Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:52, 17 July 2014

Russia: Religion Start‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force.

Religion Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Percentages

Shouldn't we get percentages?68.108.115.69 10:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Other religions: Assyrian

I delinked this because it goes to a disambiguation page. If this refers to the Assyrian Church of the East it should be piped and put under one of the Christian categories. --Steven J. Anderson 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

About Neopagans

According to a 2005 research of the University of California, today there are about 9 million Neopagans divided between the populations of Russia and Ukraine. If we assume the presence of 9 million Neopagans in Russia, they should make up the 6.3% of the entire population.

This is wrong. The paper (Adrian Ivakhiv, In Search of Deeper Identities: Neopaganism and Native Faith in Contemporary Ukraine, Nova Religio 8.3, University of California Press, 2005) don't refers of 9 million of neopagans, but only:

the number of witches killed during the Inquisition was closer to 50,000 than to the nine million some had claimed (p. 29)

(sorry for my poor english, read it's easy but write...)--Robertoreggi 17:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What figure to cite

There is apparently a distinction between people who believe in religion in Russia and people who practice it. I think think that the latter should be the "main" figure used in the article. According to the World Factbook, only 10-15% of the Russian population practice Russian orthodoxy

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html#People

If you just glance through the introduction, you see that "63% of respondents considered themselves Russian Orthodox" which might give the wrong impression that Russia is more religious than it really is. The author of this article uses that much higher number of believers as the figure that appears in the introduction and then just makes the fact that many of them are not practicing this religion a caveat. I think it should probably be the other way around, since that is what the CIA World Factbook, which is an authoritative source, does.SlaterDeterminant (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The best would be to cite both figures and to explain what exactly they mean. We shouldn't be making an interpretation of which figure is "more correct" or "more important"; that is something up to our readers to decide. We should, however, disclose all stats and associated caveats to aide in that decision. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:17, May 29, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the CIA World Factbook is definetly not a source, which you can get correct statistics about Russia from. First - it's politically engaged. Second - it doesn't have any reliable sources and doesn,t conducts any researches in Russia, so all its numbers based on estimates and assumptions. I think Rosstat or VTSIOM are way more credible data sources. VTSIOM (All-Russian Center of Society Opinion Research)for example gives proportion of Orthodox believers of around 75%. However the numbers given by CIA is complete non-sense. I've been noticing that the Factbook always marks down positive indexes about Russia and overstsates negative ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Челдон (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The factbook makes a note distinguishing practicing worshipers and non-practicing believers. This correlates with available poll data on the fact that of the Russians who declared themselves Christian, those who regularly practice their religion amount to around 2-5%. This is already covered in the "Sociological approaches" section. --illythr (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes to be made in the Islam section

In the article it says "Thence, the federal subjects of Russia with an absolute majority (more than 50%) are Kabardino-Balkaria (55%) and Dagestan (51%). Significant percentages (over 5%) can be found in Karachay-Cherkessia (48%), Bashkortostan (38%), Tatarstan (32%), Yamalia (17%), Adygea (12%), Astrakhan Oblast (14%), Orenburg Oblast (11%) and Yugra (6%)"
However, according to the source, this should be:

• Kabardino-Balkaria - (5% Sunni + 1% Shia + 49% Unaffiliated) = 55%, same as that given in the article.
• Dagestan - (49% + 2% + 10%) = 61% (In the article given as 51%)
• Karachay-Cherkessia - (13% + 1% + 34%) = 48%, same as that given in the article.
• Bashkortostan - (2% + 0% + 38%) = 40%
• Tatarstan - (2% + 1% + 31%) = 34%
• Yamalia - (4% + 1% + 13%) = 18% (There is a large disparity with Russian Census of 2002. This is because the survey took in to account the illegal immigrants employed in the oil and natural sector of Yamalia, who are mostly Azeris)
• Adygea - (2% + 1% + 11%) = 14%
• Astrakhan Oblast - (3% + 1% + 11%) = 15%
• Orenburg Oblast - (2% + 0% + 12%) = 14%
• Yugra - (5% + 1% + 6*%) = 12%
• Ingushetia - Definitely much more religious than Dagestan. Should be around 80-90%.
• Chechenya - Should be 90%+ Axxn (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I missed out some of the small percentages. However, Dagestan is 4%+ non-denominational-Muslim, not 10%, so the total is ~55%, and for Yugra the same, and the total is ~10%.--188.10.92.249 (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Article locked

Based on the continuing edit-warring content dispute, I have locked the article for 3 days. I strongly urge the involved editors to discuss the dispute on the talk page and seek dispute resolution if the dispute cannot be resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Detailed Information

Accurate information can be found here (Second Map, 4th Column in top) Axxn (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

2007 surveys demographics

Is it relevant for the page to give such a big importance to this Internet surveys? It only shows the religious affiliations of the Russian population using the Internet in 2007, as it's said, and the figures differ a lot from the ones for the total population. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I will remove this section because it appears to be outdated, not reliable and misleading (Russian population using the Internet). JimRenge (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this so called estimate or complete maddness. Orthodoxy, the traditional religion of Russia outnumbered by followers of Rodism? Jews outnumbering as many as 10 million Muslims? Huhh!Septate (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that assumptions should not be made according to what appears (POV) to be wrong and might appear to be right. In the first instance, factoring in that more of the population is irreligious than religious, it is entirely likely that the largest numbers of irreligious peoples are to be found amidst Russian Eastern Slavic populations who would have 'traditionally' been Russian Orthodox. The same may apply to ethnic groups who were 'traditionally' Muslim. As regards the numbers of Jews, the concept of Jewishness is far more complex than that of other religions as it represents an ethnicity, therefore irreligious Jews may still identify as being Jewish. Adhering to statistics (through secondary sources), not personal impressions or various internet polls possibly working on the premise that everyone has a religious affiliation, is encyclopaedic. The point is to examine the sources for any inbuilt bias, polling techniques, etc. If the polling methodology is not transparent, or is run by dubious sources they should be examined per WP:QUESTIONABLE. In some cases, where the polling technique is described, they can be used per WP:BIASED so long as attribution is clear within the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this census reliable?

The census mentioned in the article states that only 6.5% of the population is Muslim.

This census does not include statistics about religion in Chechnya and Ingushetia which are traditionally Muslim majority republics and home to at least 2 million Muslims (If 90% of the population is considered as Muslim, which seems likely because they are conservative societies). If a person is not mad then 2 million people are not insignificant for him. What really disturbs me is that exclusion of Chechnya and Ingushetia from census only impacts Muslim population in Russia. There are few Russians in these republics, therefore there in no impact on orthodox population. The only other federal subject that was not included in census was Nenetsia autonomous okrug (probably has orthodox majority), but its population is less then 50,000, so it is insignificant. Furthermore, other reliable and highly reputable sources severely contradict these census when it comes to Muslim population.

• BBC gives a Muslim population of 16 million.
• CIA gives an estimate of 10-15% Muslims.
• Pew research centre gives a Muslim population of 10%.

Among these pew research source is most recent one (2010) and its method of collecting data using samples is similar to the above mentioned census. Keeping in mind the above mentioned reliable sources, 6.5% figure is exceptionally low.

My humble suggestion is that pew estimates should be used instead of this census. The statistics of the above mentioned census should only be used on individual federal subjects i.e oblasts because this census is important for individual federal subjects and not whole Russia because it does not cover all 83 federal subjects.Septate (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Arena Atlas of Religions and Nationalities of the Russian. is is not a census. It is a survey of 56,900 people - it uses a sampling to be representative. It gives a figure of 6.53%.

Pew Research Center, Table: Religious Composition by Country, in Percentages gives a 10% figure, but it is unclear how that figure was arrived at. Arena Atlas is in that respect much better.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment above, there are certainly sources that can be used despite being WP:BIASED but, given that I've carefully gone through the Pew site in order to establish how the figures were arrived at and have, like Toddy1, not found any information, I'd eliminate their statistics as being unreliable. The Arena Atlas, on the other hand, does describe 500-600 surveyed per region and seems fine for use so long as it is attributed (even if only via an inline notation). Encyclopaedic articles - particularly articles of this nature - do not have to claim or stand by an absolute figure as long as the reader understands where variations in figures have come from and we have cite checked as honestly as possible. The primary concern is to avoid choosing to prefer certain figures over others for POV purposes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As an addendum, my personal position on Pew and other 'research' centres is that they have a place, but should be treated with great care. Having worked with statistical analysis via a top ranking university's Economics department specialising in questionnaires, I know that many questionnaire techniques used by supposedly reputable institutions work on template formulas that aren't carefully and specifically tailored for the type of data they are trying to collate. In other words, they are fundamentally flawed or, at the least, seriously compromised (leading, confusing, leaving too much room to manoeuvre or not enough room for the person being questioned to manoeuvre, etc.). Further to that, having encountered much of their output being used in various articles, their sample groups are invariably too small, and no indication is given as to how the subjects were selected other than 'randomly'. Randomly as they left work at a particular factory? Randomly during the day while they were shopping and having lunch in a well-to-do area? 'Randomly' is not an objective term unless it is clearly defined. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy,Toddy1

Following link is useful regarding methodology of PEW.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

It states that The study is based on a country-by-country analysis of data from more than 2,500 national censuses, large-scale surveys and official population registers that were collected, evaluated and standardized by the Pew Forum’s demographers and other research staff. This shows that pew is much reliable compared to Arena atlas. Furthurmore, my initial question remained unaswered. Arena Atlas cannot be a reliable source because it does not include estimates for Chechnya, Ingushetia and nenetsia autonomous okrung!PEW on the other hand is much reliable because its estimates cover Russia's 83 federal subjects.Septate (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

According to Pew (details of their methodology by country), "Religious identity is sometimes linked to ethnic identity, particularly for religious minorities. In a small number of countries where the census did not measure religious affiliation or where survey data on religious affiliation had sampling limitations, researchers used ethnicity data to estimate the religious affiliation of small groups. For example, ethnicity data from the 2002 Russian census was used together with 2005 Generations and Gender Survey data to estimate the proportion of Muslims in Russia. The survey did not adequately sample the country’s predominantly Muslim areas but it did provide information on the share of Muslims within ethnic groups associated with Islam. This information, combined with census ethnicity data, was used to adjust the Muslim composition estimate in regions the survey sampled inadequately." To be honest, I'm dubious of this methodology as it makes assumptions about minority populations according to preconceived notions as to their actually being adherents to a 'traditional' faith. There is far more in the way of 'guestimation' than the Arena study. Nor does it provide an enumeration of the ethnic groups. (FYE: The downloadable PDF for methodology is exactly the same as the HTML online version.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna HarpySorry,but your point is baseless. Eurobarometer shows that a minority of Britons believe in god but interestingly census showed that majority are Christians. Is there a Christianity with out god?Obviously Not! There main reason is because it is part of there culture. Arena atlas says that it has not included chechnia and Ingushetia in its estimates meaning that 2 million possible Muslims were excluded. It can't be reliable. When it comes to PEW it is much reliable because it has estimate for whole russia and there is nothing wrong with it. A lot of religion related articles on wikipedia use it as the main source. Arena atlas estimates can be used on individual oblast articles and interestingly it is already present there. Most of the oblast articles have a section dedicated to religion e.g., Magadan Oblast. But it can't be used as the main statistics for Russia as a whole.Septate (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Iryna Harpy and Toddy1, the Arena Atlas is the most recent (2012) and most reliable survey available. It is a large-scale survey based on interviews with 56,900 people from different federal states and should be preferred to Pew Research estimates based on ethnic groups. CIA is not a neutral source because one of their aims is to influence public opinion. Septate, your choice of sources of statistical data in the past (Islam/religion in country xy) appears to be dubious. Misplaced Pages adheres to a policy of a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV and we should avoid WP:CHERRYPICKING. JimRenge (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks JimRenge for your opinion. But can please explain how can Arena atlas be a reliable when it is not including Muslim majority republics of Chechnia and ingushetia? Furthermore, Christiansciencemonitor, reuters and BBC are neutral sources. Christiansciencemonitor gives an estimate of 20% for Muslims. BBC estimates 16 million Muslims and Reuters gives an estimate of 14%. Should we prefer arena atlas over these sources which is unable to cover Russia's 83 federal subjects?Septate (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate, I wish you would be more precise about sources. We cannot read what they say if you do not do that.

It is hard to be precise without proper data. For example, Svanberg and Westerlund's Islam Outside the Arab World page 410 says: "Moscow, the capital of the Russian Federation, is believed to have a Muslim population of around 10 per cent of the total population." But the Arena survey credits Moscow with population of 3.50% practising Moslems, and Moscow Oblast with 2.12% practising Moslems. Arena's real data would seem vastly more reliable than Svanberg and Westerlund's estimate.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have found a 2005 BBC article claiming 10% Moslems in Russia, and predicting that "by 2020 one out of five Russians will be Muslim." This is why you need proper data like Arena's. Throwaway alarmist statements go down well in news stories; they are often untrue.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source

I have removed "Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source, since p418 did not mention the statements it was being cited as a source for. Page 418 concerns Azerbaijan. The book was being cited for the 6.5% Muslims in Russia statement in the text. It was also being cited for a statement about Ahmadis.

<ref name="ahmadi">{{cite book | url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jTVjWTllOGgC&pg=PA418&dq&hl=en&sa=X&ei=upGtU7K9LcPQ7Abl6ID4DQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false | title=Islam Outside the Arab World | publisher=Routledge | author=Ingvar Svanberg, David Westerlund | page=418 | isbn=0-7007-1124-4 | accessdate=June 27, 2014}}</ref>

--Toddy1 (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot dear Toddy1. This book source was cited only for ahmadis.This link was added by peaceworld111. Has has been deceiving me and other users using book sources because I cannot verify book sources. His main purpose is to mention ahmadis on every religion and Islam related article by any means. Hey Iryna Harpy look at this. You were a major supporter of this user.Septate (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: Allow me to refresh your memory regarding my 'support' of the user you have named on this article talk page, as well as the circumstances under which this so-called 'support' was rendered here, here and here. Allow me to remind you (yet again) about WP:TE, and that your edits and personal attacks don't just disappear because you delete them (per this as just one of many examples of attacks on editors). You now have a long-standing track record of treating Misplaced Pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND for your WP:POV pushing. I suggest that you drop the stick and learn to exercise discretion before you land in the middle of an ANI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy.Ok. I am sorry but at least you should realize that I was not wrong when I asked that this user should provide those sources which every one can verify and not book sources.Septate (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I know it can be frustrating, but Misplaced Pages encourages the use of scholarly resources and paywall online journals and newspapers, even if they are not freely accessible to the public. Sometimes, we simply have to take it as WP:AGF that the citation is valid. Having checked the source, I see that the page in question is not available as a public resource on Google books, and assume that Toddy1 has access to JSTOR or a hard copy of the source in order to positively identify that there is no such assertion on pg 418 (or one of the pages near it, as sometimes the wrong page is cited). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna Harpy. Now please tell me what should I do about rest of religion related articles. There are a lot of articles where user peaceworld has used book sources in order to add info regarding ahmadis. There is no proof that they are true or simply fake just like the above mentioned example.Septate (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: Repeating what I said here, stop harassing Peaceworld111. --NeilN 18:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:NeilN, thank you for your comment.--Peaceworld 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

dear Toddy1, it was me who added the source and it was not intended to be a source for the 6.5% figure. Although the section in the source is about Azerbaijan, the relevant paragraph actually discusses about Soviet Russia in general.--Peaceworld 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Which statements in the article is it a source for?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Toddy1, please don't trust User:Peaceworld111. This source was used for ahmadis only. Arena atlas already states that Muslims are 6.5% of the population. He added the source and ahmadis at the same time. See history of the article.Septate (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Start-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance Start-Class Russia articles
• Start-Class Russia (religion) articles
• Religion in Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles