Talk:Religion in Estonia

Source removed as inappropriate WP:SYNTH

I've remove the following source just added: "Teenagers Perspectives on the Role of Religion in their Lives, Schools and Societies: A European Quantitative Study". Unlike the assertion being made regarding changes in Estonian and Russian religious 'landscape', the article in question notes that there is a substantive difference between the uptake of religion amongst Russian youth since the fall of the Soviet Union, Estonia has not encountered such a revival and other factors are discussed as possibly impacting.

References

I've also adjusted the article by Ringo Ringvee with WP:INTEXT attribution, as his input is that of a qualified theologian, not that of a larger research programme. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Iryna Harpy, thanks for your comments. I used that text to buttress Ringo Ringvee's statements since it corroborated his points. However, I will accept your removal of the source (since the content was retained anyways). I've made a correction to the quote parameter of the reference as well--including the original text from the article that we are basing the introductory paragraph of the article on. That is what the quote parameter is meant for; however, I appreciate your in text attribution and have followed suit with other parts of the article where scholars are quoted. In addition, I've organized the rest of the article into a "History" section, as well as a "Statistics" section. I hope that these edits are helpful. If you would like to do more work on the article, please feel free to do so. Have a great day! With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems OK to me now. Thanks for the edits and your effort, Anupam. Iryna, no need to remove reliable sources supporting the article. --BiH (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Anupam and BiH. It was my intention to add/restore the "Quantitative Study" somewhere in the body of the article (an interesting read!)... but, per the norm, other Wikipedia emergencies distracted me. Considering the (lack of) length of the article, however, it strikes me as being UNDUE to introduce a section analysing the whys and wherefores of the move away from traditional religions. You've done an excellent job of integrating the salient info into the lead without it, too, becoming UNDUE, Anupam.

Apologies for the half-baked change to the text and not restoring the reference immediately, but that's why I 'store' the complete original content on the talk page so's it won't be lost. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Methodism

Just to mention, the part dedicated to Methodism is entirely out of proportion at the moment. Major religions have been mentioned only in passing whereas the Methodist church, quite tiny, has a three-paragraph subsection. If nobody else is up to it I will try to remedy this by creating a separate article for the Methodist church and moving the content there. -- Toomas (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved it to United Methodist Church in Estonia. -- Toomas (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Good call, Toomas. This happens on a regular basis on just about every article on religion in any nation-state. Minor 'cult' status religions get write ups where there's simply no justification for there being a mention, yet these WP:COI entries remain having become consensus by default. Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Sourced data is changed

the anonym is changed sourced data on pie-chart on 31 March 2020. Needs to be checked--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

2021 changes

User:Æo has made some edits to the census table, but there is a slight problem with calculating the percentages while including the undeclared numbers - they are remarkably different between different censuses. There's no way to get an actual overview of the share of different religions like that. 195.48.14.61 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The non-answering population must be included in the total count, as it has been until yesterday, and as it actually is also in census tables. In 2000 Census data you find the categories "Cannot define the affiliation", "Refused to answer" and "Religious affiliation unknown"; in 2011 Census data you find "Refused to answer" and "Religious affiliation unknown"; in 2021 Census data too you find "Refused to answer" and "Religious affiliation unknown". Best regards, Æo (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In other words, in your table you didn't count the 126,500 "refused to answer" + 15,280 "religious affiliation unknown" in the total sum of 1,114,030. If you read the table from the 2021 Census website carefully, you will see that everything is comprised in the total 1,114,030, including the total 321,340 who expressed affiliation to a religion (subcategories are marked by ".."), the 650,900 who didn't express affiliation to any religion, the 126,500 who refused to answer, and the 15,280 for whom the datum was unknown. Best regards, Æo (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I am very much aware what is included in the numbers. My point is that including the undeclared in the percentages leads to a presentation of data that is of very little value. We should calculate the share based on actual answers.

You've basically made all those graphs here meaningless and pissed on all the work I've done entering the data... Please come to your senses... 213.184.49.21 (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"Including the undeclared in the percentages leads to a presentation of data that is of very little value" --- This is your own opinion. They were included in the census count and we must follow census results. We cannot exclude the datum as if the people who refused to answer didn't exist, and we cannot assume that they have the exact same share of religious affiliations as the population who gave an answer. Æo (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S. The same datum must be added to the table about religion affiliation by ethnicity, and the religious affiliations of ethnicities must be recalculated accordingly, as it was in the same table with 2011 Census data. Can you do it yourself? Also, please, add all the ethnicities, if possible. Best, Æo (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If you want to ruin that table too, be my guest... As for the ethnicities, then this census didn't specify data for the other ones. 213.184.49.21 (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)