Talk:Religion in Canada

Updating from 2001 census to 2011 census

@Walter Görlitz: Please actually have a look at the sources. In particular, if you scroll down in the second source you'll see an identical table with the updated stats. Also, please view the Islam in Canada page which have the 2011 figures for further corroboration. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: This source: [1] is used on the Islam in Canada page for the updated 2011 census figures. If you look at the 2011 column here [2], you'll see the exact figures I'm trying to update on this page. In addition, this source: [3] also contains the exact same table with the exact same figures that are being reverted. If you could take the time, I'd appreciate your input to help with my edit or assisting me in publicizing the discussion to invite others to provide their input. If no one responds on the talkpage, can you advise me on further options or how long I should wait before making the edit to the article? 156.204.57.243 (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Research Gate is not an RS. Assuming there is a published paper behind the Research Gate source, you should cite the published paper not a potentially WP:COPYVIO link. BTW if you want people to reply to you stop treating everyone like the enemy. As for other options, if you stopped edit warring, false accusations of vandalism and treating everyone like the enemy, someone would likely have already pointed out WP:Dispute resolution describes various ways you can seek further help. That said though other forms of dispute resolution are only needed when talk page discussion fails. It's generally too soon to think it's failed when you've only tried for 3 hours, or even 3 days. If you gave people the chance, most commonly editors will see you're right if you are right, without needing dispute resolution. It's very hard when you're not actually giving them the chance. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I welcome your input but would appreciate you stop making assumptions about me as I haven't treated anyone as an enemy. I didn't accuse Walter of vandalism baselessly, but according to the guidelines as I understood it, and if he wasn't such a bully with his intimidation tactics and refusal to discuss the issue on his talkpage, it might have been easier to recognize that he wasn't simply a blatent vandal which were the basis of my reverts, so please assume good faith and stop accusing me of deliberately edit warring. As to this article, the first source is sufficient on its own and is the sole basis for the figures on the Islam in Canada page. There should be consistency between both pages, wouldn't you agree? Why is it good enough there, but not good enough here? Also, the figures currently on this page (which is the old 2001 census btw) isn't even sourced to begin with. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You falsely accused someone of being a vandal, then opened a silly ANI about some admin who was correctly reverting your attempted to remove content from some other IP's talk page. Another IP and me have tried to help you on your talk page, but you ignored my attempts and mostly just fought with the IP. The admin who dealt with your ANI tried to help you, but again you largely rebuffed their efforts and to the extent of getting into an argument over whether 2 different editors are 1 editor or 2 editors. So I stand by my view you are treating everyone like they're the enemy. Finally if someone isn't willing to discuss something on their talk page then fuck off from it. Considering your attempts to claim ownership of another IP's talk page, it's very rich for you to complain that Walter Görlitz doesn't want to discuss something on their talk page. If you have issues with an article, take it to the article talk page like you should have long ago and finally have now. (To be clear this means whatever you may have done on Walter Görlitz talk page counts for very little. This means you're calling someone a vandal even though you made no attempts to discuss your changes until 5.5 hours ago. Someone can't "refuse to discuss" when you didn't actually try to discuss.) Note I'd prefer to discuss this on your talk page, but since you don't seem to be willing, it has to be here. I will say it one more time, you'll find you have much more success if you don't alienate everyone by treating them like they're the enemy when they're trying to help. You'll note from my other responses that having looked into this more, I actually largely agree with you, but still my interesting in helping further is below zero given your latest response. Nil Einne (talk)

I don't have much interest in arguing with you. Under the circumstances, it was reasonable to assume the editor was a vandal. As for the admin, I didn't even notice my IP had changed when I reverted my OWN talkpage which created the mess. He had no business reverting edits to my own talkpage in the first place. Contrary to your claims, I was receptive to the IP who commented on my new talkpage but not to you because you came at me with a combative tone unlike the IP. I didn't rebuff the other admin and there was no argument over 2 editors being 1 or 2. I clarified to them that only 1 of the 2 editors actually disagreed with me. I repeat, I don't consider anyone to be an enemy, so feel free to stand by whatever makes you comfortable. The only person I alienated is a bully who resorts to intimadation tactics to get his way. Fortunately, I've been able to eventually come to an understanding with anyone else after civil discussion, so stop trying to paint a picture that isn't there and project it upon me. I don't know why you are conflating me attempting to take ownership of my own old talkpage with Walter's refusal to engage in a content dispute on his talkpage. As soon as Walter reverted, I didn't even make a single attempt to edit his talkpage so I don't know what you're even talking about. I DID try to discuss the issue with him numerously and even pinged him on my talkpage. He should be condemned and thankfully has been condemned numerously for his conduct in the past based on his extensive block history. Why are you being vulgar? And then have the audacity to be offended that I rebuffed you on my talkpage. Anyone with such an attitude deserves to be rebuffed! If you have anything further to say, feel free to address it civilly on my talkpage instead of here. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is the published paper: Shah, Sarah. (2019). Canadian Muslims: Demographics, Discrimination, Religiosity, and Voting. Would inserting that text between <ref> < /ref> be the way to cite it as the source? 156.204.57.243 (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(Multiple EC} I had a look at the Statistics Canada link and all I see is some figures for "Ottawa - Gatineau, CMA". I don't see how that source supports the data for any other provinces or territories. I see a bunch of tables and stuff linked there and I appreciate it's sometimes not possible to link directly to census data because of the nature of their sites. However if that's the case, you need to at least describe how to find the data. You cannot expect editors let alone casual readers to be able to automatically figure out the steps you took to find the data if it's fairly unclear. Also if you need to site multiple data sources, one for each province or territory, then so be it. You could combined them into one footnote but it still needs to be clear where the data is coming from to readers.

Note that it does not matter if it's used on some other article, you cannot cite other Wikipedia articles and per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just because another article is a mess, doesn't mean it's okay to bring it here. If you are bringing content over from other articles, make sure to follow WP:Copying within Wikipedia for copyright compliance reasons, but also make sure the other article's sources actually support the information you are adding. If you find a source doesn't support the information, then tag it in the other article or remove it rather than trying to duplicate it in another article.

I had a closer look at the Research Gate link and I think that's probably an RS as although it doesn't look to be peer reviewed research, it looks like it is a published academic paper from a major research institution which is likely sufficient for this sort of thing. However I find it very hard to figure out if something on Research Gate is a WP:COPYVIOEL or not and there seems to be no reason to worry here since it looks to me like it's just this [4] (from [5]) is a semi official link.

As an additional point, most of this article is a mess. It's totally unclear what year the data is for on most of the tables, and it's also not consistent as some are 2001 and some are 2011. Readers can trying to work out from the citation and/or what is talked about in the text, but that's never a good thing. Sikhism is the only one I noticed which seems somewhat well handled. While you are trying to add a source for unsourced data so making an improvement (if the source is an RS and supports the changes) and also the data is already a mix of years (so you aren't changing a single part to 2011 when everything else is 2001), it would still help greatly if you improve things even more by making it clearer what year the data is for. This may also reduce opposition since it will make it clearer you are trying to change it from one year to another.

Anyway I'll bow out here. My interest in this was already low, and it went down even further when your reply to my attempts to help on your talk page suggested you were potentially just going to ignore my attempts. As I said above, if you want people to help, stop treating everyone like the enemy and instead learn to WP:AGF that we're all here to improve Wikipedia even if we have different areas of interest and different views on what improves Wikipedia.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not sure if the individual tables are really useful. They seem to just be duplicating data that is already in the Religion in Canada#Census results section. Others may disagree though. Still if we are going to keep the individual tables, it would seem to make sense to have all with 2011. Rather than the current situation where some like Judaism and Islam (before the IP's changes are implemented) showing 2001 and so different figures from the overall table, and some 2011. And even weirder some having population figures and some having percentages. An alternative is to follow the lead of Sikhism which IMO actually shows a useful purpose for having tables for each section. BTW, IMO the citation for the census results section could do with some improvement since it's not clear to me where the data for the provinces and territories came from. (I suspect it's probably one of the linked data files.) Technically if it's considered enough, it should support the IP's changes since it's the same data just with one less decimal point. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Your comments here are extremely valuable and very helpful and I appreciate the time you took to take a look and give your excellent feedback. For the record, I'm not adverse to your advice but took exception to the tone of your wording on my talkpage which felt like an attack. In any case, thank you again. You're exactly right, the figures are the exact same data rounded to the nearest tenth. Overhauling the page to standardize it is definitely an excellent idea (which requires much effort). I certainly agree with the many flaws you pointed out on the page. In the meantime, attempting to update the table to the latest figures was a marginal improvement I felt worthwhile. Since you consider the Research Gate link to appear to be a RS, would citing it and clarifying in the table that it reflects the 2011 census be an acceptable proposal? If any editors object to this, please feel free to explain why so we can arrive at a consensus. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• I did a quick check and the IP might have a point. The NHS survey for Ontario indicates 581,950 Muslims out of 12,651,795, which is 4.6% (which is what the IP added). I don't agree with the IP's edit warring or other poor behavior, but their numbers may be correct.VR _talk 19:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and confirming the numbers are indeed correct. Regarding your allegation, everything has already been thoroughly explained and I'd appreciate you assume good faith. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=1036429139 I reverted were for "NHS Profile, Ottawa - Gatineau, CMA, Ontario, 2011". Stats for a specific region in Ontario should not be applied to the nation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You then reverted again [6] after a second source [7] was added which encompassed the entire nation (all provinces and territories). Now that this discussion has taken place and several editors have verified the source and updated numbers, do you still object to the edit? 197.46.46.204 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not when I click through. It reads "NHS Profile, Ottawa - Gatineau, CMA, Ontario, 2011". Still one region. The Cookie trail even shows Search results for "ottawa". Yes, I object to supplying the statistics of one region to supplant the whole. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: That's not the source I'm talking about. This is the source: [8] which includes all provinces and territories from the published paper Shah, Sarah. (2019). Canadian Muslims: Demographics, Discrimination, Religiosity, and Voting in table 3.2a on page 11. Every other editor has analyzed it and is satisfied. Any further objections? 197.46.46.204 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have not seen an edit where you supplied that, and since it's not an official StatsCan source, it's not going to fly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is the edit [9] where it was supplied and you were notified about it in multiple places (edit summaries/talkpages, etc.). @Nil Einne: @Vice regent: Walter appears to be suggesting that StatsCan is the only acceptable source. I don't think that's correct. Is there any way this can be resolved without resorting to dispute resolution? 197.46.46.204 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is the reference as copied directly from that edit: Government of Canada, Statistics Canada (May 8, 2013). "2011 National Household Survey Profile - Census metropolitan area/Census agglomeration". www12.statcan.gc.ca. Retrieved April 4, 2019. and then you add this bare URL as a second reference, which is not a reliable source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336285184_Canadian_Muslims_Demographics_Discrimination_Religiosity_and_Voting

This is the count for 2011: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=PR&Code1=01&Data=Count&SearchText=Canada&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=Religion&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1 There are break-downs by province on a separate tab. 1,053,945 Muslims nationally and it's not clear how it breaks down on a per-province basis. Even if we did, it would be different than the statistics for the rest of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: How is the per-provincial breakdown not clear in the geographic hierarchy tab? The numbers are all there and confirm the percentages. The article uses the latest 2011 census stats wherever possible so you can't insist on maintaining the unsourced 2001 stats when the sourced 2011 stats are available. According to Nil Einne's assessment, the research gate url is a reliable source and if there is any dispute, the actual university-published academic paper: Shah, Sarah. (2019). Canadian Muslims: Demographics, Discrimination, Religiosity, and Voting can be directly cited, specifically page 11 table 3.2a. 197.46.46.204 (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I note an easier table on the Statistics Canada site might be https://doi.org/10.25318/3210019801-eng and use the drop down menu to choose each province. I note the data is from the 2011 National Household survey not the 2011 census which did not have a question on religion; the NHS which went to approximately 1 in 3 households had a fairly high no return rate and figures are extrapolations (which is why all the numbers end in either 0 or 5). https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/survey/household/nhs On the paper Shah, Sarah. (2019). Canadian Muslims: Demographics, Discrimination, Religiosity, and Voting. Institute of Islamic Studies Occasional Paper Series, University of Toronto. It is a technical report not a formally peer reviewed article though since the University of Toronto is a reputable institution it and its author can't be dismissed. I note the author had plenty of caveats about the data she was using and has published in reputable peer reviewed locations. In other words the NHS data is clear but comes with large error bars especially for smaller religions. I'm not sure yet where I stand for what should be included. --Erp (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Erp: According to Statistics Canada, the NHS is identical in content to what would have been collected in the 2011 census [10]. If the unsourced 2001 figures currently present in the article suffer from the same imprecision, then perhaps neither the 2001 or 2011 figures should be included, or preferably, the figures should be updated to the latest data available from 2011 as I've been advocating. Another proposal which may be suitable is to include both a 2001 column and a 2011 column in the table which reflects both data sets. 197.46.46.204 (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

or we wait for the official 2021 results on October 26, 2022. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not wait for the official 2031 results in 2032? The article should reflect the latest figures, and for the next 14 months, the latest figures are from 2011 and should be presently reflected in the article. 197.46.46.204 (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The NHS survey had the same (or very similar) content as the Census long form used in 2001; however, unlike the 2001 long form it was not distributed in the same way so the response rate was far lower than the response rate for the 2001 long form. Its data can be used but only through scholarly secondary sources that have adjusted for known biases in the response rate. Admittedly the current article is a bit of a mess anyway. See btw https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/help-aide/aboutdata-aproposdonnees.cfm?Lang=E about the data. --Erp (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Erp: Thanks, the FAQ was very informative. I think including a footnote describing how the data was collected and its limitations would be useful as opposed to total exclusion from the article as if these figures don't exist. I've seen the CBC [11] and Ontario Human Rights Commission [12] amongst other organizations reference the 2011 NHS figures. I propose that the table contain a column for 2001 and another for 2011 (with footnote) which is sourced from the University of Toronto paper. 197.46.46.204 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If anyone objects to the proposed edit, please kindly explain why, otherwise I'll go ahead based on the discussion. 41.237.130.219 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless you apply the 2011 census to the whole article, without losing the change from the previous, I object. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but just to clarify, what do you mean by "without losing the change from the previous"? 41.237.130.219 (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorporate the details currently in the article. This will help to study the subject over time rather than the "current snapshot" view the article currently has. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood. 41.237.130.219 (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

While reading through the article, I just noticed under "Census results" in the second table that the exact same 2011 provincial breakdown of percentage of Muslims is literally already there! The table under "Islam" doesn't match because it's outdated. I'll read through the rest of the article to see if anything else is outdated and update the entire thing accordingly. 41.237.130.219 (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Should not be the same. if it is, we missed a revert. Thanks for doing this work though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

What use are the colour coded maps without a legend?

Should the colour "coded" maps be removed? Or is there a version of them with a legend included? They show a map of Canada, with each province shaded according to the percent of (1) Christians, and (2) Irreligious. But there is no legend to give any idea of what the colours mean.

Does darker indicate a higher percentage, or is it vice versa? Even if you made the "obvious" (?) assumption that darker is a higher number, there's no indication of the range represented. If the reader is to assume that the tables nearby are based on the same data, the percentage of Christians ranges from about 45% to 95%, and the percentage of irreligious from about 6% to 50%. To my mind, the reader glancing at the maps is left with more questions than answers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I see in the file's description that there is a legend, but I don't know how to get that to display along with the map. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

fixed. The trick is looking at what code was used to create the legends on the description page in commons --Erp (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I see now. Great, thanks. I learn something new every day. It's exhausting. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is no religion listed not listed first at 34.1% in the pie chart

It looks like "no religion" is not treated as a prioritized option in the diagram. 64.137.146.189 (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Moxy- 06:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Pie chart org

@Thotus The pie chart has perhaps too many subsections so possibly a merge of some more of the Christian groups into "Other Christian" and documented in the footnote. However given the historic importance and remaining size I think the Catholics, United Church, and Anglicans should remain separate. My rule of thumb was anything > 1%. Your thoughts? Erp (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, however even anglicans and united church are too small to include in the pie chart in my opinion. So it should Catholic church and Other Christian.Thotus (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

If they are too small, than so are several of the non-Christian religions. Merging the three Indic religions and stuffing Judaism into Other Religions would conceal useful information.

However both the United Church and the Anglican Church given as mentioned before their historic importance should be included (in 1951 they were 20% and 15% of the population). Erp (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I propose 2 solutions:

• Have 3 Christian sections; Catholicism, then Combining Anglican and United Church as well as all other Protestant denominations listed into one category called Protestantism, and then Eastern Orthodoxy.

or

• Have 2 Christian sections; Catholicism and Protestantism, and leave Eastern Orthodox Christianity in the "others" category.

I prefer the second option, as to me it doesn't make a lot of sense to separate all forms of Protestantism into different categories, and Eastern Orthodoxy is such a small percentage. Completely Random Guy (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

So what in your judgment would fall in the "Protestantism" category? Note that the LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, and certain strands of Pentecostalism (though not all) fall well outside Trinitarian Christianity. I also still point to the historic importance of the Anglican and United Church in Canada which makes it useful to the reader to see early their current size. Erp (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems there is a universal belief that any denomination that is not Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox (which both Orthodoxy's although somewhat different, fall under the same umbrella), is Protestant in nature. However I do agree with your point in the significance of the Anglican Church and the United Church. My main problem is splitting up Protestantism into over 10+ different denominations, when they all fall under the same umbrella. We don't split up Islam between Sunni, Shia or Ibadi for example. Completely Random Guy (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a balance and we are no longer splitting as much. Note I don't think the Canada census distinguishes between the different groups of Muslims so we couldn't even if we wanted to. However in a country like Pakistan it might be important (admittedly the Pakistani census doesn't distinguish either except they don't classify Ahmadi as Muslim). Or in Ukraine one might want to split up the Orthodox. Erp (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand! I guess we could keep it, it just seemed a little overbearing listing out over a dozen protestant denominations. Thanks for you input! Completely Random Guy (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)