Esboella

Esboella

You have removed a graph on British trends in belief in religion using data from the British social attitudes survey from the section 'Religions in United Kingdom', 2001, on the page Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom without a satisfactory explanation. Could you please return this, or provide a full explanation why you think it has wrong. By this I mean you must provide a good objective explanation of why the references below are wrong, not just a point of view.

As you know, we have already discussed at length on the Moneysavingexpert forum, post 130, this graph was based on professional survey results by British Social Attitudes in response to the question

"Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?"

wiki 09:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2014

Your recent editing history at Religiosity and intelligence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly I am unsure how to use the talk page but basically I feel there are some here with and agenda here to discredit religion by using biased or incomplete information. As I said some of the references for some of information are to a person who has twice been indicted for scientific fraud indeed it is the only reference used to establish one point. I have tried to point out the potential unreliability of this person and that was said to be an ad hominem attack. That is incorrect, I am not attacking his character rather his research record.

Furthermore there is a problem verifying the claims made on the page all see to require you to pay to access some article. There are no links to freely available studies. In fact I seem to the only one who has provided to freely available data. ie http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/mailvox-distribution-of-atheist.html and http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/mailvox-distribution-of-atheist.html

This is real official data from 2012 General Social Survey which can be relied upon as it from a government source, it is not simply the opinion of someone who requires you to pay before you can see where he got his figures from.

I feel atheists with an axe to grind are aiming to mislead, theists may also being doing the same although if their beliefs are true it would be against their religion (bear false witness etc..).

Hence it would seem appropriate that freely available verifiable data official data sources were used AND THAT IS NOT THE CASE!!!!