changing this to something about the Act of Supremacy and establishment of the Church of Scotland is problematic because it is unsourced, but it is also not mentioned in the article and massively underestimates the complexity of the issues. We do not have a history section and probably with good reason, as writing such things in a non-controversial way is usually nightmare. The version I reverted, to my mind, does not stick to WP:NPOV, as stating that Christianity is the State Religion may imply a degree of enforcement and conformity that has not been the case for at least a century. We could decide to insert a summary of the history in an opening section and work form there, but at the moment I would rather just leave all this out.--SabreBD (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"the problem here is that the guidelines at WP:lead state that the title of the article should be in the first sentence" - Sabrebd.
I've read WP:lead and it doesn't state this. It actually states "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence".
And it is possible. So we should do it. This is normal for Wikipedia articles.--SabreBD (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
In the guideline "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence", I was pointing out that the actual page title doesn't have to appear in the first sentence, but it's subject does. So "Religion" and "United Kingdom" should appear in the first sentence but not necessarily "Religion in the United Kingdom". Titanis Walleri (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (Sorry, you are right, I read more about the first sentence). Titanis Walleri (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
"Changing this to something about the Act of problematic because not mentioned in the article" - Sabrebd.
I agree, the section titled "The Anglican Communion" needs the title "Church Of England" (C of E heads of the Anglican Communion, not the other way around) and the section needs lengthening to offer some background to the C of E's establishment via the Act of Supremacy.
That is what we call a major change. It would be worth getting some input here on whether this is a good idea. Please bear in mind, there is no hurry. Previous edits are no lost, but kept in the history. We can afford to get this right.--SabreBD (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh ok, but how many 'resident' editors maintain this page and how often do they stop by? Titanis Walleri (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
"stating that Christianity is the State Religion may imply a degree of enforcement and conformity that has not been the case for at least a century." - Sabrebd.
The UK is still bound by Christian laws that restrict trading times on Sundays, Easter Sunday and Christmas Day; Children are still legally obliged to attend worship and study religious education in schools that has 'a broadly Christian character'; The established church has an automatic right to have 22 of its bishops take seats in the house of lords. Read the articles State Religion and State Church for further reading.
Believe me I understand what is in those articles. But that doesn't mean that the change is appropriate for this article. Again, it is probably worth getting feedback from other editors here.--SabreBD (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it most appropriate that the established church of the UK is identified in the lead. As this article is about religion in the UK, most of it's content should be dedicated to it's established church. Titanis Walleri (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Also please note, when I indicated that we should consider the lead first, it didn't mean that we should revert the rest except that. I meant let's deal with that and then move on to the other issues.--SabreBD (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled across this page via google and my first impressions were that it needed a tidy. I decided to dedicate some of my time to improve the article and hoped it would be appreciated. I didn't intend to step on anybody's toes or to appear unfriendly. Titanis Walleri (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I am sure you edits are in good faith and it is not a matter of treading on toes, but following guidelines and ways of doing things on Wikipedia. It can take a while to get used to these things if you are new to the editing process and honestly, we have all been there. Really the most important way of thinking is WP:BRD, (bold, revert discuss). In this case, you made bold edits, I reverted them and we should now discuss them BEFORE reintroducing them please. In case this is not clear - would you please revert your other edits so that we can discuss them here before they are implemented.
Perhaps you can also guess that this page is potentially one of the most controversial on Wikipedia as it impinges on issues of both religion and nationalism. The introduction is definitely closer to guidelines now than the first edit, but there are still some important issues. I do not think it is true to say that "Religion IS dominated by Christianity". A lot, in fact most, academics would say that religion is dominated by nominal membership, agnosticism and apathy, and that the UK is a post-Christian rather than a Christian society. Second, we have to be very careful about the facts, the Church of England is emphatically not the established church of the UK, but only of England. I can pretty much guarantee that there will be objections to both statements, so I am simply trying to head this off now.--SabreBD (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
"I do not think it is true to say that "Religion IS dominated by Christianity"" - Sabrebd
Religion in the UK is most certainly dominated by Christianity. I think you're interpreting the statement as "the UK is dominated by Christianity". There's a difference. I recognise that Christians only make up as little as 40% of the UK population according to some surveys (with 40%-50% claiming no religion, me included), but Christians account for almost all of those that claim to be religious, making Christianity the dominant religion. Titanis Walleri (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
"Perhaps you can also guess that this page is potentially one of the most controversial....." - Sabrebd
For sure yes. I am both non-religious and anti-religious but I certainly wouldn't intend to add any bias to my contributions. As far as I'm aware, my input has remained neutral and factual and mostly based on reputable statistics. Titanis Walleri (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
"the Church of England is emphatically not the established church of the UK, but only of England." - Sabrebd
Maybe not emphatically but it is the Church of England that sends bishops to the House of Lords to decide policy for the United Kingdom, not just England. Also, it is the Church of England that crowns monarchs of the United Kingdom, not monarchs of England. Titanis Walleri (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the Church of England is the established church in Scotland because a role in the coronation and the existence of the Lords Spiritual?--SabreBD (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not but the Church of England does have 22 Lords Spiritual and so the influence of the established church reaches across the United Kingdom. It's certainly unfair but there's nothing to be gained by hiding this fact. My ancestry is Celtic and so I feel the current situation is wrong and can never be corrected if the public believe the Church of England's reach stops at the English borders.
Nothing is being hidden here, it is just that there is a need for accuracy. It is not the role of editors on Wikipedia to campaign for what is right or any other cause, just to report notable and appropriate facts. At the moment the lead does not seem to be adopting a neutral point of view or to be accurate.--SabreBD (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I think you mis-understood me. I'm always neutral as far as I'm aware and I have no campaign. I'll change the 1st sentence again and make it more accurate re the established church. Titanis Walleri (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I made a couple more improvements but with the loss of -1,758 bites. This is because I deleted the second paragraph under 'Beliefs' as it repeated what had been said before, both in the first paragraph and else where in the article. At the bottom of the article under 'References', there are broken links highlighted in red. I will attempt to repair them. Titanis Walleri (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
It is starting to get very frustrating that while we are discussion one issue, you continue to make major edits to the rest of the article, despite my request to bring the issues here first. It seems to me that you are not taking the process of consensus very seriously and is starting to make me wonder why I am bothering to spend so much effort trying fix something that was not broken in the first place. In my opinion, rather than making this article tidier, they have done the reverse, making it repetitive, full of unnecessary information and very hard to follow. I have not reverted these because I want to avoid an edit war, but I begin to fail to see how else to return to a quality article if these issues are not being discussed.--SabreBD (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sabred, I'm sorry you're frustrated by my edits. I have spent 3 days (I think) on trying to improve the article and I hoped you would take a look when I'm finished and maybe improve on what I've done, rather than just revert it all. An article would be very static and never evolve if no one's allowed to make edits. You say "...something that was not broken in the first place..." but I took a different view when I first read it and I was prompted to make changes. Would you please take a look now and compare it with an earlier one prior to my edits and tell me what you think? I have not edited beyond "Presbyterianism and Congregationalism". Thank you Titanis Walleri (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Coming in slightly late to this discussion as I've been away for a few days. As Sabrebd says, there is no rush to get this right. I've tried to re-balance the introduction. It needs to reflect the historical importance of Christianity, the recent decline in its practice and the growth of other faiths, and religious organisation across the UK. I've tried to take on board both the older version and some of Titanis' suggestions. But the problem is that the article as a whole is quite poor. For a start, the introduction should reflect and summarise the article as a whole, and not contain references itself. The article text should contain all the detailed information and the references - but it doesn't. Making major changes to the introduction without expanding the information in the article itself is the wrong way to go about it. In general terms, I fully endorse Sabrebd's approach here - but it would be good if the article as a whole could be improved by experts with a wider range of reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ghmyrtle, thanks for improving on my contributions, I appreciate that you didn't resort to reverting everything. I agree with Sabrebd also in that there is no rush, I was a just little concerned that nothing would be done maybe. I also agree with you in that the article is extremely poor but in my opinion, is now much better. What's your opinion on the article now? Better? Worse? What needs improving? Thank you Titanis Walleri (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Thanks for those comments Ghymrtle. I agree that the real problem is in the text of the article. My clean up some time ago largely consisted of removing repetition and trying to make the first part of the article make some sort of organisational sense, but there are still some serious problems with the main text (especially in the sections at the end on religion and society/politics etc). I am inclined to think that some of the issues over history are best solved by a short section at the beginning of the main article that could deal with these problems in a fairly nuanced way, which could then be briefly summarised in the lead. Unfortunately there is no History of religion in the United Kingdom article to summarise (probably with good reason) and I am aware from past experience that writing this in a way that can obtain consensus could be extremely difficult, but perhaps we could use the hard fought over summary at United Kingdom#Religion as a basis. I also have to reiterate that I am not happy about some of the recent changes to the statistical sections of the article, as these are now very hard to understand and navigate, which brings up back to sort of issues this article had some years ago, but I would like to sort out the more immediate problems of the beginning of the article before moving on to those.--SabreBD (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that United Kingdom#Religion is a good starting point. I must admit I haven't looked at the statistical sections yet, and I also confess that I won't be able to devote much time to this over the next few days, though I'll try and input when I can. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
"I am not happy about some of the recent changes to the statistical sections of the article, as these are now very hard to understand and navigate" - Sabrebd
Before I made any edits, statistics were not in chronological order and were very difficult to pick out as they were camouflaged into paragraphs. I have bullet pointed the important ones and quoted exactly what was being asked in the surveys. I have also made the important distinction between the Scottish census and those of England and Wales. In addition, statistics are now under the appropriate headings (there were statistics relating to religious affiliation in the 'Attendance' section for example). Before my edits, there were 5 paragraphs in the 'Attendance' section with just 2 relating to attendance. Also, prior to my edits, there were two paragraphs in the 'Belief' section and each said the same thing and made reference to the same poll. I have updated alot of the statistics, for example, the text made frequent reference to the 2007 BSA survey and I've updated to 2009. Until I made edits, there was no mention of the established church until close to the end of the article and references were made to the Anglican Communion when they should have been made to the Church Of England. Titanis Walleri (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose to make changes to the 'Religion and education' section. Currently, it claims RE is part of the national curriculum which is false (RE is required to be part of the syllabus and the content is decided by the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education). There is currently no mention of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, particularly sections 69, 70 and 71. Section 71 offers parents to opt their children out of RE and collective worship. Since 2005 in Scotland, schools have been required to tell parents of the opt out clause. Titanis Walleri (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Statistics were not in overall chronological order because they were organised by subject. I would say they were not camouflaged into paragraphs but organised into paragraphs. The bullet pointing is better than the large number of one sentence paragraphs that were in previous edits, but I am not sure this level of detail is needed. There was a repetition in the belief section, but it was one sentence and did not the entire paragraph. All that aside, it would we should certainly keep the updating and for me the bullet pointing may work better if we restore some of the introductory material, particularly at the beginning of the statistics section, which leaps in with a series of surveys at the moment. On the second point about updating the RE section, you should definitely update/correct if you have the reliable sources to support these points, although the issues may have been complicated a bit by the rise of academies and free schools from the situation in say 2005.--SabreBD (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sabrebd, if you have time, would you "restore some of the introductory material", see how it looks? With regards to Religious Education, I will rewrite it tonight or tomorrow. I know English and Welsh law in this area very well but not Scottish law unfortunately so I will have to research. Titanis Walleri (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I see you pulled me up in the Rock Music article. I will do that another time, but as it stands, '4/4 beat' just isn't right. Titanis Walleri (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I may have some stuff on Scottish education, so if you get stuck let me know. I will look at the introductory stuff tomorrow if I have time. Probably best not to discuss an article on another articles talkpage - it gets very confusing - so I will post on your talkpage about that.--SabreBD (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have been staring at the article for some days now and I still cannot find a way of making its organisation comprehensible to me. Can anyone suggest what the sub-heading of the first section in the "Statistics" section should be? It cannot just be statistics as that covers the entire section. If it is trying to outline the different surveys why does it give results as well?--SabreBD (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Adherence to religion"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that sounds much the same as affiliation or possibly belief.--SabreBD (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

History of religion in the UK[edit]

Can we please have a section summarising this? It strikes me as an important section and strange that it would be absent. (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am working on it.--SabreBD (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I have added a small section on history. Unfortunately, there is no "History of Religion in ..." article that can be summarised here.--SabreBD (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Crime and religion[edit]

What is the point of this section? It does not seem to contribute anything to the article.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would assume issues of morality. A common claim by religious people is that atheists and people without a belief in God lack morals, and only through God can people become 'good'. This shows that this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That seems to indicate it is there to make a point.--SabreBD (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This does not mean they went to prison because of their beliefs. Those in prison may be more inclined to claim or join a faith while in prison for various reasons.Dmm1169 (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(ie. being humbled & desire to change life, to gain religious privilages while in prison, etc.)
A fair point on the fact that prison might actually have an impact on religious affiliations. It doesn't really reveal anything and frankly seems rather random to me. If it is not random it is pointed. Why include this aspect of belief and not say, proportions of different religions in youth work or working in banks? I suggest that this doesn't add anything notable to the article and that we should remove it.--SabreBD (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Sabrebd. I don't think that this seems to be anything more than an effect of other demographic trends that relate separately to both religion and crime. An unnotable conjunction more than anything else. CMD (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that SabreBD (talk) thinks he owns this page. This has been the case for at least 2 years and contrary to the acceptable conduct of this website. If the Religion Vs Prison Population were not important, the Ministry Of Justice wouldn't spend tax payers money four times a year collecting this data from each and every prisoner. As the chart has been on this page for a long time, a case should be made to remove it, not a case made to keep it! Wikipedia provides imformation rich pages of almost every subject and as much relevant information as possible should be included. Titanis Walleri (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This is not about ownership, it is about getting a consensus for a change. The figure was added. It was not immediately reverted, but instead I opened this thread to discuss it. My reading of this thread is that there is not consensus for its inclusion. Editors were patient awaiting further comments and then it was removed. You have since re-added it, apparently without contributing to this discussion. You should not mistake patience by editors here as a de facto right for this change to be accepted. If you believe this should be added then you should focus your attention on presenting arguments for it here. To be clear on the issue you raise above, the argument that this is notable here, because the government spend money on the issue really does not follow. The government wastes immense amounts on all sorts of research, it doesn't mean they have to be included on a particular page if it is not notable, or is not being used in a neutral way.--SabreBD (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think I've seen anyone be able to make a simple edit to this page without you sticking your nose in, you can't help yourself. My point is, the data is official government data relevant to this page and there is no reason for it's removal. People want information in this day and age. If the chart is not what the reader is looking for, they just skip it. Titanis Walleri (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I have already responded to that argument, so I think the best way to settle this is to invite other editors to contribute to this discussion.--SabreBD (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll stick my nose in. I'm not convinced that a section on 'Religion and prison' is necessary to the article, but I see no harm in including it; It would be odd if such a section didn't mention the data on religion of prisoners, but I don't like that particular chart for both statistical and presentational reasons. First of all the case has not been made that it is appropriate to compare the prison statistics with BSA religion. Secondly the chart is not fit for purpose: (1) 1100px is too wide, it will cause horizontal scrolling in many browsers and even at that width the sector labels are virtually unreadable. (2) 3D pie charts distort angles and make it particularly difficult to compare proportions. (3) At full resolution there are serious compression artefacts. These problems could be avoided if we included the prison data in prose or in a simple table like those in the 'Statistics' section. Duncan Keith (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Well should I work om an alternative? It would be a shame not to include it, especially as it's publicly owned and rarely seen data. Titanis Walleri (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
How about...

Every three months, the Ministry of Justice collects data, including religious affiliation, of UK prisoners and is published as the Offender Management Caseload Statistics.[1] This data is then compiled in to reports and published in the House of Commons library. In June 2011 the prison population of England and Wales was recorded as 50% Christian, 13% Muslim, 2% Buddhist, 3% other religions and 31% no religion.[2]

...? Duncan Keith (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That, without the chart, looks fine to me. Much more balanced and less like it is making a point.--SabreBD (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Same here, either ditch the chart altogether or slice off the BSA survey and convert to a bar chart. Whatever, I think the Ministry Of Justice stats should be there to see. I even think Sunday Trading laws should get a mention somewhere. What do you think? Titanis Walleri (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


I removed the wikilinks and headings because they are unnecessary. Roman catholicism, protestatism, orthodoxy and not specific to the UK hence i see no need to highlight them. Pass a Method talk 16:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. Making a statement here does not mean you can repeat the change: you must get consensus first. As to the substance of the change: first of all, it is normal to have sub-headings and links of this sort on Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Summary style. As for the fact that they are not specific to the UK, well obviously not, but it is irrelevant. They are among the most significant religious groups in the country, the links are to article relevant to the UK and a long series of paragraphs is much harder to navigate.--SabreBD (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Offender management caseload statistics". Ministry of Justice. 2012. Retrieved 15 June 2012. 
  2. ^ "Ministry of Justice" (PDF).  (138 KB) Retrieved on 15 June 2012

UK Census 2011[edit]

People are making a dog's breakfast of this page. Please hold your horses! The first 2011 Census results for Scotland are only due for release on 19 December so we cannot update consolidated results here yet. All the countries have their own religion pages. I have updated Religion in Northern Ireland. Nobody has updated Religion in England or Religion in Wales. HelenOnline (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We only need a brief summary of the 2011 data for England and Wales. Please hang on for the full data before trying to change everything else.--SabreBD (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Sabrebd. Sorry, I did remove that E&W comment as well simply because it seemed to trigger all the other edits. I will try update the England and Wales pages today and Scotland next week. HelenOnline (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
That is no problem. I am happy to wait for the full results.--SabreBD (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The first 2011 results for Scotland are out and they do not include religion (see also news articles here and here). The second release of Scotland's 2011 results, which includes religion, is "planned on a rolling basis from summer 2013" (per offical source). I have edited the article in the meantime to include 2011 data for the UK countries for which religion stats are available. HelenOnline (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree to include out of date stats in the article when newer information is available is inappropriate and misleading. Surely it is more appropriate to include stats for England and Wales ancd indicate that consolidated stats will be avilable after the release of Scotland. Otherwise we really need to remove a lot of the existing content from the page as it is incredibly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misstinkafairy (talkcontribs) 10:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look at both stats tables, for 2001 and 2011. I have included all the latest available information. We cannot updated the consolidated stats for the whole of the UK until such time as that data is available, and changing the commentary stats to <whatever is available at the time of updating> is a recipe for disaster in the longer term not to mention the fact that each country has its own article anyway. HelenOnline (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Now that we have the 2011 data, are we going to keep the 2001 table for comparison or just delete it (and probably most of the references to it)?--SabreBD (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it as it shows a trend. Are we still waiting for 2011 Northern Ireland breakdown? HelenOnline 11:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Taking a quick look at what was released in 2012 I think they asked different questions. Respondents had to write in their religion if not a Christian denomination. Unless someone knows the answer, I will have to check whether there will be a further release, but in any case, it is not comparable with the other forms.--SabreBD (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I can check, but only next week (busy with WLM until month end). HelenOnline 13:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Lost citation link[edit]

The citation link of this quote is now gone. Should it be deleted?

This decline in church attendance has forced many churches to close down across the United Kingdom with the Church of England alone being forced to close 1,500 churches between 1969 and 2002. Their fates include dereliction, demolition and residential conversion.[1]


  1. ^ "findaproperty report on fate of churches". 2002. Retrieved 7 May 2012. 

State religion - UK[edit]

[Copied from my talkpage--SabreBD (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)]<br.> Hi. Rather than starting an edit war i thought i would contact you directly with regards to state religion in the UK. England is the paramount state in the United Kingdom with London being the capital of both England and the UK. The monarch of this country is QE2. She is the head of the Anglican church and as the ref provided on the aforementioned states she is the head of the latter. This being taken into account means that the state or "established religion" of the United Kingdom (and the commonwealth) is Anglican Christianity. The British political system is under ultimate executive power from the monarchy although this power is now somewhat limited. This again corroborates with the argument for state religion.25162995 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what it says in your source, because I cannot access that page, but although the UK has an established church within it, but that this does not apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a logical fallacy I am afraid to argue that what applies to England applies to the whole UK (and even more obviously to the Commonwealth), because it shares a monarch. The constitution was carefully developed so that this was explicitly not the case. The Anglican churches in Wales and Northern Ireland were actively disestablished. In Scotland some commentators see the Church of Scotland after 1921 as the national, but not established church, others see it as "established and free". The episcopal church is clearly not the established church. Clearly what goes in England does not apply elsewhere and this is, after all, an article about the UK, not England.--SabreBD (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Although the aforementioned churches are separate from the Anglican church this does not detract from the fact that the British monarch is a "constitutional monarchy" and therefore even if that monarch has less significance in its power over the political system it still retains the right to remove power from the political system (however unlikely the event of the latter may seem). As we know the established church in the country of England is the AnglicanCOE. The current queen of England is the Supreme Governor of the latter. The British people (and political system) who are all considered a part of the United Kingdom are subjects of the monarch and therefore through common law (regardless of de evolved British protestant movements) the UKs established church is the Anglican church by default. The latter is also backed up and corroborated by the Second Act of Supremacy 1559. When a separation of church and state occurs in the UK the established religion of the UK will cease to exist but at present this has not happened. 25162995 (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This strikes me as being original research. Can you point to a source that states that the Anglican church has this status furth of England? Ben MacDui 14:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. The ISBN is listed on the source in article (citation 1 i believe). Reading the original manuscript of the Second act of supremacy which should be available either online or in a local British library would be the second point of reference for a source and let us not forget the current monarch of the UK is both Head of the Church and Head of State which leads common sense to confirm the reasoning behind the fact of established religion in the UK. I believe a read of Anthony Bradleys dissertation on the subject will also show the complexity of the issue due to the unwritten nature of the united kingdoms "constitution" (if you could call it that) and he also covers the legal explanations of how the church cannot function autonomously at present due to the current legal standpoint that it (the established religion) is governed by state. It is also worth noting that whilst he refers to the Church of Scotland as the second established religion in the UK it is actually not legally considered such (the sources for my last sentence are present on the COS WP page. >>>>> bradley thesis >>>>> 25162995 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing in the Bradley thesis (and frankly more obviously reliable sources are easily available) to support your argument that the Church of England is the established church of the UK. In fact exactly the reverse, as he points to the constitutional situation for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as I outlined it above and as it is outlined in this article. I am afraid your argument that a constitutional monarch who is head of one church, de facto, imposes this on all realms is original research and not a basis for text in this encyclopedia.--SabreBD (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I can't read the former ref you suggest and I draw the opposite conclusion from the latter. On p. 745 for example, it says "The courts of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland are, because of their status as established churches..." Accepting that there are differences between the two situations I see nothing that supports your position that somehow the Anglican church has some kind of special status in Scotland. Furthermore, your view seems to contradict the provisions of the Act of Union 1707. In the absence of a credible source, I have to conclude that your "common sense" approach is simply synthesis. Ben MacDui 10:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be best if people read the source mentioned rather than suggesting that this is not possible as this is not reasonable grounds to discount a source based on your inability to obtain a copy of the latter. I would also reiterate the point made before that the Anglican church takes a direct role in the legislative lawmaking in the United Kingdom (state not nation) with specific roles given to Anglican ministers in the house of lords which is not extended to any other branch of Christianity or faith at present. With regards to the apparent dismissal of the dissertation by Bradley i would also suggest people simply provide sources which supersede/diminish the points made by the author of the latter. It is also suggested that the Anglican church has no special status in Scotland but this is apparently failing to take into account that the church of Scotland is not a "state church" and this can be seen on the citations of the COS WP page. It is stated that in Scotland, the "role of the Church of Scotland is formalised in law, primarily by the Church of Scotland Act 1921. However, the law provides for the church as the national church, but not the state church". The nation of Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom and this means that the Anglican church (of which QE2 is the defender of the faith)is the established church due to the UK being classed as a sovereign state. This information and its citations/sources can be located all over the WP pages for the aforementioned. This is not to say that subjects/citizens of the United Kingdom are bound by the religious status of the State. Religious freedoms of course exist with the introduction of the European Human rights act (and many minor laws attempting to supersede the king of law - law by precedent). If people are not happy with the wording of the lead i would suggest a rewording to better reflect the complexity of the issue so as to give the readers a clearer viewpoint. NOTE: with regards to the mention of the ACT OU1707 this act was again superseded by Church of Scotland Act 1921 which separated and granted "full independence of the Church(COS)" from nation (scotland) NOTE 2: User Sabrebd. Before blindly reverting the lead claiming WP:CON please take time to provide contradictory statements to the sources provided in the lead. You have attempted "kneejerk removal of sourced information possibly construed as NPOV. Also before reverts take place it is best to discuss these issues in a civil manner in talk rather than just randomly removing work giving the impression no one would notice. the latter usually leads to edit wars. 25162995 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It has been discussed here in a civil manner and I have considered the sources. Your argument is a clear case of original research and you have not managed to gain consensus for your case. Therefore under WP:BRD I have reverted it. You are free to make other arguments or present other evidence, but what you need to do is convince editors here that your case is valid or gain some form of compromise that they can accept. So far you have not done so, in such cases we revert to the status quo.--SabreBD (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mosque picture, again[edit]

This picture of the East London Mosque is used on many articles and has sometimes been the subject of low-level edit wars, some involving socks of Aldota. It's frequently captioned as being the first mosque in the EU (or sometimes in Europe) to broadcast the adhan, without evidence and contrary to sources. It's also a peculiarly nondescript picture dominated by the roofs of commonplace buildings. Why should we use it here, and why should it be used in so many articles to the exclusion of other mosques? NebY (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Because this is first masjid which was allowed to broadcast the adhan, but not the birmingham. You can also call to the mosques andbe sure about this. Moreover, this is a very famous mosque, where many ministers and notable people, footballer come to visit this mosque. Many muslims pray in this mosque, and a lot of funeral take place in this mosque. Then, EDL come to many times to protest against this mosque, but police and government always helped to protect this mosque. Many notable scholars give lectures in this mosque. World known imams visited this mosque. Then remember, this is only mosque in all europe where women have more spaces than men. Therefore this mosque must be included everywhere. (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the East London Mosque is very important. Should the photo be used to illustrate this article? No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Even if I did phone the mosques, my fellow editors here would not even simply trust that I wrote exactly what I'd been told, let alone that the people I'd spoken to knew the true situation and had described it to me accurately. Do read Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is a key part of deciding what we can include and how we use it. Of course, we don't include everything that's verifiable; this is an encyclopedia, not a complete library of everything, ever. See WP:ONUS.
I notice that when you changed the picture and the text, you kept the same reference that I provided, as if it confirmed your claim. It doesn't. NebY (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"It was against the law to be a Muslim in Britain until the Trinitarian Act in 1812."[edit]

"It was against the law to be a Muslim in Britain until the Trinitarian Act in 1812.[1]"

It this true? The page for the Trinitarian Act says that the Blasphemy Act, which the Trinitarian Act amended, only applied to Christians. The page for the Blasphemy act also says this. Thus, the passing of the Trinitarian would have had no effect on the legality of Islam. Currently the only source for this claim is a very partisan speech by a muslim scholar where he compares the tolerance of Islamic societies with the intolerance of Christian societies. A more neutral, academic source would be appreciated for this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an accurate snippet from the cited supporting source. The Blasphemy Act 1697 article says that the act made it an "offence for any person, educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion" to deny the Trinity or the truth of Christianity. The text of the act bears this out. How about redoing this something like the following:

The Blasphemy Act of 1697 made it an offense for any person educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion to deny the Trinity or the truth of Christianity.[2] This is sometimes characterized as having made it illegal to be a Muslim in Britain until the Trinitarian Act in 1812.[3]

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ British and Muslim?, Abdal Hakim Murad
  2. ^ "An Act for the more effectual suppressing of Blasphemy and Profaneness". Statutes of the Realm: Volume 7, 1695-1701 William III, 1697-8: . [Chapter XXXV. Rot. Parl. 9 Gul. III. p.6.n.4.] British history Online. p. 409.  External link in |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ British and Muslim?, Abdal Hakim Murad

Claim re East London Mosque is not in the reference cited[edit]

AHLM13 has cited Kratke's Transnationalism and Urbanism (p 145) for a claim that had been disputed before both here and on other talk pages. The same editor has recently used that citation in several articles: London, Islam in England, Islam in the United Kingdom, Religion in England, Religion in the United Kingdom and East London Mosque. The reference does not support the claim, that the East London Mosque was "the first mosque in the European Union to be permitted to broadcast the adhan" - it just briefly recounts disputes over allowing the adhan in 1986. On being reverted, the editor has re-inserted the claim, a claim which does not even appear on the mosque's comprehensive website yet seems to be being used to give the mosque (and a particular image of the mosque) priority on Wikipedia over all other UK mosques. I will remove the claim again and ask AHLM13 not to repeat it without a source which clearly and directly states it. NebY (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In that absence of a reliable source that seems the only logical course.--SabreBD (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead section - history?[edit]

I would argue that the lead section should at least mention in passing the Scottish Enlightenment or European Enlightenment rather than just "Post-Christian"

Also it seems strange to include a reference on a 2011 YouGov survey on religion being claimed to be a source of "religious conflict" without mention of the English Civil War or European wars of religion in influencing Enlightenment ideas about secularism.

Seems a little focussed on recent survey results without the longer view of history and how European history influenced Enlightenment ideals that are possibly reflected in society today.-- Callinus (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and polls[edit]

Two unregistered editors (presumably the same one) have ([16], [17]) changed the article to state that "the vast majority of citizens (59% in England & Wales) identify as Christians", and, that "this is is in stark contrast to census and poll data" [emphasis added] - text not supported by the reference. I reverted, as User:Callinus previously had done. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Religion in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 19:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sex abuse[edit]

Sadly sex abuse happens in many denominations and is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church. Cover-ups, blaming the victim, sexism and failure to take complaints seriously are also common. Probably mostly adults are victims.

From Protestants can no longer dismiss abuse as a ‘Catholic problem’.

This should be in Wikipedia somewhere. Where? Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Outdated Data[edit]

This is just a question, but I see that there is data available from both 2011 and a more detailed study from 2012. However all the charts, maps, tables are based around the older out-dated data. Surely the charts and diagrams should be based on the more recent, more detailed data? Is there a reason for this rather misleading discrepancy Py0alb (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Which charts are you talking about? The 2011 census is used.--SabreBD (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. The 2012 data revealed just how misleading the 2011 data was. Py0alb (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Statistics#Surveys section[edit]

The last sentence of the section states: "A 2015 study estimated some 25,000 believers in Christ from a Muslim background, most of whom belong to an evangelical or Pentecostal community." The source is here. But, setting aside the point that the sentence is ungrammatical, it strikes me as very odd to use the term "believers in Christ" as though it were unexceptional and clear in meaning. To me, it isn't - in what sense are they "believers"? That he existed, that he was divine in some sense... etc.. I realise it is the term used in the source, where I don't see it explained (though I admit I haven't combed through every word), but in an encyclopedia it surely requires either a clearer wording, a link to an article about the term, or a footnote saying that the source does not explain what the term means. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Coronation of British monarchs[edit]

Ns 2 reverted this edit, but I cannot tell why. WP:SPECIFICLINK indicates that the link should be, well, specific. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the edit, assuming good faith, due to the absence of the newly referenced page - hence, anyone attempting to access said referenced link would fail to do. I apologise for any misunderstandings or inconvenience caused. ns_2 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)