Talk:Religion in Europe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intro[edit]

"Religion in Europe spans the approximately 50,000 years of human settlement in the continent of Europe, from the earliest prehistoric spirituality to later pagan religions, such as the Ancient Greek, Roman and Nordic faiths, to the spread of the Abrahamic religions. Europe has a rich and diverse religious history, and its various faiths have been a major influence on European art, culture, philosophy and law. In modern times, the overwhelming majority (over 95%) of Europeans are Christian, of which nearly half are Catholic; the second-largest religion in Europe is Judaism, followed by Islam. Europe also has the largest number and proportion of irreligious, agnostic and atheistic people in the Western world, with a particularly high number of self-described non-religious people in Scandinavia."

Well, this introduction is liberally salted with nonsense. There's no way that Judaism is more prevalent than Islam for example - regardless of how you define Europe. And 'over 95%' Christian? No way. I'll fix when I've got a minute.--Nydas 17:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source of all of that data is the Catholic Encyclopedia, which was used because detailed statistics of religions in Europe are surprisingly sparse online. I welcome any attempts to find other, more reliable references. -Silence 17:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That data's truly ancient...
There aren't many solid sources of information on religions in Europe for a number of reasons. The first is that 'Europe' is fairly ill-defined - it can mean just the EU, or include Turkey, or not include Russia. The second is that European countries all collect religious information differently, and some do not collect it at all. Then you've got the problem with Europeans that are nominally members of a religion, but seldom, if ever, engage in worship. And then there's the various national churches.
I suppose statistics could be cobbled together from various media reports and government studies (and even that would be better than century-old data), although it might count as original research. For a start, the BBC has some information on Muslims in Europe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4385768.stm
Although even that is incomplete, ignoring Russia and several other countries. The CIA Factbook might have some stuff as well (alas it's down for me at the moment). Given the paucity of information, this article is probably going to have to take a relaxed approach to sourcing, and explain the reasons for the lack of info.--Nydas 19:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The first is that 'Europe' is fairly ill-defined - it can mean just the EU, or include Turkey, or not include Russia." - The "Religion in Europe" article, like "Religion in Africa", "Religion in Asia", etc., should be subdivided by continent (as traditionally defined), not by organization or politics. So the membership of the European Union, which is economic and political more than geographic, is not directly significant here, though it may be germaine to include a paragraph on the European Union (or other Europe-wide organizations) if they relate to religion in some significant way. Turkey and Russia should both be considered European countries, at least for the purposes of this page, for the same reason they're both in in Category:European countries, though one could make a case for covering Russia in both "Religion in Europe" and "Religion in Asia". I also strongly recommend consulting [1] (and the Europe article itself), a very useful image for these purposes.
"The second is that European countries all collect religious information differently, and some do not collect it at all." - I agree that that complicates matters—unless we simply report on that fact, and provide the best stats available (properly referenced) with the disclaimers that X or Y complicating factors prevents completely accurate data. That's why the solution to this problem is to get more references and add more data to the page; if we do so, we don't need to worry about questions of which stats to pick and choose from and which countries to consider European and non-European, as we can simply rely on our references for those decisions and not violate WP:NOR to try to have Wikipedia itself establish certain geographic or religious boundaries.
"Then you've got the problem with Europeans that are nominally members of a religion, but seldom, if ever, engage in worship." - Why is this a problem in Europe anymore than it's a problem in any other part of the world? Plenty of religions don't even require "worship" (Buddhism?), and if there are separate stats on religious practices/activeness vs. personal religious beliefs, that'd also be valuable and relevant to this page. The trick is to find references, and where they're lacking, to note such on the page.
"And then there's the various national churches." - I don't understand why this complicates or confuses matters either. A section on the religious affiliations of certain nations would certainly be relevant information to add, as distinct from any data on the religious beliefs of individual Europeans.
"I suppose statistics could be cobbled together from various media reports and government studies (and even that would be better than century-old data)," - I agree.
"although it might count as original research." - Why would it count as original research? It would only be original research if we drew new conclusions from existing research, or fabricated new statistics; if all we're doing is taking pre-existing stats and presenting them in a more organized, centralized way (which is pretty much what Wikipedia's all about: re-presenting information in a tidy little package), that's no more original research than writing new text on Wikipedia at all is. If there are holes in the data or some of it's older than others, we can simply note such in the text. Heck, if the Catholic stats are merely out-of-date, not all that inaccurate, we could even include those in the page (though probably not in the lead section), along with other historical statistics for religion in Europe.
"Given the paucity of information, this article is probably going to have to take a relaxed approach to sourcing," - That's odd, I feel we should do exactly the opposite. Because of the complicated, disputable, and often opaque nature of information on religious beliefs in Europe, it's all the more important to use citations heavily and to stick only to existing data. Or at least, we should aim to do so in the long run; right now, the article's little more than a stub, so expansion should be a high priority, though accuracy is obviously the top one. -Silence 19:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the Asian parts of Turkey and Russia should be considered part of Europe for the article, mainly because it will give a drastically misleading number of Muslims. There are about 35 million Muslims in geographic Europe - including all of Turkey and Russia will see that figure rise to about 100 million. I would argue that the lower figure is the most correct one. And you're probably right about the nature of the article. However, I would not consider the Catholic stats accurate in the least - they're from before the First World War. Historical value only.--Nydas 15:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism in Europe?[edit]

Not a note on the Republic of Kalmykia in the Russian Federation, Europe's only Buddhist nation? I'll add a small section later. -- Walshicus 14:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal[edit]

84% Catholic in 2001 Census [2] and less then 19% weekly attendance according to the Church. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.26.188.44 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

My editing is such that a sentence is sourced by the reference(-s) directly behind it. Please follow the same pattern. I assume that sentences without a references directly behind them are unsourced and hence suspect. Thanks in advance. Andries 02:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Professional homepage of the editor of the book that I used See Hans Knippenberg. Andries 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam subsection[edit]

Muslims ruled Spain (not just Andalusia) and some of Southern France for nearly 750 years. Is this not considered a part of European "tradition"? Indeed the Islamic influence is still very prevalent in many regions of Spain, particularly Andalusia as mentioned. Perhaps a slight wording change is in order?

Didn't the Muslims rule Sicily too for a while? But anyway, did the ordinary population of these places ever become Muslim? —Angr 10:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though Muslims did conquer far into Europe in the 8th century, they didn't "rule Spain and some of Southern France for nearly 750 years." They quickly lost most of their more northern territories--Barcelona, for instance, was reconquered by the Franks less than a century after it had fallen to the Moors. Saragossa was in Moorish hands for about 400 years. Only Andalusia was under Moorish control for anything approaching 750 years.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Europe[edit]

I see there is an Islam in Europe article but not a Christianity in Europe article. This is an article on Religion in Europe not Christianity in Europe. I shall make some sort of a start on Christianity in Europe. Please any one else contribute. thanks. Vexorg 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map[edit]

...is quite awful (no offense intended to the maker). I suggest its temporary removal. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

table[edit]

has anyone else realised that none of the percentages in her table add up. some of them are even 10% off the 100 required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.166.239 (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Turkish bias in 2005 Eurobarometer poll graphic?[edit]

I've commented on the apparent bias here. Tomertalk 04:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC) I think it should be mentioned that church attendance increases considrably during July & August (especially in France & Germany).The cause has been found to be people praying for another Hurricane Katrina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.254.196 (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why is Turkey even included in this article? It's not Europe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.126.251 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Turkey is not even in Europe, both geographically, ESPECIALLY culturally - not in Europe or European. They are Asian and in the continent of Asia. They should get their cultural, historic and geographical facts straight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.190.62 (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm http://www.coe.int/t/dc/files/presidences-sessions-cm/presidences/Turkey/default_en.asp thats what i wanted to say! ;) i am Polish, and Turkey is part of European Community as much as Poland ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.176.2 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Layout[edit]

Any ideas on what to do with the layout of this article? The plethora of graphics results in images of mosques being positioned next to Judaism. Should we, for instance, reduce the number of graphics, and/or make a gallery across the page for the statistics?--Boson (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Europe religion map[edit]

User "Ruud64" has removed the map shown at the right. I think it is a useful map, but agree that it needs references to back it up. It appears to be accurate and supports most of the information found in the article. Can the user (or anyone else) provide an information on how he or she made the map? --Thorwald

A map that is showing a picture without any backup / any source data has no place in wiki.so please remove until this is properly sourced
Ruud64 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a source the map should indeed be removed.
Grsd (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused why this map has been continually removed without discussion from this article. It may have some flaws, but once religion map situation 1950 en.png discovered, they are corrected and the map is all the better for it. The sources for the map appear to come from the individual country articles. I plan to return this map to the article, unless someone can provide a clear reason why not to. --Thorwald (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is sufficient for references to be provided in other articles; they need to be copied here. If the image contains factual errors, they also need correcting before the image is re-inserted. --Boson (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with this map. Ruud64 appears to be removing it purely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT without even explaining why it is they don't like it. It is extremely easy to provide references for any given detail on the map. Of course, since the map has 1,473 × 1,198 pixels, it isn't reasonable to ask for "references" for the entire map, i.e. potentially 1,764,654 references to substantiate the colour of each pixel. Say which bit of the map you find dubious, and we'll focus on presenting references for that (or fix the map if it turns out it has some minor mistake). --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is very little, as far as I can tell, that is wrong with this map. There are far too many references/sources to point to when backing up each turn in the map. It is a useful map, as it condenses the entire continent into one image (with respect to religion in the region). If someone has a specific part of the map they find incorrect, let us know and we will update the map accordingly. --Thorwald (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I have compiled a list of subnational detail shown on the map, here. Now please point out which items exactly you are disputing so we can actually have a discussion. Also, I suggest this discussion should take place at commons:File_talk:Europe_religion_map.png. Now this is an overview map shown as a thumbnail. Of course the real situation is infinitely more complicated. It cannot be the purpose of this map to show this level of detail. Of course the image needs references. Most features of the map are so straightforward it can be left as an exercise to the student to find the references. E.g. "Poland has a Roman Catholic majority". Go to Religion in Poland. Nobody in their right mind would dispute this. The same goes for most of the area shown in the map. It will only make sense to focus on the more difficult detail. Case in point, nobody has yet asked for a reference for individual pixels at File:Observable Universe with Measurements 01.png. This is because it is intended as an overview map giving a visual help to grasping the overall situation. Whether the Hungarian minority in Transylvania should be shown five pixels more to the left or the right isn't a constructive discussion relative to the intended scope of the map. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I think you have done an excellent job at listing the references/sources for this map. Also, as you rightly pointed out, very few other maps on Wikipedia (+Commons) have such demands placed upon them. --Thorwald (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked some of these sources , one is describing the religious situation in the German Empire about 1895. Red and pink areas are predominantly Protestant, blue areas predominantly Catholic. Does someone really want to show the situation of 1895 in a map showing nowadays country borders? Does anyone have a source for Germany ? In several Eastern Germany states % protestants has dropped to well below 20 % so anyway what is the point in showing these as predominant protestant ?
Grsd (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What, according to the map, is the religious affiliation of the majority of the population in the (differently coloured) parts of Germany (e.g. Brandenburg), and what is the source for this information? --Boson (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the information seems to come from this map, which is partially based on this page, containing information to make up each part of Germany, as in this case for Brandenburg. --Thorwald (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Talking about referencing every pixel is inappropriate; there is no problem with a map that clearly illustrates things included (and sourced) in the text of the same article, but this is not the case here. The article you mention, de:Evangelische Kirche Berlin-Brandenburg-schlesische Oberlausitz, states that the church has 1.22 million members out of a population of 6.0 million. That is not what is normally thought of as predominant. A map that ignores the majority of the population that has no religious affiliation is extremely misleading. This is anything but "straightforward". Similar considerations apply to other German states. If it is "extremely easy to provide references for any given detail on the map", it should be easy to find proper references for all states of Germany, including the states of the former East Germany. To avoid misleading the reader, the map should also show where the predominant religious affiliation is "none". Perhaps the style of map used at de:Religionen in Deutschland would be less misleading and make it easier to verify the data.--Boson (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with above comment that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles especially with all the "translation errors". For example the Germany colouring is based on a comparison between the EKD and the catholic church and simply translated in a comparison between protestants and catholics. Naturally when only comparing part of the protestants with all catholics the comparison is in favor of catholics. For the Netherlands the bias is the other way around where actually protestants make up around 15 % and catholics nearly the double, large areas where catholics outnumber protestants are now portrayed as being protestant.
However besides the factual mistakes (and more are actually listed on the relevant common map talk page) my biggest concern is that there is no up to date source for the data used (misleadingly the map does not mention at all that an historic view is presented rather than a current one), refer the common map (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_religion_map.png ) that is listing a range of WIKIPEDIA sources several 10 years old years.

As there is no proper (up to date) source for this map it should not be used. Ruud64 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should source such maps, but I think the sourcing should be at the image file page; as that would make the map usable across wikipedia, without having the problematic intra-wiki referencing. The problem is that there does not appear to be much structure for adding reliable sources to picture files. Perhaps something for the village pump? (I made a suggestion here at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Sourcing_of_image_files Arnoutf (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A late addition, I was triggered by one of the references added by Dbachmann (by the way a pretty good start I would say to start listing the sources for the colors as used).
In this case the Karte Religionen der Schweiz 2008 suggesting the data is from 2008 but actually the map was made prior to 2008 so I googled and found recent data (2010) for kanton zurich at http://www.zh.kath.ch/publikationen/arbeitspapiere/wohnbevoelkerung-der-gemeinden-nach-der-konfession-am-31-dezember-2010-amtsblatt/amtsblatt-nr-11-2011/file. The data as just published is not in line with the map, Zurich itself is "predominant" catholic as per the definition used for this map but catholics are considerably less than the others , in other areas of the kanton zurich the number of catholics is pretty much the same as the number of protestants and in only one area protestants are more than 50 % not aligned at all with what the Karte Religionen der Schweiz 2008 is showing so I wonder on what data the color scheme has been based. I would suggest that for areas such as these in Switzerland and for others in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK where the number of catholics and protestants (anglicans) are pretty much the same to use a different color. A comment that has been popping up on other discussion pages is actually asking for a different color for the anglican part of the UK to make a distinction between the anglican religion and the protestant religion
Ruud64 (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The division of Europe between catholicism (blue), protestantism (purple) and orthodox Christianity (red). [citation needed] {{image hoax}}
The map is a hoax and it is not (and has not been for years) backed up by any data source. Requests to fix the many many mistakes (refer discussion above and much more extensively on the talk page of this map) have been left unanswered. In several cases for years now (2012). In my view this is a nice example of a very successful attempt to get a hoax widely accepted by the wikipedia community. Grsd (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grsd: You can remove the map in question, but you don't get to call adding it, "vandalism". I don't think we have actually come to a consensus on whether or not this map should be included in this article. I, for one, think the map is relevant and should be included . . . but I won't add (or remove) it until we can all agree on its status. --Thorwald (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thorwald First of all thank you for not adding the map again but engaging in a discussion here on the talk page. I think you are referring to the vandalism remark on this talk page that is written below and is related to one user using a range of IPs who has for a lengthy period reinserted the map without any discussion on this talk page of elsewhere. Furthermore as stated above the map is a hoax and on the Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes you will find following WIKIPEDIA definition : Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism.
Let me repeat an earlier plea if you do not have reliable sources for this map (like for the distribution of catholics/protestants in the Nethelands, Germany and Switzerland to name a few examples where the the map currently is incorrect) please refrain from using this map. Like article text, maps don't get a free pass on WP:V and source. However if you do have reliable sources then by all means.
Thank you in advance Grsd (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Grsd: Cannot we request to delete this map from commons as it has no sources?
I actually have done that but yet not succesfully. Grsd (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Thorwald: If that map is supposed to be the present day distribution of the religion, it is clearly wrong. Most area in North en West Europe the majority of the population is non religious or believes in something but not in God (see article). If this map is supposed to be the historical distribution of the religions, it should mention the year it was measured. For example for the distribution of religion in Nederland kan be found here (that is a map with a source!). If we could find similar data for other countries, from around 1850 we could make a map for Europe. I am afraid it will be impossible to find such data. Nico (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicob1984: Your suggestion that this map is showing outdated distribution of the religions - a good one and I believe the correct one- has been explored in the past. Besides the source for the Netherlands you mention another one was found for Germany .. however this is where this option ended as well. The map as it stands shows contemporary European country borders and as we all know Germany has a distinctly different shape after WW2. Furthermore the map is showing redrawn borders in eastern Europe and former Yugoslavia hence this map is representing early 21st century Europe.
Grsd (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicob1984 and @Grsd: This whole time we have been debating this map (for over a year now), I thought we all understood that of course this map is representing historical and established religions overlaid on top of a modern map (i.e., with current borders shown) to give context. This is precisely why I find this map useful. If someone (e.g., me) were curious what the historical and established (i.e., influencing the culture) religions were of the people in the area of modern day Germany, this is precisely the kind of map one would look for. Of course most people in modern day, say, Sweden are not Protestant (or of any religion). Obviously, these caveats should be mentioned. If one were to take a poll back in the mid-19th century of average beliefs for a given area and overlaid the results on a map displaying present borders, I am fairly certain it would look very much like the map in question. --Thorwald (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Thorwald, For Europeans it is indeed obvious that thsi map can not from present, but that will not be clear for everyone. So if added the figure caption should clearly state this an image from mid 19th century. But then we are still left with the problem lack of sources, and that is a big problem.
I do agree with two things. A map from mid 19th century religion in Europe would be interesting. And the distribution shown in the map now seems reasonably realistic, however 'seems reasonably realistic' is not enough, we need sources!Nico (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A remark : the map appears to show the distribution of religion for different periods varying per country. I say appears as I am not sure what the true sources for this map are. Copied from the "no text" version of this map from COMMONS following are some listed sources:
Grsd (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arg! We need to resolve this issue. I was just discussing with someone the historical areas of Catholicism in Europe and wanted to point to this article as a starting place. Unforuntately, since this issue hasn't been resolved, there is no such map to point to in the main article. I ended up providing the URL to this disputed map. Please, can we figure something out here. This map has all the potential to be very informative and relevant to this article. Cheers! --Thorwald (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that is unsourced, highly disputed and therefore useless. I think everyone would applaud such a map, if reliably sourced; but not otherwise. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be indeed great if the map was sourced and would present a reliable picture in that case I would be one of the applauding folks. Unfortunately. The map is still being uploaded unsourced and with many mistakes. Like the ommission of areas where catholics are dominant in England (greater London), Scotland ( Aberdeen), the Netherlands, Germany and so on and on. As the map still has no source I will once again delete it. Grsd (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, content, maps included, should be verifiable. JimRenge (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atheists[edit]

In addition to the discussion on the religion in europe map , I found the discussion below , interesting enough to add... Ruud64 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone make a new map mentioning the percentage of atheists in the map?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making WP:POINTy edits here. Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I'm just asking if someone could make a map for the atheist percentage.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I seriously fail to see what's so wrong about Zjarri's request, and frankly, I'd like to voice the same concern. Namely, that some countries- like Czechia, Albania and Estonia- are if anything, primarily atheistic, and yet this is not noted clearly in the section and the map can thus be misleading. I know that it is noted elsewhere, but the view, for example, of Albania as a "Muslim country" is incorrect (even if you're going to say "historically Muslim" its wrong, Albania was mostly Catholic for a long time and Catholicism's roots go much deeper), and it, as well as others, are advanced by such a map. --Yalens (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC) There is nothing wrong, except that this isn't the place to request maps. The proper place is at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

God was written with capital G in the eurobarometer questions[edit]

Check the god damn source :) and stop reverting to small "g".Stefan Udrea (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree. That's what the source says. Although the Eurobarometer authors seem to vary in the use of the indefinite article ("belief in God" vs. "belief in a God"). Of course we are to understand that the question was put to the various nations in their respective languages, so it will not do to dwell on such linguistic detail anyway unless they provide a full list of the exact phrasing of the question in every language used.
but for the purposes of English orthographic convention, "God" or even "a God" implies monotheism. "a god" suggests polytheism. The first question was quite obviously intended to capture the number of positive monotheists. The second question "some spirit or life force" was intended to include all sorts of spirituality, including possible polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, esotericism and what have you. And the third category was intended to separate the positive atheists. So it is clearly a violation of the intention of the study to decapitalize God to "god". --dab (𒁳) 16:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization is a matter for the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If I am not mistaken, regardless of whether we are talking of monotheism or polytheism, on Wikipedia we capitalize "God" only when it is used as a proper name (which excludes use with "a") and when retaining the capitalization of a direct quote. So, regardless of what the source says, we should use "belief in a god", not "belief in a God", unless we are directly quoting the source (using inverted commas). --Boson (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Problem_with_.22Honorifics_for_deities.22Stefan Udrea (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poland[edit]

"Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in Europe"

From when Poland is 'yellow' ? There's no proposal for same-sex partnership in Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.69.225 (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here: File_talk:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg#Poland, maybe it need to be changed indeed.Nico (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas of global Christianity[edit]

Somebody has posted this table:

Religious affiliation and growth in Europe, 1910 and 2010[1]
1910 2010 % change
(1910-2010) 		% change
(2000-2010)
Adherents % Adherents %
Total Population 427,154,000 100.0 730,478,000 100.0 +0.54 +0.03
Christians 403,687,000 94.5 585,739,000 80.2 +0.37 +0.23
- Catholics 189,056,000 44.2 275,820,000 37.7 +0.38 +0.07
- Orthodox 111,391,000 26.0 201,197,000 27.5 +0.59 +0.35
- Protestants 64,557,000 15.1 67,703,000 9.2 +0.05 -0.29
- Anglicans 26,384,000 6.1 26,219,000 3.5 -0.01 -0.04
- Independents 87,200 0.0 10,703,000 1.4 +4.93 +1.76
- Marginals 115,000 94.5 4,212,000 0.5 +3.67 +1.08
Agnostics 1,642,000 0.4 81,027,000 11.1 +3.98 -1.30
Muslims 10,021,000 2.3 41,082,000 5.6 +1.42 +0.62
Atheists 219,000 0.1 15,166,000 2.1 +4.33 -1.68
Jews 10,460,000 2.4 1,844,000 0.3 -1.72 -0.25
Buddhists 428,000 0.1 1,833,000 0.3 +1.47 +0.64
Pagans 662,000 0.2 1,144,000 +0.2 +0.55 -0.44
Hindus 65 0.0 1,008,000 0.1 +10.13 +1.47
Sikhs 0 0.0 510,000 0.1 +11.45 +2.31
Chinese folk 0 0.0 416,000 0.1 +11.22 +1.89
New Religionists 24,800 0.0 377,000 0.1 +2.76 +0.66
Spiritists 10,600 0.0 146,000 0.0 +2.66 +0.71
Bahai's 220 0.0 144,000 0.0 +6.70 +0.72
Jains 0 0.0 18,900 0.0 +7.84 +1.62
Confucianists 0 0.0 18,600 0.0 +7.82 +0.61
Zoroastrians 0 0.0 5,800 0.0 +6.57 +0.72


I have removed it because the source is not neutral. Of you feel this source can add something to the article, please discus here, before putting it back.Nico (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Christianity in Europe - 1910-2010
Well spotted. Appears to be just another attempt to insert biased information and corrupt WIKIPEDIA quality, so agree. If someone though has good quality information of the distribution by religion in Europe I would be delighted to have this addedGrsd (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
removed another rather non neutral misinformation graph. I would like that folks would follow Wikipedia guidelines rather than inserting own (biased) research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.7.44 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
looked a bit more into this crap data... So wladiwastok is in europe and Istanbul is not........No wonder the number of moslims is so low. Crap statistics from a religious fanatic bible belt source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.7.44 (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed statement based on total Russia being in Europe, resulting in higher number of Christians than there actual are.. Clear case of own research. Well done though, fooled me. Grsd (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again removed misinformation. The Pew forum added (for their research) the total territory of Russia to Europe , thereby greatly inflating the number of Christians. Also Turkey was removed (not enough Christians maybe?). So Vladiwostok is now in Europe an Constantinopel (nowadays called Istanbul) is not ?
let's stick with an earlier plea and that is to only use academic sources
Grsd (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an addition, the Pew forum text: Straddling Europe and Asia, Russia could be considered the most populous Christian-majority country on both continents. But for the purposes of this report, Russia is considered a European nation. Its 105 million Christians constitute the world’s fourth-largest Christian population (and the single largest outside the Americas). About 5% of the world’s Christians live in Russia. Allocating the Christians living in Asia into Europe definitely boosts the number , I would say. Grsd (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides those problems with Russia and Turkey there are more. The (many) provided sources are actually only one, referred to on different webpages. All pages refer to a "forum" that has decided on these numbers. Only one of the references claim that there is a report behind these claims, but the promised hyperlink is not a link. Hence the sources do not provide definitions (what is a Christian - anyone ever baptised? or is the definition even broader? or narrower?) or research methods making it impossible in any way to assess the reliability of the further unsupported claims. Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The studay was done by Pew Research Center ,and the figures found by a study, in the same study shows the references of thier claim these sources include AmericasBarometer-Administered by the Latin American Public Opinion Project at Vanderbilt, European Values Study, European Social Survey (Administered by the European Values Study Foundation), Gallup World Poll, Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey. United Nations Children’s Fund, United Nations Demographic Yearbook, United Nations. Generations and Gender Programme, French Institute of Public Opinion, Demographic and Health Surveys, or for different Censu that done my different coutries and the estimates for Christian populations in European nations were made in collaboration with researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). the percentage differen is not only with the Pew statistic, for example Eurobarometer or Eurostat discrepancies between it's percentage and national census results (Sweden,UK, etc), For examolple according to a government Censu About 77% of Norwegians were members of the Church of Norway on 1 January 2012 while According to the most recent Eurobarometer Poll 2010 29% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force". My point that this is not our job to search who is a Christian and what makes a person a Christian. You might see in a offical reliable studies that countries such as Britain or Sweden or Norway that the percentage of people defines himself as a Christian are the majority, while at the same time in another reliable study you wil find that the percentage of those who do not believe in God in these countries are the majority, we have to mention the two studies.

Dear Grsd roughly 77% of the entire Russian population live in the European Russia so Siberia is not resulting in higher number of Christians :) and since your talking about academic sources why you removed the source of britannica.--Jobas (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Where exactly does what reference point?" - this remains unclear from the pages that were used before, hence these pages cannot be considered high quality sources. We really need a link to the full report.
No we do not want to define who is a Christian. But neither should we allow an implicit non transparent definition by a US based think tank. We need the definition of PEW and how they interpret the data they use. Without such information the information cannot be considered of any quality.
I am sure that census Norway gives an exact definition what constitutes Church of Norway membership (my guess would be baptism). The Eurobarometer is very transparent that it is "self reported" belief. There is no contradiction as these definitions are clearly different. I am fine with using both (national census and Eurobarometer) studies For the Pew data to be of ANY use we would need to have a clear transparent definition (that would yield similar numbers if we applied it to their sources ourselves). Without such a definition the Pew output is incomparable to other data and hence utterly irrelevant.
All in all, I seriously doubt the reliability and validity of any of the numbers of PEW. Without the full report I will not be convinced otherwise.
Your casual addition of 23% of the Asian Russian population (about 35 Million) adds about 5% of the most Christian population to Europe, while the removal of European Turkey (about 14 Million) removes about 2% non Christians from the European population, so at worst this assumption by Pew may shift their number up with as much as 7%. While this is my own Synthesis this makes it clear that there are fatal flaws in the population considered by Pew making their report unreliable. Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the whole study http://www.pewforum.org/files/2011/12/Christianity-fullreport-web.pdf, and all the reference are pointed in the study, the study attempts to count groups and individuals who self-identify as Christians. This includes people who hold beliefs that may be viewed as unorthodox or heretical by other Christians. It also includes Christians who seldom pray or go to church. The study mention: The study of Pew seeks to provide the most up-to-date and comprehensive demographic estimates of the number of Christians in the 232 countries and territories for which the United Nations Population Division provides general population estimates. To arrive at these estimates, Pew Forum researchers, in collaboration with researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Laxenburg, Austria, acquired and analyzed about 2,400 sources,including census and demographic reports, general population surveys and other studies - the largest project of its kind to date.
And response to your question about why the study calculated Russia as a European state while Turkey has not calculated it's due that the study of pew adopted the United Nations Statistics Division which according to The UN Statistics Division exclusion Turkey from the European populations and consider it as a western Asian country and according to the UN Statistics Division Russian Federation populations are calculated to the European populations and consider it as Eastern European country, see here http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm. so the study didn't exclusion Turkey just to increase the numbers of Christians ;).--Jobas (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I scrolled through the report and that seems to be solid work. I would suggest to make the reference to that report, rather than the fairly incomplete press releases used before.
PEW gives sources per country - which often is World Religion Database, which in turn uses national census data. The relatively high numbers in the PEW data align with similarly high numbers in census data on affiliation with churches (e.g. the 77% for Norway mentioned above); which are not in contradiction with actual belief(for the reason I gave above).
My Russia-Turkey point was to show that your argument that "only" 23% of Russians lives in the Asian part so that cannot matter is problematic. If we agree to use UN statistics divisions (that clearly do not want to split multi-continental countries (all of Russia to Europe, all of Turkey to Middle East) I am fine with that, for the reason of following UN divisions. Arnoutf (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will change the reference to that report. and I will add a new study about religions in the EU by Eurobarometer. your point is right the number are high numbers due that report definite christinas as individuals who self-identify as Christians which may include also nominal Christian who seldom pray or go to church or secular or nonreligious (as athiest) individual who are 'self-identify as Christians for cultural or social reasons. And for the Russia-Turkey issue the report mention that it's using UN statistics divisions we can mention that inside the articale. --Jobas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eurobarometer Poll 2005 table[edit]

The recently added population figures constitute original research, since they are not included in the cited source. If included, it would also be necessary to specify sampling error etc., which requires more than simple arithmetic; so we would need a source from a reliable statistical source. They also prevent table sorting from functioning correctly. --Boson (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details on ancient religions of Europe need to be added[edit]

The ancient religions of Europe need to be explained in detail. Asatru is one such religion from those times.Regdetails (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal?[edit]

I just think it's rather odd, the prominence of atheism. NOT that it 'is' in some countries- rather, the distribution. Like, the Czech Republic is incredibly irreligious. But it's right next to Poland, which is incredibly Religious. And next to Slovakia, which seems to be pretty religious. Plus, isn't Bavaria one of the more religious parts of Germany? That pretty much sums it up- Why are SOME countries considerably less religious than others? IE, why is it not more balanced? ESPECIALLY in bordering nations- and SUPER ESPECIALLY between two countries that were the SAME country until 20 years ago... Yes. Explanations would be nice. Masternachos (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be nice if this differences are explained in the article. But it won t be easy to write a good sourced section about it. About Poland I can say that the Catholic church has been a symbol of the resistance against the communist regime before 89, and because of that it became popular. Even more so because the last pope was Polish. About other countries I don t know so much. Nico (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the fact that the maps and stats are done 'by country' don't help- it basically implies that, for instance, you can be in a very religious town in Poland, and then go five miles south, cross the border, and now everyone is atheist, because you're in the Czech Republic. I would 'assume' this is not the case... Masternachos (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belated reactionon the religion in europe map[edit]

Copied from Hayden120 talk page

Thanks for your reaction on the "religion in europe" page on my edit. I am not that often active , so bit late this response.
Grsd (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries . My apologies for not checking before my initial revert. Hayden120 (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


and again the infamous religion in europe maps[edit]

Several misleading and unsourced maps have been a topic for at least a year or so. Currently a few ANONs (or is it just one  ?) keeps reinserting this map So to repeat hereby my request for quality data and once again a repeat of a 2009 !!! remark - not mine though .. The lack of sourcing is concerning -just like article text, maps don't get a free pass on WP:V and WP:RS. To add to all the other listed mistakes the recent 2011 Czech census comes up with 10 % catholics, in some areas less then 3 % so showing this country as catholic is rubbish. Grsd (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalisme by probably one user using different IPs.
Once again deleted incorrect map.
Grsd (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again... Nico (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nico, unfortunately this ANONYMOUS can't stop with his vandalisme.
Grsd (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caption of this map.[edit]

Theism vs. Atheism in Europe (2005 Eurobarometer poll, no data for Former Yugoslavia and the Former Soviet Union except the Baltic States).

user:‎Vexorg removed the caption, claiming it was biased or selective statistics. I think a figure should have a caption summarizing the main things that can be concluded from it. The caption does so by listing the countries that are most and the countries that are less religious. It does not list all countries but that i because it is a summary and this does not make it "selective statistics". Also it is the one who removes wants to remove content that should give an explanation for that before doing so. It is actually not up to me to go to the talk page before reverting any unexplained removal of content.Nico (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Religion in Europe[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Religion in Europe's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CBS":

  • From Religion in the Netherlands: "Religion in the beginning of the 21st century" (PDF), Central Bureau of Statistics, the Netherlands, 2009, retrieved 2012-02-14
  • From Gurung Dharma: Dr. Dilli Ram Dahal (2002-12-30). "Chapter 3. Social composition of the Population: Caste/Ethnicity and Religion in Nepal" (PDF). Government of Nepal, Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 2011-04-02.
  • From Netherlands: "Towards a new estimation on the number of Muslims in the Netherlands" (PDF). Central Bureau of Statistics, Netherlands. 2006. Retrieved 5 July 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic projections missing[edit]

This article would seem the natural place to find demographically based projections about religion in Europe in the future. Or at the very least a link to such. Disappointing. 124.148.190.234 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irreligion does not equate to agnosticism or atheism[edit]

Graph shows that 26% of Europe is Irreligious, but Irreligious only means that the person is not a current member of a religion or that perhaps they believe in an unrecognised religion. Irreligious is not the same thing as atheist or agnostic, but there are only two headings under Irreligion, those being only atheism and agnosticism. This is totally misleading as the sum impression is that all these 26% irreligious are either atheists or agnostics when that is certainly not the case. Would it be too much for Wikipedia editors to make the article more acurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.70.120 (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican?[edit]

Excuse me, but why is the Vatican mysteriously excluded from all parts of this map? It is not even highlighted in Italy. There is just a mysterious hole where it should be, which would seem to indicate that no one believes in God In that city-state of the world. How could this be such a glaring oversight? To me, that indicates that this map is poorly researched, and incomplete. 172.0.92.190 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not mean nobody in Vatican believes, it means that nobody in Vatican city participated in the Eurobarometer survey and that there thus is no data available in the source. The white colour indicates lack of information (in the used source) rather than lack of belief in this case (I do agree it is rather confusing that the colour white has the meaning of 0% believers too). Arnoutf (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

remove Pew research from the lead[edit]

When so many statistics are available it is not ok to mention just the one with the highest religiosity in the lead. Either do not mention any stats (preferable), or mention the one from the best source (Eurostat)Nico (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eurostat Eurobarometer poll is one of the best sources rigth. According to a 2012 study about Religiosity in the European Union in 2012 by Eurobarometer Christianity is the largest religion in the European Union (account 72% of EU population),while athiest (7%) and agnostic (16%) account in totall 23%.[1] so many of statistics show that's christianity still the biggest religion in europe not only the pew statistics, and that the majority of europeans still identifies as christians even if they don't believe in god or do. the study about Religiously Unaffiliated it's separated from the study of Global Christianity.-Jobas (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is better this way. No statistics in the lead and include the 2012 Eurostat later in the article together with the rest. The different eurostat statistics conflict with each other, how can 72% be Christian if only 52% believe in a god, but that just shows that such researches are inherently variable and we should trust none of them :) Nico (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Discrimination in the EU in 2012" (PDF), Special Eurobarometer, 383, European Union: European Commission, p. 233, 2012, retrieved 14 August 2013
At all it's not even a conflict at all and yes it can be!, many irreligious and athiest would consider themselves christians even if they don't believe in christian dogma and god. It's can be for cultural or for family or for historical reasons. As you know, the majority of the nations of Europe are linked historically, culturally and civilized with Christianity, Christianity is one of the main components of the identity of many of these european nations so it's natural that someone is an atheist or not religious to consider himself as a Christian. Richard Dawkins the most prominent atheists in the world describe himself in many of thus interview as cultural Christian and Cultural Anglican.[1]
Eurostat is one of the best sources and it's Neutral and reliable, in 2010 the poll asked if you believe in God or not? the result was 52% of EU believe in a god (plus 26% "believe there is some sort of spirit or life force"), while in 2012 the poll question was what your religion is? the result was 72% consider themselves Christians and only 7% as athiest. While the study of pew attempts to count groups and individuals who self-identify as Christians. This includes people who hold beliefs that may be viewed as unorthodox or heretical by other Christians or people who hold irreligious beliefs. It also includes Christians who seldom pray or go to church. But sure we are not here to debating who has the right to self-identify as Christians, if he self-identify as Christians we have to accept the reuslt even if these christians go to church or don't or believe in god or not.
So if you don't want to trust this studies Is like your own, However, the statistics and studies and clear. Question about faith in God, or not, it's totally different from the question of which religion you belong to, many of the atheists who do not believe in God may identify themselves as Christians for cultural or family reasons since may christianity can be part of their histocial and cultural heritage. Remember there are many Christian communities are are an ethnoreligious group.
PS- Most of the statistics and studies gives that around 70-75% of the totall Europeans are self-identify as Christians.--Jobas (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Dawkins: I am a Cultural Christian" (retrieved July 27, 2014)
The argument that people responding to survey questions may answer for cultural, family and historical reasons, identifying themselves as Christian even though that is not their religion, is a strong argument against including such surveys in an article titled "Religion in Europe". At the very least, it argues that such surveys must be treated with caution, hedged around with caveats and not used for headline figures in the lede of the article, as the results do not represent actual religious beliefs. NebY (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our job to argue who have the rigth to self-identify as Christians who can't or who hold a "real" belief or not. We have here two Neutral and reliable statistics and studies gives that around 72%-76% of the totall Europeans are self-identify as Christians and my argument befor dosen't mean that's this statistics Do not represent the actual religious beliefs, Because there is no statistics about the beliefs of people who self-identify as Christians. My argument was just tring to explain to user:Nicob1984 That's some atheist may also be self-identify as Christians or Jewish or Muslims or Hindu for several reasons. But we can't even claims (for my statement) that's the responses represent cultural self-identification rather than religious belief. you will not find even one source claims that.!! I think that's the vast majority of who self-identify as Christians at least in some level believe in the christian dogma and God and practiced at least some of it's rituals.
NebY the different Statistics here gives almost the same results. The Eurostat which is a neutral and reliable soruce show in his poll in 2012 that's 23% of totall EU population are Irreligions (include atheist and agnostic) while another poll done in 2010 show that's 'only 20% of EU population they do not believe there is a spirit, a God, nor life force, in 2011 Pew Research Center study show that's 18% of the total population of the Europeans continent are Religiously Unaffiliated (include atheist and agnostic). These figures gives almost the same results (that's around 18%-23% of Europe population are Irreligion\Atheist\Agnostic), So the statistics DON'T conflict with each other.--Jobas (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Confirmed as correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Religion in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Confirmed x 2 + only 404 captures x 1. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Only redirects to top site level captured. Removed and marked for 'cbignore'. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Religion in Europe. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Religion in Europe. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey[edit]

Hello, i guess that the research included Turkey in Europe for some inexplicable reason but we all know that it's not. Is there a reason why an encyclopedia article places Turkey in Europe? Thank you Onoufrios d (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatch between 2008/2009 Gallup survey table and map caption[edit]

I'm not sure why there is a mismatch between the figures of the table and the segment/bin under which countries are listed. For example (assumin the table is correct), Hungary is incorrectly listed under the 30-39% segment in the map caption - however the corresponding table showed 23% for Hungary, thus placing it correctly in the 20-29% segment. The other countries have a similar error. Is this somehow on purpose because different data is the basis for the map, or is it a mistake? 94.21.211.217 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion_in_Europe&oldid=1202126219"