Talk:Irreligion in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Australia?

Don't really see the relevance of including Australia as a nation-state in the see also list. Surely Religion in Australia is the relevant article to include, perhaps by way of comparison. Wikischolar1983 (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction, Irreligion in Australia would be the relevant article Wikischolar1983 (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Irreligion in politics

This section makes a point of comparison between voting habits of non-religious whites and Evangelical Christian whites. What does this prove? It's rather narrow and not apples-to-apples. The point would have more force if this were true of non-religious whites and religious whites. Dsav (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture?

The "popular culture" section (usually a dropbox for just about anything) had to be cut. It contained nothing but a list of names of TV shows and some other things, without any kind of explanation of what we should be looking for. It is unverified, US-centered, and entirely trivial. Let's face it: even most shows that "are" religious thereby make reference to irreligion as an option, rendering the list potentially infinite. Wikipedia should not be trivialized; fortunately, WP:NOTDIR backs me up here in removing the list. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Other differences section

Is it necessary? What does liberalism and heterosexuality have to do with irreligion? Infringement153 (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

new study

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153479/mississippi-religious-state.aspx

irreligion in the united states is up to around 32%. this should be updated.

as for the irreligion study sections... the links provided are for articles, not studies. they both just mention the book "American Grace: How Religion is Reshaping our Civic and Political Lives" which was written in part by a harvard professor. there is no mention of study methods, data, etc. they had no links to the actual study. get better sources, or this section should not be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.228.35 (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. Your data showed the amount of people who say religion is not important in their daily life, not the amount of people who claim no religion. ARIS data is much more reliable due to its scope than a Gallup poll, and the most recent ARIS data was as of 2008.

Comment on name of article

Irreligion is not a neutral term - it carries as one primary meaning "hostility to religion". Alternate titles: "Secularism is the United States" (broader topic as some religious people advocate secularism), or "Non-religion in US" or "Non-religiousity in US" --JimWae (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I agree the choice of title is a difficult one. I went with "irreligion" as it is "Irreligion is a lack of religion, indifference to religion, or hostility to religion". So it covers the full range from apathy to hostility. Titles like "No religion in the United States" sound strage. Secularism was one I considered, but that's (I think) often defined or thought of as concerned more with the notions of separation, rather than a belief structure (or lack there of). Someone might be an atheist, but believe we need a state run by the church. I also think that secularism is more about rejection of religion from the definitions I've read, which sounds more hostile than the range that "irreligion" can have.

Some ideas for naming:

• No religion in the US - sounds like a campaign rather than a demographic
• Non-religious in the US - might be a goer? Reads a bit better than "non-religion", "non-religiousity".. Hrm.. Dunno.
• Secularism in the US - concerned with the separation of church and state?
• Atheism in the US - covers just a subset, although most people probably think of people as either christians/muslims/jews or else atheists. So using the weak atheism definition that's common.
• Non believers in the US - possibly..
• Non religious in the US - another possibility..
• Infidels, heretics or godless heathens in the US - great title, don't think it'll fly. :)
• Humanists in the US - subset of whole
• Unreligious in the US - not really a proper word I don't think

Any others?

Irreligion's definition(s): 1. lack of religion. 2. hostility or indifference to religion; impiety.

and n. Hostility or indifference to religion.

and

noun the quality of not being devout

Obviously hostility wouldn't be the best definition, but does 'indifference to religion' work either, really? A lot of non-religious people I know, myself included, aren't indifferent. It isn't irreligion, it's non-religion. 98.168.204.179 (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Non-theists or Non-theism in the United States. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 16:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Nontheism" isn't appropriate; it refers exclusively to the absence of god(s). There are nontheistic religions, such as some forms of Buddhism and certain indigenous belief systems. This article is about people who don't identify with any religion. (The Wikipedia article on nontheism is sort of confusing and seems undecided as to how the term is defined, probably because there are multiple definitions in use.)

"Secularism" likewise is inaccurate; it refers to either the absence of a state religion/separation of church and state, or an ideological preference for such a system. Despite increasing open promotion of theocracy by religious right politicians in the USA and attempts use the media to convince Christians that the secular state is "anti-Christian"/anti-religious or even tantamount to state atheism, or that the secular state somehow deprives them of freedom of religion (in particular, the putative "right" to evangelise whomever, wherever, and whenever they wish -- even in their capacity as public servants or teachers in public schools), most religious people understand the need for a secular state to protect everyone's freedom of religion and, for the nonreligious, freedom from religion. For example, a number of clergy belonging to various sects are active in the secularist group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, including current executive director Barry W. Lynn, who is a Protestant minister.

I frequently use the word nonreligious to refer to various people who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, godless infidel, Pastafarian, etc.

Perhaps "non-religiosity" or "non-religion" (with or without hyphen, not sure) would work best?

174.111.242.35 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-religion, or non-religiosity seem best, though Irreligon will do. But the major flaw with the article at present is that it fails to point out regarding the ARIS 2008 survey that nearly half the 'atheists and agnostics by belief' are in the various religion groups (these do not include self-declared 'atheists' and 'agnostics'), while 51% of the 'No religion' group are either 'Deist' (24%) or 'theist' (27%), and the 51% would be even higher if we excluded those who have declared a 'religion' such as 'atheist' or 'agnostic'. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

North America Map

Mexico is wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Religious_Belief_in_Mexico-states.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.205.243.36 (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Reemoving 5 or removing 20?

StAnselm seems to have changed his mind from removing 5 to now wanting to remove all of them. Is there any reason for that StAnselm? Pass a Method talk 07:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind at all. The five images you mention were simply the most egregious BLP violations. For the record, I support the exclusion of the entire image array. StAnselm (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Image array

I have removed the image array recently added to the article. The listing of the template transclusions show that it is only used on ethnic groupings, and I have a problem with it being used for religious groupings. The people depicted are not necessarily known for being "irreligious". Chelsea Manning's lack of religion, for example, is very weakly sourced. StAnselm (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There are no guidelines, essays or policies that say you can't use a template with another intended title. I could easily make a new identical template but i dont see the point of rehashing shit. And actually i have seen multiple articles where such templates are used this way. Double check that transclusions page. Pass a Method talk 17:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the relevant policy is WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Chelsea Manning has not publicly self-identified as irreligious. With many of these people their belief (or lack of not belief) is simply not relevant to their public life or notability. Getting back to the template issue, which other religion pages have an image array? I thought I looked through the list fairly closely. What did I miss? StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just realised that in your second edition you removed Manning. Thanks. But we still have the problem that with several of these people (Zuckerburg? Wales? Pitt? Jolie? Gates?) their beliefs are not "relevant to their public life or notability". In other words, there is no good reason or reliable source that justifies us making them "poster children" of irreligion. I would grant that Hitchens , Sagan, and Paine would have "notable" irreligion, but then - none of those are living. StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the fact that you post irrelevant commets about "none of those are living" demnstrate you lack reasoning skills. As for examples of other pages, Islam in the United States is one of many. As for BLP concerns, why not remove the specific BLP concern images rather than removing the whole lot? Pass a Method talk 21:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

St's comment about the status (living or not living) of several of the persons formerly depicted in your array shows that they have an awareness and respect for Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policies (which see). Different policies apply to the living versus the dead. Hence, not irrelevant at all. Dwpaul (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Its not considered an awareness of the policy if he's picking and choosing intermittently when the policy applies or not. Pass a Method talk 07:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Islam in the United States pag has remained the same. Why? Pass a Method talk 07:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF for an explanation of why this is not a valid argument. It primarily discusses article creation, but the same philosophy applies to the inclusion of specific elements in articles. Dwpaul (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the image array at Islam in the United States only appears to depict people who have clearly self-identified as having a belief in Islam. If you can find evidence to challenge this with regard to any of those people, then perhaps their photos should be excised from that array. But see above. Picturing people who have not professed any religion or who have declined to self-identify as "religious" (by your definition, not necessarily theirs) is WP:BLP, and trying to answer the (probably unasked) question, "What do irreligious people look like?" with a photo array seems wrong on its face to me. Dwpaul (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This is different than answering the question, "Who are people who are notable Muslims?" and coincidentally picturing them. Dwpaul (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, your method of selection for people in the array appears to me to violate the core Wikipedia principle of Wikipedia:No original research. Unless you can provide reliable citations of these people specifically discussing their lack of religious belief or opposition to all religious belief, the assertion that they are irreligious seems to me to be an independent assumption based on original research, not permissible in WP articles. Dwpaul (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC) -- and the citations if any should appear in the article.

Just chiming in to express my support for the removal of the array. Dwpaul and StAnselm make a solid case. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Washington Post's most fresh figures

The Washington Post newspaper recently published most fresh figures about religion and irreligion in the USA. According to that researches, the number of atheists in the US has increased dramatically. And the number of people who regularly attend churches decreased dramatically, instead, the number of muslims in the US increased a bit. I think the figures in this article must be changed accrodingly. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Potentially biased statement

The statement "Nonreligious Americans tend to be more knowledgeable about religion" seems more of a subjective statement with quite a few possible(potentially negative) interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.30.148 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

How would you word it to make it more objective and unlikely to be negatively misinterpreted? KinkyLipids (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm Sorry, first time user here. I couldn't figure out how to use "talk". You have remember that Irreligion see's it's self as hostile to religion, so when it claims to know more about religion than religions do based upon an LA times article (which is just a study), that seems like a biased lead. If it could be placed elsewhere in the article, that's fine. But in the first paragraph, as into, it seems callous to religious persons. I would suggest "One study has indicted that irreligious Americans do indeed have more knowledge about religions that some of their own practitioners." That would be unbiased and not censoring the study at the same time.

Thank you for responding. The thread at the top of this page shows that the Irreligion article name is tentative. I'll start a new thread to have the article moved to a new name. The article covers all people who are not religious, not just those who are openly hostile to religion, and I think the name should reflect this.

When you say that it's "just a study", I don't know what you mean. Clinical studies, for example, have contributed to the reduction of suffering throughout the world. I'm assuming you meant "just a survey" or "just one survey", which is understandable since surveys are subject to bias and since controversial results should be replicated by multiple surveys. In this case, it is just one survey, and I couldn't find other surveys showing similar results (except for IQ surveys, which are even more controversial because for some reason people attach IQ to self-worth), so I'll remove it from the lead and make the relevant section 'Studies on Religion' unbiased by pointing out that it's just one survey. Thank you for the suggestion. I also see what you mean when you say it's callous. There are less callous approaches to discuss the subject of apathy towards reading one's own scripture (apathy which is understandable, since scripture tends to be very long and monotonous).

P.S., When you respond to a comment in a talk page, start with a colon to indent your comment then finish with ~~~~ to add your user name. KinkyLipids (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Data for useful graph

Data from [1] may be extracted and redone as a free license graph to be added here (and to articles about Christianity in the US). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

New name

I propose changing the name to Nonreligion in the United States. I don't like the previously mentioned alternatives for these reasons:

• Irreligion: This carries a connotation of hostility, which is not inclusive for those who are neither religious nor hostile to religion.
• Secularism: This is about separation of church and state, which includes religious people who are wary of government interference.
• Non-religion: I don't like useless hyphens (it's email, not e-mail).
• Nonreligiosity: Too many syllables. There is no article named Religiosity in the United States.
• Nonreligious: It should be a noun. An alternative would be Nonreligious people in the United States, which isn't bad.
• Nonbelievers: This can be used by adherents of one religion to refer to adherents of a different religion.
• Nontheism: This includes nontheistic religions, such as Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. I'm not sure about Shinto, which seems primarily about local spirits as opposed to cosmic deities. Nontheism would also exclude deism, which is intellectual theism without the religion.
• Infidels, heretics, godless heathens: Don't forget faithless, unbelievers, blasphemers, unholy, impious, irreverent, profane, sacrilegious, militant, and the wretched souls of the eternally damned.

Support or oppose? KinkyLipids (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a good idea; but it would be even better to write "non-religion" (as "non-religious") or "secularity" (e.g. www.openlysecular.org) and to rename the other articles using the term "irreligion" in the same way (ideally through a moving request) in order to have a consistent terminology. DLG-34-34-87 (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC).

As I posted 7 years ago, the name of this article does not match its content. Irreligion is often correctly used to indicate anti-religion & this is NOT what the article is about. Several terms not so easily misleading have been proposed.--JimWae (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think secularity is the most neutral term since in reality even those who have no religion are not uniformly without religion. There are shades of religiosity and secularity. For instance, the First Church of Atheism, the North Texas Church of Freethought, Sunday Assemblies, Unitarian Universalism and some forms of Secular humanism are religious organizations for those who are atheists and agnostics. Also, many people have traded the word "religion" for "spiritual", due to associations of the term "religion" with bad things. So secularity would be the best term to use because it encapsules those who are "mundane" no matter if religious or nonreligious. Mayan1990 (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, with 60 article titles beginning "Irreligion", (Irreligion, Irreligion by country, Irreligion in Afghanistan, Irreligion in Africa, Irreligion in Albania, Irreligion in Australia, Irreligion in Azerbaijan, Irreligion in Bangladesh, Irreligion in Belgium, Irreligion in Botswana, Irreligion in Brazil, Irreligion in Bulgaria, Irreligion in Canada, Irreligion in China, Irreligion in Egypt, Irreligion in El Salvador, Irreligion in Finland, Irreligion in France, Irreligion in Germany, Irreligion in Ghana, Irreligion in Guatemala, Irreligion in Guyana, Irreligion in Iceland, Irreligion in India, Irreligion in Iran, Irreligion in Iraq, Irreligion in Israel, Irreligion in Kazakhstan, Irreligion in Kenya, Irreligion in Latin America, Irreligion in Lebanon, Irreligion in Mexico, Irreligion in Morocco, Irreligion in Mozambique, Irreligion in New Zealand, Irreligion in Nigeria, Irreligion in Norway, Irreligion in Pakistan, Irreligion in Poland, Irreligion in Russia, Irreligion in Rwanda, Irreligion in Saudi Arabia, Irreligion in Singapore, Irreligion in South Africa, Irreligion in South Korea, Irreligion in Spain, Irreligion in Sri Lanka, Irreligion in Sudan, Irreligion in Sweden, Irreligion in Switzerland, Irreligion in the Czech Republic, Irreligion in the Maldives, Irreligion in the Middle East, Irreligion in the Philippines, Irreligion in the Republic of Ireland, Irreligion in the United Kingdom, Irreligion in the United States, Irreligion in Uganda, Irreligion in Uruguay and Irreligion in Yemen) we'd need an RM. I'd like to see a change, "irreligious" being so often a condemnatory term, but I am struggling to see what would achieve consensus. I fear it might not be "nonreligion", if only because it's not a familiar term (it doesn't even have an entry in Collins English Dictionary, for example, in print or online). NebY (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Responding to everyone in this section, I change my mind and now support secularity. Nonreligion not being in Collins is a good point, and secularity does have an entry in Merriam-Webster (though one of the definitions excludes the spiritual). The article should then explain the difference between secularity and secularism. Sources that don't use the word secularity should be allowed as long as they are about the lack of religion, in terms of belief or affiliation. Regarding those who "have no religion and yet are not without religion", I think the article should specify when it uses the word religion to refer to different things. For example, those who identify as "spiritual but not religious" are not religious in terms of affiliation but religious in terms of belief. Regarding those atheist organizations that are "religious" in terms of performing baby showers, weddings, funerals, sing-alongs, etc., the article should avoid including a reference to them as being religious, for linguistic reasons. This is using a word in a way that is different from the common use of the word, which invites more confusion to something already confusing. If attending a funeral makes someone religious by definition, then we are all religious, which is stretching the word to the point of it being meaningless. KinkyLipids (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A new survey in the USA

Guys, have you seen the results of those surveys - [2], [3]? A new Pew poll finds that the Christian population in America has dropped by 8% in just the past seven years! M.Karelin (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not unusual since the number of the unaffiliated has gone up since 1990 at the cost of white mainline protestants. ARIS data show that the unaffiliated were 8 % in 1990, 14% in 2001, 15 % in 2008 [4]. Pew data converges with ARIS in the 2007 Religious landscape study. In 2012 the unaffiliated went to almost 20% [5] and now in the new study they are 22.8% [6]. The new study does mention that out of the total US population only 3.1% are atheists and 4% are agnostics. The amount for those who are atheist still very low considering that in 1990 atheists were much less than .5% of the total population and agnostics made up barely .7%. From the 2012 Pew study we know that 68% of the "No religion" demographic believe in God and hold to many traditional religious beliefs without identifying as Christian. So they are quite complex. This new report is a good update. I will add this into the article eventually.

Still it should not be too unusual since historical sociological research has indicted that in 1776, at the time of the American Revolution, about 17% of US population was "churched" or religious. By 2005 the amount of religious people or churned people was up to 60% (Stark and Finke. 2005. "The Churching of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy"). Pew also has done a projection to 2050 which indicates that globally the unaffiliated will be in a decline due to numerous factors such as low reproduction rates (the secular are known for not reproducing as is the case of declining European populations) [7]. This one would be good to add also. Mayan1990 (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

All those statistics suffer from a big problem: Social Presure; both from the general society and (even more) from close friends and family members. Because of that I expect all statistics to be biased; usually towards the tradition. Usually people don't change their religious opinion in masses; they just feel more save to declare it to others. This also makes any global predictions and even comparisons problematic. --TheK (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi TheK, all of these studies do not suffer from "Social Pressure" because these studies are not reporting to any family or friends. These studies are all confidential and anonymous when they are conducted so all subjects have complete freedom to express their views as they see fit. It is unlikely that there is a some conspiracy of people hiding their true beliefs when there are no good reasons to hide anything to anyone. Also the previous reports calibrate the later studies which show great consistency since each study uses random samples of the populations. Furthermore, the reality is that people identify themselves in various ways - often times not in a dichotomous or monolithic religious or nonreligious identity. Usually it is intermixed and includes lots of overlapping.Mayan1990 (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I won't be so sure about that: [8] --TheK (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I am quite sure about the studies being accurate about things like self-identification as atheist or Christian and also personal beliefs - these do not require frequency estimation on the subject's part. So the stuff on identification is accurate unless you want to argue that people mis-identify themselves. I hardly think that people are unable to accurately identify themselves as they see themselves. Now, when it comes to churching, the Stark and Finke study based it on objective data such as memberships from churches and other sources going back to 1776. These membership lists are solid and are not based on people guessing about how frequently they attended. Most Americans are Christians and the fact that most are members of a Church, despite the actual frequency of how often they attend church, and their high levels of self-identification as Christians confirms that they see themselves as Christians and not something else. The same applies to atheists, agnostics, etc. It is easy to overestimate or underestimate a frequency of activity (many people would give wrong estimates about how frequently they spend on entertainment compared to necessities), but it is harder to mis-identify how one identifies themselves. I highly doubt people are having an identity crisis or are confused about themselves. Mayan1990 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Very fresh research - U.S. Public Becoming Less Religious

Dear friends, have you seen this very fresh research - [9] U.S. Public Becoming Less Religious, especially young people !!!! I think the new figures must be reflected in the article. What you think? M.Karelin (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This is actually old news. Historical trends show that younger people are less religious than adult populations in general. As they grow older things change especially since having children is correlated with religiosity. Europe for example has a significant portion of less religiosity but also a consistent declining population rate. Still it is interesting that the majority of the "nones" still hold to belief in God. Religious identification is more murky for younger people considering that millennials are less into politics, religion, and other public institutions. They also score very high with narcissism and self-oriented focus. But all of this is already known [10].Mayan1990 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Atheism?

Why does Atheism in the United States redirect here? Irreligious and Atheist are completely different things. Many irreligious people believe in the supernatural. --Hatteras (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is a subset so it is logical to redirect it here since no article exists solely on it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There are atheistic religions e.g. some parts of Buddhism. WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irreligion in the United States. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090407053149/http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf to http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris.pdf

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) 00:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irreligion in the United States. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923053909/http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/olson/ to http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/olson
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130904062320/http://omaha.com/article/20130301/NEWS/703029945/1101 to http://omaha.com/article/20130301/NEWS/703029945/1101

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) 21:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pew Research 2017 ref

Hi, I think we should discuss our thoughts here before making further edits on info box.

I see what you are trying to do, but this lumping everything into religious and not religious does give the wrong impression of the complexity of people who are religious or not. For isnace the Pew research center shows that 68% of the unaffiliated have belief in God, so are they religious? Also, your pew report on the spiritual but not religious shows that 63% of the spiritual but nor religious affiliate with a religion. Seeing that there is overlap between these extremes, the only relevant number for the info table is the one who are not religious or spiritual. That is the clearest indicator or irreligion for this article. All else mixes up the variables and hides complexity of their self identification. It is not linear. Does this help? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

At the request of talk :

<wiki>* (cur | prev) 07:12, 11 February 2018‎ Ramos1990 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (48,600 bytes) (-49)‎ . . (disagree since this also confuses variables, 68% of the unaffiliated believe in god for instance, so are they religious? use talk page) (undo | thank)

</wiki>

There appears to be confusion about the Pew research.

The articles states:

To be clear, the survey did not directly ask respondents whether the label “spiritual but not religious” describes them. Instead, it asked two separate questions: “Do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?” and “Do you think of yourself as a spiritual person, or not? The results presented here are the product of combining responses to those two questions.”

So on the first question, in 54% of cases, they got "religious", and 45-46% (roundoff differences) they got not religious. There is no confusion of variables. There is no mixing of variables or lumping. Or rather: it's a straight seperating and de-separating manouver, recovering the original data on the separate question. Moreover, the article mentions it as well. I don't know what they did with don't know/refusals, but they appear to have been eliminated. In the Win/Gallup International poll the don't know/refusals was ~5%, which may be part why religiosity appears somewhat lower. (See [11], 100-6-56-33=5).

Whether people self-identify as religious does apparently not have a very strong correlation with

A) Whether they consider themselves spiritual

B) Whether they consider themselves affiliated

C) Whether they believe in (a) god.
Jmv2009 (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that they asked two questions and that is why the results are complex. They are not straight forward as either not religious or religious since there is considerable overlapping going on. Again Pew research center shows that 68% of the unaffiliated have belief in God [12], so are the majority of the unaffiliated, religious? Also, your pew report on the spiritual but not religious shows that 63% of the "spiritual but nor religious" actually affiliate with a religion. So are they religious? Seeing that there is overlap between these extremes, the only relevant number for the info table is the ones who are "not religious or spiritual". That is the clearest indicator or irreligion for this article. The fact that people show complex understandings of spiritual and religious along with their affiliation or unaffilfiation means that simple lumping of religious or not religious will simply not do them justice. It oversimplifies complex interactions of both the affiliated and the unaffiliated.

Not sure why you rely only on WIN-Gallup since it is not a relaible survey since the better surveys reach consistently lower number over many decades such as World Values Surveys. If you look at NORC or ARIS, which have better sample sizes for the US, the numbers are different from WIN-Gallup too. Also the "Friendly Atheist" blog post you mentioned is not a reliable source since it is a personal blog by a random person on the internet.

You mentioned that whether people self-identify as religious does apparently not have a very strong correlation with whether they are spiritual or if they are affiliated or if they belive in god. So why would insert a variable that is a weak indicator of anything useful? If readers see that 45% of Americans are not religious, readers may confuse that with atheism, straight up secualrism, etc when it only 18% consider themselves as neither spiritual or religious. All the rest have complex interactions between their beliefs, affiliation, and if they think they are what they think is religious. Again, the starightest indicator of true irreligoisty would be the "neither spiritual or religious" group, which is only 18% of the US as of 2017. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what people are thinking when they respond that they are not religious. I don't know what people are thinking when they respond that they are spiritual or not. I don't know what people are thinking when they respond that they are affiliated or not. I don't know what people are thinking when they respond that they believe in (a) God or not. I'm not sure asking whether they are religious is a weak indicator. I don't think we should philosophize. We can discuss/add other indicators. I don't think we should mix it with what people say whether they are spiritual. THAT is mixing variables, and that is what the researchers did, according to what they explained. We can add "Not religious but spiritual: 27%", as 18% is obviously discarding many people who self-identify as not religious. I'm only using the Friendly atheist as it has a bit more details than the other references, and is otherwise confirming the other reports about this research. It would help if you give direct references to the NORC and ARIS research here. Jmv2009 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

In any case, the numbers are also reported here: List of countries by irreligionJmv2009 (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

About sample sizes Win/Gallup International: standard error (69%) are ~1.6% (The margin of error for the survey is between 2.14 and 4.45 +3-5% at 95% confidence level.[13])Jmv2009 (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I think we can compromise here: we can add both "Not religious but spiritual": 27%, and "Not religous or spiritual":18% to the table. That way it is consistent with what the authors wrote "In addition to those who say they are spiritual but not religious [27% in the last section], 48% say they are both religious and spiritual, while 6% say they are religious but not spiritual. Another 18% answer both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual." I will make that change since that will keep the variables not lumped and it will show complexity. "Friendly Atheist" is not a reliable source since it is blog from a random non-expert on these issues. He does not really confirm anything.

Thanks for the list on irreligion by countries, but you can see the differences in quality of Win-Gallup vs Phil Zuckerman. Win-Gallups numbers are overinflated while Zuckerman's are much lower. Zuckerman does meta-analysis of many studies on irrelgion, nonreligosity, and secularism and summarizes them correctly whereas WIN-Gallup (which is a marketing company, not a sociological survey) does not. Furthermore, Ariela Keysar, another authority in secualrity research (and who did the ARIS survey in the US which had a bigger sample than WIN-Gallup) issued caution against WIN-Gallup in the The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me try to pull it a bit further: Do you agree that 45% responded with "not religious" on the separate question? (Yes/No) Jmv2009 (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The source does not say that so no. It is not on the plots either. The article actually stays focused on the spiritual and religous mix because people may not like the idea of religosity and may feel more inclined to identify as spiritual. Which is why like the article says "Who makes up this rapidly rising, “spiritual but not religious” segment of American adults? While many of them (37%) are religiously unaffiliated (describing their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”), most actually do identify with a religious group, including 35% who say they are Protestant, 14% who are Catholic and 11% who are members of others faiths, such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism." The article does not focus only on religiosity probably because it is not measurable. Religion and spirituality mean different things to many people and there is overlapping involved, which is why the number of people identifying as religious or spiritual do not match each other in Pew's survey or any other one. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire in a couple of steps: do you agree that the article says that 54% responded with "religious" on the seperate question (Yes/No).Jmv2009 (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The article does say 54% agreed that they would consider themselves as a "religious person" but that does not mean that the other 46% are not religious at all be default. After all there are degrees of religiosity, which is why even the majority of the unaffiliated believe in God, 1 out of 5 pray every day and and and additional 1 out of 5 pray once a month, for example. The article itself does not claim that 46% are not religious or that 46% are irreligious for sure. If that were claimed, then there would be no issue in adding that. But that is not what the article claims at all. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a yes then: you agree to the 54%. Next Step: Do you agree that the article says that they splitted up the 54% into 48% and 6% for spiritual and not-spiritual, according to the answer to the other separate question.

I don't see 59% for the separate question alone. 59% is for the religious and spiritual combo on a graph though. For you to make the claim that 45% are not religious you would have to find that claim in the article. Is it in the article? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Next step: How do your read: "The results presented here are the product of combining responses to those two questions." B.t.w your numbers are off (for 2017).

Oops I see 54% for one question only and 48 for the combo. I see 75% for people identifying as spiritual on the article. I read the same thing you are reading. Before continuing, can you tell me where in the article does it actually say that 45% is nonreligious? You cannot infer that unless it clearly states that. If only about 21% of the population is unaffilaited how can you get 45% as nonreligious? That would not add up even if at the maximum. I know that many Christians do not consider themselves religious because of the stigma attached to the concept of religion (which makes sense since religion is a modern invention, not a historical concept), but that would hardly make these Christains nonreligious let alone secualrists. Listen, I will reply to you tomorrow if you have further question since it is pretty late in North America. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll tell you where and how in a couple of steps. When your feet are held to the fire you don't get to take detours. Please respond, as it pertains to your question: How do your read: "The results presented here are the product of combining responses to those two questions.".Jmv2009 (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If the source does not make the specific claim, then it would be violation on WP policy. In this case, WP:SYN since the source does not make the wild claim of 45% as secular or irreligious. Neither does Gallup or ARIS or NORC. I read the results as a combination, but better yet as they wrote it. I am holding your feet to the fire too so where in the source does it say that 45% are secular or irreligious? You have to show where it says that. You seem to interpret only one of the questions (on "religious person", though they do not ask about degrees of religiosity) and extrapolate from that while ignoring the complexity of religious and spiritual identity. That is WP:SYN. That is why it is best to use the wording on the report and leave it like they worded it: see the quote above on how they broke it up above. By the way, according to the American Sociological Association, "Sociology also studies spirituality, which may be defined as individual and group efforts to find meaning for existence within or independent of organized religion." [14] so it looks like spirituality is a more flexible version of religiosity, and not true irreligion. Reliable sources like "Belief without Borders: Inside the Minds of the Spiritual but not Religious" (Oxford University Press) says that spiritual and religious are similar too and that spiritual is less stigmatized so it is more friendly and open ended than religious. Those who are neither spiritual or religious would be the truest sense "not religious" since those would reject all associations and those are only 18%. Considering that 68% unaffiliated believe in God and about 40% either pray daily or once every month, it is hard to believe that they are becoming secularists or atheists at high levels to 45% for the whole population like you originally wrote. Also the fact that the Pew report says that most of the "spiritual but not religious" (35%+14%+11%=60%) identify with religious group means that true nonreligiosity is not really there even for that group either. So keeping the 2 self-perception as is on the infobox is the most accurate, per the source and leaves room for their beliefs and affiliations to come out. It also reduces the confusion for readers. In general people are not congruent with their beliefs, belonging, and behavior. They are all over the place in reality [15]. Does this help? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No it does not help. You have STILL not responded to: How do your read: "The results presented here are the product of combining responses to those two questions."

Already responded twice. It is as it reads. But you have not responded on where in the source does it say that 45% are secular or irreligious. This extrapolation is WP:SYN Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Where did you explain to me what you think they did, mathematically/operationally speaking? Please explain step by step.?Jmv2009 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually stuck to their analysis, per the quote even used their wording. That was it. You made the changes in the info box about "Not religious: 45%". This is a claim not made by the source. So it cannot be reduced to that by an editor if the source did not reduce it to that. Saying "not religous" means quite a few things from being irreligious to being secular to being disenchanted with religion but not rejecting it etc. So this is probably why such a claim is not found in the source - it is not easy to make such a bold claims when religious dimensions like the majority of the unaffiliated have a belief in God and the majority of those with a religion make up the spiritual but not religious category. There really isn't much else to discuss on this and this is pointlessly dragging on. Does the source say such a simplification like "Not religious: 45%" or not? If not, then it is WP:SYN. If it is there can you quote it for me or show a graph that explicitly says it? In wikipedia we are not supposed to interpret a source beyond what it claims. Per the policy. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you agree with this table:

Religiosity question	Spirituality question	%
yes	yes	48%
yes	no	6%
no	yes	27%
no	no	18%

Jmv2009 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I see you made a comment on my talk page, so I responded there. These numbers are not routine calculations since the meanings are not obvious because we are dealing with complex social phenomenon that are not reducible to "religious" or "not religious". Plus the question asked by Pew was about identifying as a "religious person" (identity) and you are lumping them to be "not religious" (behavior). Identity and behaviors are not the same thing. People can deny being a religious person and still be religious in the same way that people can deny being a "jealous person" and still have various levels of jealousy. Here is an example from Pew on the majority of atheists who for the most part do not identify as "atheists" [16] despite them not having belief in gods. Identity and behaviors or preferences or beliefs are not really congruent most of the time.

Please provide a direct quote from the source to support what you want to post. I did for my edits on this, but I have yet to see you cite where on the source Pew actually says that 45% of the people are "not religious". That would be an extraordinary claim indeed since most of the country is affiliated with a religion - most are not unaffiliated. It should be simple to cite if it is there. By the way, WP:SYN specifies "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

Granted that this is a complex topic (beliefs, belonging, and behavior) it should be noted that some of the complexity that you wish to put in the article is already in there where the nuances can be explained (per the source) because there is space. The info box is just a quick number, and technically the 2 statements are there showing the diversity among the unaffiliated. They are not uniform nor are they monolithic, and many avoid many labels like a growing number of people who are affiliated do too. I have already provided multiple examples and questions, but none have been addressed. Hopefully the identity/behavior distinction issue is more clear now - and why it is an issue for wikipedia. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The authority states in the caption: Respondents were asked seperate questions about whether they consider themselves to be "a religious person" and whether they consider themselves to be "a spiritual person". (The exact phrasing is in [17]). The "spiritual but not religious" category includes those who responded affirmatively to the question about being a spiritual person and also responded that they do not consider themselves to be a religious person. I am assuming that equivalently, for the category neither "Religious" an "spiritual", they only included only those who responded those who do not consider themselves to be a religious person and also responded that they do not consider themselves to be a spiritual person. This also following the statement in the text "The results presented here are the product of combining responses to those two questions". The point is that the "Neither religious nor spiritual" and "Spiritual but not religious" categories are mutually exclusive: there is no overlap. So we have two categories of people who answered that they do NOT consider themselves ("generally", per the phrasing of the questionaire) to be a religious person. The result in 2017 was that 18% of the total population responded they are not spiritual, and 27% who responded they are spiritual. Since they are mutually exclusive, the number of people who responded that they do not consider themselves to be a religious person must be (at least) 45%.

FULLY EQUIVALENTLY, they found that 45% responded negatively to the religiosity question. The digged a bit further into the data, and found that some of them had responded positively (27% of the total population) and some had responded negatively (18% of the total population) to the spirituality question.

The article confirms this is a proper way of looking at the data, as they used the same METHODOLOGY and/or showed CONSISTENCY for the number of people who consider themselves religious: "Looked at another way, only 54% of U.S. adults think of themselves as religious." Note that 54% = 48% (positive response on religiosity and spirituality question) + 6% (positive on religiosity and negative on spirituality), SHOWING that this is a valid way of un-splitting the categories and looking at the data.

Note that 54% and 45% are almost exactly each others complement (within a 1% margin for rounding, and possibly with some people missing who did not respond. Like I said before, I don't know what they did with the don't know-refused category). You do not appear with the methodology, but people were asked to respond with "Yes, think of self as (religious/spiritual) person/No, do not/Don't know-Refused), with no room for nuancing.

This is not irresponsible lumping, extrapolation, etc. It is just an understanding of what they did when they processed and represented the data, based directly on the text in the authority, and confirmed that looking at the data is proper by the authority itself (for another example). I agree that this is just about what they answered, how they self-identify, and the wikipedia article should reflect this.Jmv2009 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The info is already in the article along with quotes so what is the issue? The info box is the only thing you are concerned with no?

The mutual exclusivity assumption you are making is not correct. For one thing, Pew states: "Who makes up this rapidly rising, “spiritual but not religious” segment of American adults? While many of them (37%) are religiously unaffiliated (describing their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”), most actually do identify with a religious group, including 35% who say they are Protestant, 14% who are Catholic and 11% who are members of others faiths, such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism"

This creates a problem for your 45% lump because it is obvious that the spiritual but not religous category are NOT "not religious" because the majority of it are religious people!!!! The assumption that those who reject the labels of "religious person" are by default not religious is not made in the source and the fact that "spiritual but not religious"" is made up of mostly religious people does not help your case. Again personal labels (religious person, spiritual person, jealous person, etc) vs behavior (religious or not religious, spiritual or not spiritual, jealous or not jealous) are two different things. Behaviors also come in shades of grey by the way, not in absolute terms. The Pew report did not assess levels of religiosity, only personal labels. There are many foctors that play i

I am confused as to why you have pretty much focused on one question out of the two if the results are based on two questions. The 45% lumping and calling it "not religious" has many problems: 1) "Not religious" is a behavior not a self-identity + Pew never asked something like "are you a nonreligious person" so there is no way of deducing how many people are nonreligious from this report. 2) Pew does not label the remaining 45% at all (You made an assumption here in that 54% = religious therefore 45% must be not religious, but this dichotomous thinking is not found in the source and the fact that most of the "spiritual but not religious is made up of mostly religious people complicates the 45%). It is like saying that atheists who do not label themselves as "atheists" must therefore be theists by default. 3) your lumping actually obscures the variables - see you edit where you changed the numbers and added a footnote [18] - 45% are "not religious" and yet have religious affiliations and are spiritual even though only 22.8% are unaffilaited? That makes no sense and is pretty confusing.

• Here is what the source says on the combined results:"In addition to those who say they are spiritual but not religious [27%], 48% say they are both religious and spiritual, while 6% say they are religious but not spiritual. Another 18% answer both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual."

This is crystal clear, shows the dynamics, and does not obscure variables - which is why I quoted it. Leave it like that since it is what the source clearly states. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the mutual exclusivity is specifically between people who "answered negatively on the religiosity question and positively on the spirituality question" AND between people who "answered negatively on the spirituality question": People could not have answered both positively and negatively on the spirituality question.

I am just trying to come to a consensus on whether (at least) 45% of people answered negatively on the religiosity question (self-identification).

Not whether

A) They actually "are religious"

B) They are "atheist"/materialist/

C) Devoid of religion

D) identify/affiliate with a religious group.

E) Believe in a God

F) Are spiritual

You state that Pew never asked are you a nonreligious person. That's correct, but they did very close to that. They asked "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not" (bolding mine for emphasis). I think there is very little light between people considering themselves "not a religious person" and "a nonreligious person" (and it appears you are not making that distinction either), and the "Generally speaking" doesn't help your case much either. You may say it is not fair to say that people did not really positively confirm the latter option (",or not"), or that it is not fair that there were only two options, but we are diving into academic subtleties about how to poll, and how to interpret. I am not interested in those questions here: My statement is that 45% chose to respond negatively to the question "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not".

You say it is not fair to only focus on that question. But I am focusing on that question for now, because we can't seem to get an agreement on what was measured and what the result was (which should be a pretty simple). Until that happens, I can not be done here, and move to other discussions.

By the way: Another way, to use your "crystal clear" quote::*Here is what the source says on the combined results:"In addition to those who say they are spiritual but not religious [27%], 48% say they are both religious and spiritual, while 6% say they are religious but not spiritual. Another 18% answer both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual."

In my book "another" means mutual exclusivity as well, especially when used after "In addition". (which is the only interpretation that can make any sense anyway, as the assignment to one or the other group depended on a single question). The next sentence in the authority confirms the mutual exclusiveness for at least two categories, at least to the extent that the numbers match (i.e. they are a straight sum).

To address the "problem" for me (quote):

The mutual exclusivity assumption you are making is not correct. For one thing, Pew states: "Who makes up this rapidly rising, “spiritual but not religious” segment of American adults? While many of them (37%) are religiously unaffiliated (describing their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”), most actually do identify with a religious group, including 35% who say they are Protestant, 14% who are Catholic and 11% who are members of others faiths, such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism"

This creates a problem for your 45% lump because it is obvious that the spiritual but not religous category are NOT "not religious" because the majority of it are religious people!!!!

So Pew states that many from "spiritual but not religious" consider themselves religiously affiliated. You state that when religiously affiliated you are religious. Evidently this was not true for many people, at least not when asked: They e.g. responded with that they consider themselves e.g. Catholic, but responded negatively on the religiosity question.Jmv2009 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me summarize some things here. I have never tried to classify people in lumps of "religious" or "not religious". I am not lumping on the info box. I don't think any generalized lumping helps when "religious" or not "religious" are very loaded terms especially since "spirituality" is included in the mix. I do not think that lumping clarifies anything, I think that lumping obscures identity with behavior. I do not think that your lumping is good or accurate because you are making assumptions with your lumping which is to reach conclusions not found in the source WP:SYN. I only advocate the results as the source has it in this quote: "In addition to those who say they are spiritual but not religious [27%], 48% say they are both religious and spiritual, while 6% say they are religious but not spiritual. Another 18% answer both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual." You seem focused only on religion and classifying everything based on religion when the Pew source shows complexity with spirituality as in the quote in blue.

Nowhere does the source say that 45% are "not religious" + the Pew source does NOT show how many people said No to the religiosity or the spirituality questions at all either. In their questionaire that you provided before (thanks of that by the way [[19]) three responses were available. Here are the choices Pew offered for people to respond to these questions of "religious person" and "spiritual person": "RESPONSE CATEGORIES:1Yes, think of self as (religious/spiritual) person 2No, do not 9(VOL.)Don’t know/Refused"

Can you tell me from the Pew source how many said "No, do not" and how many said "Don't know/Refused" to either the "religious person" or the "spiritual person" questions?

For sure 54% said yes to Pews question “Do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?” because the Pew source does mention that specific number. But what the other 45% answered is unknown since two choices are still left: "No, do not" and "Don’t know/Refused".

Also keep in mind that anyone answering "No, do not", does NOT automatically mean a person identifies as "not religious" - which is what you were lumping all the remaining 45% under. Identity vs behavior are not equivalent. You mentioned that you are not looking on whether "A) They actually "are religious", B) They are "atheist"/materialist/, C) Devoid of religion, D) identify/affiliate with a religious group., E) Believe in a God, F) Are spiritual", but it looks like you are actually doing at least A and C by making hastily generalized and confusing categories by using loaded terms like 54% "religious" and 45% "not religious". You should not oversimplify the results form Pew like that.

Bottom line - stick to the summary from Pew above in the blue quote. It is clear, neutral, uncontroversial, it is what Pew says directly, and avoids Wikipedia editors re-interpreting and arbitrarily lumping into obscure categories WP:SYN. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the authority used the label (which included) "not religious", so don't point there at me, but at the authority. I agree with you that there is a difference between being religious and self-identifying as such: We are only talking about the latter. It is fair to follow the authority in the labeling though. And it appears you stopped disagreeing with the mutual exclusivity of "Neither religious nor spiritual" and "Spiritual but not religious, while previously you didn't want to go there. At least you are not addressing it anymore in terms of mutual exclusivity, and you are not making a case they are not mutual exclusive either. Which would imply that you now agree that the authority identifies 18% and 27% as not religious, with both groups not overlapping.Jmv2009 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually an anonymous editor removed 2012 Pew's correct wording to the incorrect wording [20] and you made the lumping mistake under that wrong wording immediately after that [21] without fixing it. I never agreed to mutual exclusivity the way you were talking about because the report did not break down the 45% from "No, do not" and "Don't know/Refused". Clearly this demographic was not studied here. Pew NEVER used the term "not religious" on its own either. It only used the term "spiritual but not religious" and these are not the same thing since the majority of the people in that category still self-identify with a religion. Like I mentioned earlier spiritualtiy and religion are not mutually exclusive since the American Sociological Association mentions "Sociology also studies spirituality, which may be defined as individual and group efforts to find meaning for existence within or independent of organized religion." [22]. It is a more open ended term, but not entirely different than religion. Similar but not exactly the same.

Just stick to the summary from Pew above in the blue quote. It is clear, neutral, uncontroversial, it is what Pew says directly, and avoids Wikipedia editors re-interpreting and arbitrarily lumping into obscure categories WP:SYN. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: You agree now to the mutual exclusivity, or not?Jmv2009 (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. 45% does not equate to "not religious" - this wording is causing the problem. 45% are not affirming non religiosity. Identity and behaviors are not the same thing. The report did not break down the remaining 45% from "No, do not" and "Don't know/Refused". At best, 45% did not identify as a "religious person" but that is not the same as 45% are "not religious". Two different things: identity vs behaviors. The report gauges that 54% consider themselves a "religious person" and 75% consider themselves as "spiritual persons". Of course the best wording is their wording in blue which isolated that only 18% are neither a religious person or a spiritual person. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

First, you did not respond to whether there is mutual exclusivity (i.e. whether there is overlap), but rather answered a question about whether these people should be considered "not religious". Answer the question at hand! It does not come across as honest. I suggest you try again.

Then, do you think that there is mutual exclusivity between the people who "responded affirmatively to the question about being a spiritual person and also responded that they do not consider themselves religious." (from caption) and the people who "answer both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual" (from text).

Do you further agree with that the authority states that the 27% category are identified by the authority "spiritual and not religious" and "that they do not consider themselves religious". And further that the authority states that the 18% category says "they are neither religious nor spiritual."

Already responded over all of this in the last post above. Why do you keep asking the same questions over? This is getting way too long and we have gone over this many times. For simplicity literally stick to the wording in blue since that is the fundamental break down from Pew's analysis: "In addition to those who say they are spiritual but not religious [27%], 48% say they are both religious and spiritual, while 6% say they are religious but not spiritual. Another 18% answer both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual.". Pews own words and Pee's own numbers - leave it that way. Two variables and these are the mixed results. All arbitrary lumping and re-lumping is causing more confusion and waste of ink and is WP:SYN. Literally, here is what the WP policy states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Explicit statements must be made in the source for them to appear on wikipedia.

The source does explicitly 54% identified as "religious person" and the source does explicitly say 75% identified as "spiritual person". This is clear. Now if you just do simple math and assumptions of mutual exclusivity you would say that at least then, 25% are neither religious or spiritual person minimum. But look at what Pew explicitly says "18% answer both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual." So they do not do straight math here. They never explicitly explain any of the remainder for either question or for both in combination.

You asked about "responded affirmatively to the question about being a spiritual person and also responded that they do not consider themselves religious." This wording is not in the source. This is your wording and this is your assumption. You asked about "that they do not consider themselves religious" This is not in the source. This is your wording too and also your assumption. Pew makes no such explicit claims so all of this is WP:SYN. Again I repeat the wording of the policy for the single source "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Explicitness is the key here. All statements on wikipedia must be explicitly made in the source. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, as I wrote above, the caption (as stated before) of the first figure states: The "spiritual but not religious" category includes those who responded affirmatively to the question about being a spiritual person and also responded that they do not consider themselves religious. Do you now agree that the authority states that, or not?

You are still not responding to the issue of mutual exclusivity. On at least one occasion (the last occasion), you responded to this question with a logical fallacy, namely avoiding the issue. It is considered an abandonment of reason and honest inquiry.[23]

When I called you out on that, you are responding with that you already answered them before, but I can't find it: You never state that they are overlapping, nor do you make a case for it, nor that you agree with them being mutually exclusive. Again the same logical fallacy. To an evasive response, I can only go back, rephrase, and ask again. How else are we coming a consensus on a specific issue if you don't state your position on that issue.

About your response:"I never agreed to mutual exclusivity the way you were talking about because the report did not break down the 45% from "No, do not" and "Don't know/Refused". You are also here not making a case that the two groups are overlapping; whether there are people simultaneously in both groups. Again, you are responding to a different question, i.e. whether they should be considered "not religious". Again the same logical fallacy.

I already called you out on evading other questions such as whether you agree to the table included above.

You can't be serious about complaining that it takes too much effort/time/.. and simultaneously refusing to address the issues at hand.

You may think mutual exclusivity is not really relevant, but it is obviously important to agree on this.

Here are the results of the 2012 version of the survey - No lumping required:

Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not.

	Yes	No	Don't Know/Refused
Religiosity Question	65%	34%	1%

[24]

The 34% were were put in the "Spiritual but not religious"/"Spiritual only"(18%) category or the "Neither Spiritual nor Religious"(15%), depending on the response to a separate question. 2% was then identified as not "DK" in the web article.[25]. The first graph in the 2017 article shows that the "Neither Spiritual nor Religious" (= These "answer both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual, text) grew from "16%"[sic] to 18%, and the "Spiritual but not Religious" category grew from 19%[sic to 27%. (=those who responded affirmatively to the question about being a spiritual person and also responded they do not consider themselves to be a religious person", captions). Both phrases do indicate a definite negative response (answer negatively ... & responded that they do not consider...) to the religiosity question, for both "not" or "neither" religious categories. Jmv2009 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

My gosh, you still do not understand. Give me direct quotes from the source on what you want to say! Not assumptions and re-interpretations. Only what the source says in quote marks. All else is WP:SYN. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." I provided quotes for mine, but you have yet to provide a quote for what you want to write. What do you want to write? I am kind of at a loss as to what you are trying to do at this point since you keep on bringing in your personal analysis and reinterpretation of the numbers and yet you do not provide actual quotes stating the arguments you are trying to make. Quotes would help. I personally interpret the Pew Report as completely useless information, but I am following Wikipedia policy in in using explicit statements made in the source. So lets restart. What is your goal? What is the wording you want to use?

By the way, just wanted to point out a mistake in your understating of the caption of the first figure. It actually says: "The "spiritual but not religious" category includes those who responded affirmatively to the question about being a spiritual person and also responded that they do not consider themselves to be a religious person." You missed the "person" in the end of sentence. I agree that the source has overlapping involved since it analyzes 2 questions and combines the results per the quote BLUE above that I have been emphasizing over and over. But the overlapping is not straight forward when it comes to those who said "no" or "dont know/refused" because if 75% self-identify as "spiritual person" and 54% self-identify as "religious person", then when to comes to "neither spiritual person or religious person" it should be 25% for that combination "left over" (common difference between both categories). Yet Pew's analysis results explicitly state that only 18% are neither. Obviously Pew is doing something different in their analyses than just adding yeses and nos. Also they made no claim for "not religious" or "not spiritual" anywhere. So why speculate about a category not explicitly mentioned in the source?

side comment: [The 2012 report certainly shows numbers for yes, no, and dont know and they asked the same two questions, but look at Pew's analysis of the data on pages 43-46. Their break down is a combined analysis: "religious" (65%), "spiritual but not religious" (18%), and "neither" (15%) - page 44. On page 80 (where you made your table from) you see that 78% said yes to "spiritual person" and that 65% said yes to "religious person". Same inconsitency: the "neither" category should be at least 21% for that combination "left over" (common difference between both categories). Yet Pew's analysis explicitly states that only 15% makes up the "neither" category. So it fails here too. Looking at the just the "No" #s on page 80 : "No" on religious person (34%) and "No" on spiritual person (21%) means that the "neither" category should be 21% at least (common difference between both categories) and yet Pews analysis says only 15% is "neither" category on page 44. So this does not add up either. Obviously Pew is doing something different in their analyses than just adding yeses and nos.]

Look, our job it to stick to the source and let the source do the interpreting, not you or me. Per WP policy. In both cases, no categories are

Anyways, what is your specific goal? What is it you seek to post on wikipedia? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Your take on it may be too restrictive. We'll get to you WP:SYN comments in due time. We don't see eye to eye yet on what they did, and indeed: You state you think did didn't do straight math, and it appears you don't agree with the source on their math. I suggest you try convince yourself that this is not due to a misunderstanding on your part (rather than calling WP:SYN). So let's address the 25% that you think they should have found for the neither "spiritual person" or "religious person": 6% of the population answered they are religious but not spiritual (an odd combination indeed), which is why they were not assigned to the "neither spiritual nor religious" category.

Moreover, you are appealing to a different notion of overlapping than mutual exclusivity = sets not overlapping = disjoint sets [26]Set (mathematics)Disjoint sets: Can a person be assigned to two categories simultaneous. Rather, you take it to mean a rather vague and undefined notion that they analyse 2 question and combine the results.

When categories are smaller than you would expect, you are not making a case that the categories do not overlap/are mutually exclusive. Rather, such an argument would fit in a case that the categories may not encompass all people.

My take is that FOR A PERSON to land in the "Spiritual but not religious" category you would have responded affirmatively to the spirituality question, and that to land in the "Neither spiritual nor religious" category THE SAME PERSON would have need to respond (at least) not affirmatively to the spirituality question. Being assigned to both categories appears inconsistent with what they did.

If out of a hundred gnomes, 19 gnomes have a red hat and a green sweather on, and 16 gnomes have a red hat and a brown sweather on, and they are only wearing up to one sweather, is it improper to say that at least 35 have red hats?Jmv2009 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I updated my response above a little to elaborate on the 2012 report to see that they do not add up. But seriously all of this analysis you are doing and I am doing is WP:SYN. In discussing the numbers and moving them around and guessing at categories is not a good thing. But before I continue, what is it you want to post on wikipedia? Also can you find a quote to support the claim you want to post? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears you are confusing "neither spiritual person nor religious person" with "(Not spiritual) OR (not religious)". "Neither spiritual nor religious" is logically equivalent to "(not spiritual) AND (not religious)".Logical conjunction

Yes, they are doing more than just using the data from the table on page 97. Because they know who answered what, they can put individual persons into one of four categories. (2x2: yes-yes, yes-no, no-yes, no-no). If you include the DK's they can actually identify a total of 9 (3x3), but these extra 5 categories together only added up to 2%.Jmv2009 (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you want to add to wikipedia? Also can you please find a quote for the specific claim? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I am glad we resolved the confusion about the "neither_nor". Was that at the root of our disagreement?

Well, I think the following is warranted: This is an elaborate version, but it is a summarized version. They are not direct quotes. I'm leaving the links to the sources out for now. We can work on the phrasing. If there is any specific thing that you don't agree on, or you think is misleading, please let me know. Try to explain why you think it is not supported by the sources.
- In the 2012 survey, 34% self-identified as a non-religious person, responding negatively to the question "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?". Within the "not religious", 18% of all interviewed had responded they consider themselves "spiritual", and additionally, within the "not religious", 15% with the responded that they didn't.
- In the 2017 survey, the first category of "not religious" people grew by 8 percentage points, from 19% [sic] to 27%, while the second category grew by 2 percentage points, from 16% [sic] to 18%. Summarizing, this indicates that (at least) 45% self-identified as "not religious". Jmv2009 (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Where are you thinking of adding this stuff? Keep in mind that you will have to provide quotes for all of this since I disagree with some of your wording since spirituality is mixed. Context and wording should be kept as the sources claim it.

For the first line, the source does not say "34% self-identified as a nonreligous person". Not self-identifying as as "religious person" does not equate to people affirming they self-identify as a "nonreligious person". Source does not ask that nor does it use such terminology. Many of the 34% have a religious affiliation of course, per the source. The summary quote from the source is better worded and comprehensive (so it can be paraphrased). Here is the source quote "All told, about two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) describe themselves as religious (either in addition to be being spiritual or not). Nearly one-in-five say they are spiritual but not religious (18%), and about one-in-six say they are neither religious nor spiritual (15%)." We can also add something about how most of the spiritual but not religious have religious affiliations too. Per the source "A sizable minority of those in the general public who consider themselves to be spiritual but not religious are unaffiliated (32%), but fully two-thirds have a religious affiliation."

For the second line, same issue with the wording. The quote from Pew is more clear and comprehensive and can be paraphrased. Here is the source quote: "In addition to those who say they are spiritual but not religious [27%], 48% say they are both religious and spiritual, while 6% say they are religious but not spiritual. Another 18% answer both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual." This complete breakdown will need to be added in since it is the most complete breakdown in the source. You can add the next source quote too: "Who makes up this rapidly rising, “spiritual but not religious” segment of American adults? While many of them (37%) are religiously unaffiliated (describing their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”), most actually do identify with a religious group, including 35% who say they are Protestant, 14% who are Catholic and 11% who are members of others faiths, such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism." It can be paraphrased. I think we can adjust your wording to be more in-line with the sources wording and add this: "The "spiritual but not religious category was 19% in 2012 and 27% in 2017, while the "neither religious nor spiritual" category was 16% in 2012 and 18% in 2017." Plus we can add that "Overall, 54% of Americans self-identify as a "religious person" and 75% self-identify as "spiritual person".

We can work on the paraphrasing and condense some of this. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not adding any of the stuff yet are proposing. For now it is distracting. But I am heeding your criticism with the following rephrase, staying close to the phrasing of the source. It is getting less and less of a summary though.

- In the 2012 survey, 34% responding to the question "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?" in such a way that their answer was considered to be a "No". Within this group, 18% of all interviewed had responded they consider themselves spiritual, resulting in them being assigned to a "Spiritual but not religious" group. Additionally, within the "not religious" group, 15% had responded that they didn't consider themselves spiritual, resulting in them being assigned to a "Neither religious nor spiritual" group, meaning they were considered to be both not religious and not spiritual. Those giving no answer on the religiosity question (1%) were excluded.
- In the 2017 survey, the first category of "not religious" people grew by 8 percentage points, from 19% [sic] to 27%, while the second category grew by 2 percentage points, from 16% [sic] to 18%. Only 54% identified as religious. The source states that "the spiritual but not religious" category (which amounted to 27%) includes those who responded affirmatively to the question about being a spiritual person and also responded that they do not consider themselves to be a religious person, and that 18% answered both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual. Summarizing, this indicates that (at least) 45% responded such that they were assigned to a "not/neither religious" category. Only 54% thought of themselves as religious.
To be specific, in the 2017 survey the following phrases were used for describing how people were assigned to a "not/neither religious" category: a) Answered negatively to the question. b) Saying they are not religious. c) Responded that they do not consider themselves to be a religious person.

We should stay close to the phrasing of the source. Since both Pew source's analysis do not isolate the responses in their analysis and since Pew does not explicitly states the actual distribution of the "no" or "do not" know responses for either of the two question, we really cannot isolate them either and make up assumptions about them. The distitribtuion of the "No" is not simple or explained by Pew (they do not make the claims), but both of us have been guessing since the numbers are not adding up. We don't know what Pew did (they do not make any claims on this), but we sure know what they claimed in their combined analysis so we should stick to what they explicitly claimed. Per WP policy. We claim what they claim, not claim what they do not and certainly not re-interpret their data to make claims they do not make. This avoids dispute with the source and among editors. Plus since only Pew can analyze their own data, and their analysis is about both "religious person" and "spiritual person" in combination, we should stick to the analysis how that actually have it.

- According to Pew's 2012 report, 65% self-identified as religious person, 18% self-identified as spiritual person but not religious person, and 15% self-identified as neither religious person or spiritual person. Two thirds of those who identified as a spiritual person but not religious person, affiliate with a religion.

- According to Pews' 2017 report, 6% self identified as religious person only, 48% self-identified as religious person and spiritual person, 27% self-identified as spiritual person but not religious person and 18% self-identified as neither religious person or spiritual person. Most of those who self-identified as spiritual person, but not religious person, affiliate with a religion. The religious person only category was 6% in 2012 and 6% in 2017, the religious person and spiritual person category was 65% in 2012 and declined to 54% in 2017, spiritual person but not religious person category was 19% in 2012 and grew to 27% by 2017, while the neither religious person or spiritual person category was 16% in 2012 and grew to 18% by 2017. The growth of the spiritual person but not religious person category came mainly form those who consider themselves as religious person and spiritual person.

This I think this accommodates us both without getting to wordy and keeping everything in line with the sources in what they claim. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the 2012 study states
a) in the PDF that the DK for the religiosity question are 1% and for the spirituality question are 2%
b) in the caption the second figure that the DK's for the religious question are not shown.
c) in the caption in the second table that the DK's for the religious question are shown seperately as 2% [sic].

In any case, the not responders are a very minute percentage, at least in the first study. Besides the DK's it seems pretty clear what they did mathematically: They generated four categories according to their two answers ("Combining the questions", as they phrase it) (yes-yes, yes-no, no-yes and no-no), and they assigned labels to them. (In the first study it was actually presented initially as three categories (yes-?, no-yes, no-no), but you could work out approximately the division between the Yes-yes and the Yes-no)
Why do you (still) say the numbers are not adding up, apart from very small differences in the given numbers, rounding errors, and the DK's which all amount to typically 2 percent or less? Or are we nitpicking over those? I though we resolved the biggest fish with the difference in meaning of (not religious) or (not spiritual) vs (not religious) and (not spiritual).
Please let me know what you are concerned about. Are you worried about the details or the big picture?Jmv2009 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

- In the 2012 survey, 34% responding to the question "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?" in such a way that their answer was considered to be a "No". Q.97 in PDF: Religious person - Yes:65 - No:34 - (Vol.) DK/Ref: 1. Within this group, 18% of all interviewed had responded they consider themselves spiritual, resulting in them being considered spiritual but not religious, and are assigned to a "Spiritual but not religious" group. Additionally, within the "not religious" group, 15% had responded that they didn't consider themselves spiritual, resulting in them being assigned to a "Neither religious nor spiritual" group, meaning they were considered to be both not religious and not spiritual. Those giving no answer on the religiosity question (1%/2%) were excluded. DK includes those giving no answer to Q97a, and U.S general public - Religious %: 65 - Spiritual, not religious %: 18, Neither %: 15- DK %: 2, and clearing up the confusion between (not religious) OR (not spiritual) vs (not religious) AND (not spiritual). - In the 2017 survey, the first category of "not religious" people grew by 8 percentage points, from 19% [sic] to 27%, while the second category grew by 2 percentage points, from 16% [sic] to 18%. Figure 1 Only 54% identified as religious. Looking at another way, only 54% of U.S. adults think of themselves as religious. . The source states that "the spiritual but not religious" category (which amounted to 27%) includes those who responded affirmatively to the question about being a spiritual person and also responded that they do not consider themselves to be a religious person Caption Figure 1 , and that 18% answered both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual. Another 18% answer both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual . Summarizing, this indicates that 45% responded such that they were assigned to a "not religious" or "neither religious" category. Straight sum of 18% + 27%., as saying they consider with mutual exclusiveness of Yes and No as answers to the spirituality question (as discussed), as well as supported by the Additionally... . Another. To be specific, in the 2017 survey the following phrases were used for describing how people were assigned to a "not/neither religious" category: a) Answered negatively to the question. Another 18% answer both questions negatively. b) Saying they are not religious. ..., saying they are neither religious... c) Responded that they do not consider themselves to be a religious person. ... responded that they do not consider themselves to be a religious person

To be honest, we are getting closer to plagiarism rather than editing, which is not how this is supposed to work.

Are you Pew? How do you know what they did in splitting the repsonses? The source does not explain the breakdown of the remainders - which is why I was stating that the numbers do not add up in a straight waay. Like you said about the 2012 report "Yes, they are doing more than just using the data from the table on page 97. Because they know who answered what, they can put individual persons into one of four categories." But you do not know exactly what they did and that is the point. They are using more data than what is on the report - so we do not know exactly what they did because we do not have the complete data. They did the results so let them make the claims and interpretations of the data. If the numbers are available those can be quoted, but the analysis of those numbers has to be made by Pew directly.

I think that we can reduce all interpretations to just state X number of Americans said yes and no to "religious person" question and X number of Americans said yes and no to "spiritual person" question, if those numbers are directly available and provide Pew interpretations of the data. By the way plagiarism is quoting without citation. We are paraphrasing with a citation so it is not the same.

- According to Pew in 2012, when people were asked "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?" 65% said yes, 34% said no and 1% did not know. Similarly when people were asked "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a spiritual person, or not?" 78% said yes, 21% said no, and 2% did not know. In their analysis, Pew notes that 18% self-identified as spiritual person but not religious person, and 15% self-identified as neither religious person or spiritual person and that two thirds of those who identified as a spiritual person but not religious person, affiliate with a religion.

- According to Pew in 2017, ...use similar wording and provide the results of Pew if the yes, no, dont know numbers are available and then add their analysis of the 2 questions: In their analysis, Pew notes that 6% self identified as religious person only, 48% self-identified as religious person and spiritual person, 27% self-identified as spiritual person but not religious person and 18% self-identified as neither religious person or spiritual person. Most of those who self-identified as spiritual person, but not religious person, affiliate with a religion. The religious person only category was 6% in 2012 and 6% in 2017, the religious person and spiritual person category was 65% in 2012 and declined to 54% in 2017, spiritual person but not religious person category was 19% in 2012 and grew to 27% by 2017, while the neither religious person or spiritual person category was 16% in 2012 and grew to 18% by 2017. The growth of the spiritual person but not religious person category came mainly form those who consider themselves as religious person and spiritual person. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We know what they did, because they are telling us, but apparently it is not clear yet. My take is that when they apparently try to make something clear to us, we should accept that as such. Let me lay it out for you for the 2012 study, as you appear to object to the splitting I made there:
Step 1: DK includes those giving no answer to Q97a, Those giving no answer to Q97a are not shown. (the religiosity question), so those are not included in the three other categories. Conclusion: There are no people who answered "Don't know, or refused" to the religiosity question who were categorised.
Step 2: In principle, if you disregard the DK on Q97b (i.e. the 2% who did not answer (DK/Ref) the spirituality question, In any case, the DK's on Q97a are already out), there are only four categories of people (ReligiousYES-SpiritualYES, ReligionYES-SpiritualNO, ReligiousNO-SpiritualYES, and ReligionsNO-SpiritualNO). How many belong in each category is not clear from the table at the end of the PDF, as it does not mention for each individual person what they answered. However, they can (and did) do this categorization. This is what they are trying to tell us with phrases like
a) Combined Q97a-b.
b) Figures show those who think of themselves as a religious person, as spiritual but not religious, and as neither a religious nor a spiritual person.
c) Nearly one-in-five say they are spiritual but not religious (18%), and about one-in-six say they are neither religious nor spiritual (15%).. This should indicate to you that the 18% and 15% categories both say they are not religious, i.e. they were in the "no" column, and should go toward alleviating your worries about "splitting".

Furthermore (from the 2017 study)
d) The "spiritual but not religious" category includes those who responded affirmatively to the question about being spiritual person and also responded that they do not consider themselves to be a religious person. This should indicate to you that they responded with "No" to the Religiosity question and "Yes" to the "Spirituality question".
e) "The results presented here are the product of combining responses to those two questions."
f) say they are not religious. This should indicate to you they are not in the DK column.
g) answer both questions negatively. This should indicate to you they are not in the DK column for both questions.

To be frank, I don't know how else they would have needed to phrase it to make things more clear. with respect to what they are presenting. I am interpreting in the sense of making it clear what the data tells us, but who doesn't. I am strongly disputing that I am over-interpreting though.
I didn't get an answer to this: If out of a hundred gnomes, 19 gnomes have a red hat and a green sweater on, and 16 gnomes have a red hat and a brown sweater on, and they are only wearing up to one sweater, is it improper to say that at least 35 have red hats? Now replace "have a red had" with "responded negatively to the religiosity question/say they are not religious/No on the religiosity question/think of themselves as a religious person" you have exactly where I'm at. It's that simple.
The "DK"s appear to be a Red herring, another logical fallacy, first because they appear to be only 1-2%, and the "DK"s for the religiosity question were excluded from categorization, at least in the 2012 study. I am calling you out on that because you did not respond whether you are concerned with the up to 2% DK, inconsistencies and rounding effects, or with the bigger picture.
Of course, they could have written the story this way, without changing the content:
Following the responses to Q97a, we define three disjoint sets of interviewed people: Q97a-Yes, Q97a-No, Q97a-DK.
Following the responses to Q97b, we define three disjoint sets of interviewed people: Q97b-Yes, Q97b-No, Q97b-DK.
Q97a-Yes was 65% of all interviewed people.
Q97a-No was 34% of all interviewed people.
The intersection of Q97a-No and Q97b-Yes was 18% of all interviewed people. This set is assigned the label Q97a-No-Q97b-Yes.
The intersection of Q97a-No and Q97b-No was 15% of all inteviewed people (you may try to agrue that is was actually the (intersection of Q97a-No and (Q97b-NO union with Q97b-DK))
This set is assigned the label Q97a-No-Q97b-No.

I doubt this would be an appetizing story.
My observations are that:
Note that Q97a-No-Q97b-Yes and Q97a-No-Q97b-No are disjoint.
The union of Q97a-No-Q97b-Yes and Q97a-No-Q97b-No is a subset of Q97a-No.

The issue is that you are making your own analysis one question (religious person) and ignoring the other one (spiritual person), which Pew did not do (they did not make explicit statements on one question - they did a combined analysis based on both questions - this is what counts on WP). If they did do a comprehensive one question analysis, can you provide a quote of their one question analysis showing what you are saying? I am asking for a quote, not your personal analysis of the source. Pew on both the 2012 and 2017 reports did a combined analysis of two questions. THEIR data and THEIR explicit interpretations are the only valid we can thing cite on wikipedia. Per the WP policy.

You are framing the source's claims in one way (single question) when the sources frame themselves differently (two question analysis). I have been using their quotes of their analysis because you are not supposed to read more into a source than the source actually does of itself. They do a two question combined analysis so that is how it should be worded, following their quotes. You may quote number but you cannot make an interpretation with that number if the source does not make that particular interpretation of it. This is to prevent such long discussions of what the numbers mean. The meaning of any numbers must be supplied by the source itself not anonymous wikipedia editors.

In the 2012, report, Pew's analysis had only 3 categories. And actually look at their graph on page 43. They have even better wording on the "Identify as Spiritual, Religous Person" plot. Their terms there are even more precise: 1) "Religious", 2) "Spiritual only", 3) "Neither". They interpret their results in Blue literally reflecting the plot exactly: "All told, about two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) describe themselves as religious (either in addition to be being spiritual or not). Nearly one-in-five say they are spiritual but not religious (18%), and about one-in-six say they are neither religious nor spiritual (15%)." So the "spiritual but not religious" category is literally the "Spiritual only" category. They made that connection via their plot and commentary on it, not me. So in retrospect it may be more clear to use "spiritual only" instead of "spiritual but not religious" because that is what it is.

In the 2017, Pew does their analysis in a similar combined way. But they used 4 categories in their analysis: 1) "Spiritual but not religious" (which is pretty much "Spiritual only"), 2) "Religious and spiritual", 3) "Religious but not spiritual" (which is pretty much "Religious only"), and 4) "Neither spiritual or religious". "In addition to those who say they are spiritual but not religious [27%], 48% say they are both religious and spiritual, while 6% say they are religious but not spiritual. Another 18% answer both questions negatively, saying they are neither religious nor spiritual."

In both reports, they Pew explicitly mentions that most of the "spiritual but not religious" (which is literally the "Spiritual only" category) still have a religious affiliation. They even discuss their religious behaviors too. Keep in mind the scope of the sources too - what is the section you are using in 2012 report focusing on? One one dimension or two dimensions? Two - it investigates two dimensions: religious person and spiritual person. What about the 2017 report? Again, two dissensions. So why are you framing the source over and over under only one dimension and ignoring the other? Spiritual and religious self-identities both intersect.

I am not obsessed with one question, like you apparently are. I care only about following WP policy and staying true to what the source explicitly says, not what I personally think or how I personally break down the numbers. Quotes, quotes quotes quotes. Please. If you cannot provide direct quotes, I will not agree with you. However, if you can provide a quote I will agree with you automatically. No assumptions needed. I am done wasting time. Direct quote or nothing. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Jmv2009, you want to add a claim that is not supported by citations but is the result of your own synthesis and original research, which Wikipedia prohibits. Unless a source clearly states something, by policy, it is not allowed to be added here. The Pew source does not isolate the religious person variables nor the spiritual person variables in their analysis of the data of 2 questions, Their analysis in both the 2012 and 2017 are an explicit analysis of both variables - religious person and spiritual person. So any postings should reflect the spirit of the source by what it states explicitly - relating on the two variables, not about what either editor thinks it is saying for each individual variable. Pew is clear in what it says in the text and the quotes provided in blue are enough to just be paraphrased and posted rather than analyzed further. desmay (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It's true that I only care about the "not religious" self-identification, simply because it should be an important component of this article. There are many, many related concepts, such as spirituality, affilation, etc.

But anyway, this is directly following the source. Of course content from the table was converted into text:
- In 2012, 34% responded with "No" to Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?". They also had asked if people generally speaking think of themselves a spiritual person, or not? They found that 18% think of themselves as spiritual but not religious and 15% as neither a religious nor a spiritual person. Those giving no answer (1-2%) to the religiosity question were not included in these.[27]
- In 2017, the spiritual but not religious grew to 27%. The neither religious nor spiritual grew to 18%. Only 54% of U.S. adults thought of themselves as religious, down from 65% in 2012.

Desmay: your comment is appreciated, but keep in mind: Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources. and, you as founder of the "Founder of the http://www.escapingatheism project. Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool, and Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH is not numerical summarization. We are trying to get to whether the calculation is obvious, correct and a meaningful reflection of the sources. We are having a serious discussion about whether the calculation (the 45% not religious) is obvious and correct, which is important and are a requirement. The result may not have been the focus of the sources, but that fact alone doesn't necessarily rise to the level that the result is not a meaningful reflection of the source, where I am more specifically taking about the data rather than the storyline. I'm actually THIS close to E-mailing Pew about improving their reporting on this stuff.

Further, Pew DOES isolate the religious person/not religious variables in 2012 at the end of the PDF, and in the 65% category, in contrast to what you are saying. In 2017, they isolate the religious person variable as being 54%. There is also a lot of information in the source saying something about the number of not religious in 2017, by simply taking what they say at face value (rather than more or less refusing to fully understand the source). Taking at face value is not "interpreting".

In any case, the biggest initial confusion was about not religious by self-identification on a straight question, in contrast to the (un)affiliation, which appears what the first paragraphs of the article is about, and what is most often reported upon.Jmv2009 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Desmay, Thanks for your comment. I agree with your statements on following wikipedia policy - sticking to the source's own analysis itself based on its explicit statements it makes. Especially since both Pew sources do a two variable analysis and both comment on that as opposed to an analysis of the just one variable. Any wording should reflect Pew's two variable analysis. I am no longer considering calculations and assumptions by any editor, only direct quotes. Quotes settle disputes because that is where the source makes explicit claims about their own data and all other editors can see that the source made it or not. Their claims are the only thing that matter. This is too long and too stupid to consider any further.

@Jmv2009, considering that the whole discussion is about your obsession over one part of the sources and ignoring the rest of what the sources claim, it looks like WP:POV now. You are trying to twist the source into just saying that people are "not religious" when the source explicitly shows the situation is more complex with direct intersections of people's identities. For instance, you never mention what both sources note on the "spiritual only" (aka "spiritual but not religious") category in that the majority have a religious affiliations. This is an important detail as to who they are as a demographic.

Clearly, since another editor has now disputed your way of framing the source too, it is obvious that the routine calculation argument is incorrect. The the meaning of the numbers is not obvious because religious and spiritual identities are not simple ideas but really complex things and both Pew sources show that!! So no more calculations or assumptions or deductions will be considered. All of this is WP:SYN. Only quotes will be considered. Pew has the only right to interpret their own data.

This will be the last attempt at a comprise. Otherwise, nothing will be done by either one of us - no further changes to the article. No consensus for your attempt at adding something to the article.

I think that your latest wording is short, more inline with the source, plus it is more neutrally worded. So I will build on it slightly.

- "According to a 2012 Pew report, 34% responded with "No" when asked "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?" and 21% responded with "No" when asked "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?". In Pew's analysis, they concluded that 18% of Americans think of themselves as a spiritual but not religious person and 15% think of themselves as neither a religious nor a spiritual person. Pew also noted that many of the Americans that think of themselves as a spiritual but not religious person, affiliate with a religion."

-"According to a 2017 Pew report, the spiritual but not religious category grew to 27% from 19% in 2012 and the neither religious nor spiritual category grew to 18% from 15% in 2012. Only 54% of U.S. adults thought of themselves as a religious person, down from 65% in 2012. Pew also noted that many of the Americans that think of themselves as spiritual but not religious, affiliate with a religion."

I kept most of your wording. Does this work for you? I think this is a decent comprise in fleshing out these categories and respective changes. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ramos1990:You are doing a great peace of doubletalk here: The meaning of the numbers is not obvious because religious and spiritual identities are not simple ideas but really complex things and both Pew sources show that!! You a referring to what it means to be "not religious" such as whether you are spiritual or affiliated, or believe in a god, while I am referring to how they responded on Q97a. I agree you can't do math on the former, but you can possibly do math on the latter. You are basically saying, we can't look at concept Q because concept T is not a simple idea. Care to acknowledge?

The other editor was also in factual error, right? You can't seriously say that you were right, because another editor agrees with you with an erroneous statement: "Looked at another way, only 54% of U.S. adults think of themselves as religious". Moreover, I read this as that categories can in fact be added up: They published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article, albeit for a slightly different categories. This apart from the argument is summing, which is not renerally regarded as wp:syn.

As for the WP:POV. You added about the not religious but affiliated. That's fine.

Anyway, for the text:

- "According to a 2012 Pew report, 34% responded with "No" when asked "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?" and 21% responded with "No" when asked "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a spiritual person, or not?".

(

that 18% of Americans think of themselves as a spiritual but not religious person and another 15% think of themselves as neither a religious nor a spiritual person. Pew also noted that many of the Americans that think of themselves as a spiritual but not religious person, affiliate with a religion." Those giving no answer to the religiosity question (1-2%) were not included in these.

-"According to a 2017 Pew report, the spiritual but not religious category grew to 27% from 19% in 2012 and the neither religious nor spiritual category grew to 18% from 16% in 2012. Only 54% of U.S. adults thought of themselves as a religious person, down from 65% in 2012. Pew also noted that many of the Americans that think of themselves as spiritual but not religious, affiliate with a religion."

(I added another (to emphasize they are logically mutually exclusive, in the 2017 report this was made mentioned explicitly) and put back "Those giving no answer to the religiosity question (1-2%) were not included in these.", as a rephrasing of "Those giving no answer to Q97a are not shown.")

The source makes explicit complex statements and the wording should reflect what the source says. That is all I have been saying - Per WP policy. Pew shows many dimensions which seem to not fit in any particular stereotypical "religious" or "not religious" box. So be it. That is their data and their analysis. So be it. In any case, Desmay is correct in stating that everyone should abide by Wikipedia policy. The policy is there to reduce such wastes of time of WP:SYN and pointless speculative reverse-interpretations. The "no" statements for the spiritual person question did not add up on the reverse in my opinion (you did some interesting arguments but those included assumptions and Pew did not show how they distributed). But this is beside the point, though, because we are not really supposed to engage in WP:SYN and "Possibly" is not enough when engaging complex things like this, I am afraid. Retroactive analysis is kind of pointless too because only the source can make the interpretations on such complex things like spiritual and religious identities. What is clear though, is the quotes (Pews analysis and results) and the raw numbers in the 2012 report at the bottom; and the quotes in the 2017 report. Quotes settle the matter on what the source actually says and how it interprets its own data and also what can be said about the source.

I think your latest wording is good to go. Short, to the point, and reflecting the sources contents in more neutral language. In general, with these kinds of sources, it usually is best to just state the numbers as is and leave the interpretations to the source itself. It avoids making hasty generalizations on either party's side. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is a bit of sharpening: - "According to a 2012 Pew report, 34% responded with "No" when asked "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?" and 21% responded with "No" when asked "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?". By combining the responses from both questions, they found that 18% of Americans think of themselves as a spiritual but not religious person and 15% think of themselves as neither a religious nor a spiritual person. Pew also noted that many of the Americans that think of themselves as a spiritual but not religious person, affiliate with a religion."

-"According to a 2017 Pew report, the "spiritual but not religious" category grew to 27% from 19% in 2012 and the "neither religious nor spiritual" category grew to 18% from 15% in 2012. Only 54% of U.S. adults thought of themselves as a religious person, down from 65% in 2012. Pew also noted that many of the Americans that think of themselves as "spiritual but not religious", affiliate with a religion."

("In Pew's analysis, they concluded", replaced by "By combining the responses from both questions, they found") The first is completely undefined and contains nothing about what they said they did, and includes the loaded word "concluding", while the second is content comes from content in the source. (2012: Combined Q97a-b, 2017: The results presented here are the product of combining responses to those two questions.) Specifically I want to take out the word concluding, because it can be taken to mean "conclusions" in the sense of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", while all they apparently did is take some intersections/combinations of negative/positive/DK responses. You can't build on something that is a opaque synthesis. Let's not make things more fuzzy than they appear to be, there is enough of that in this realm)Jmv2009 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I just put in quote marks on the 2017 categories on your latest proposed wording since they described them as such. Looks good to go. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Win/Gallup International ref

Irrespective of what the included ref says (which is hard to access, and may be in error as well) I am disputing the inaccuracy of the Win/Gallup International polling as a) With respect to sample size: the number of people samples it typically around 1000 per country, giving a standard error of around +-1.5 percentage points. (95% error limits are about twice at wide). Looking at the differences with 2014, and also taking into account the consistency between countries (assuming not much actually changed in those countries), one would probably get a +-10% confidence interval (much larger than the sampling error due to the limited sample size.) b) They appear pretty consistent with the pew results (i.e. ~ 55%-56% contemporary religiosity) c) If there are other reliable contemporary sources, we should add them. Especially since the WIN/Gallup International collaboration appears to have ended.

Does not matter what we as editors think about a source. The most important thing is what do reliable sources say with respect to the stuff in the article and the topic at hand. The fact that expert sociologists on the topic raised the issues of accuracy for Win/Gallup (WIN/GIA) polls is certainly worth noting in the article. Ariela Keysar et al., who is an expert on research and surveys on irreligion, non religion, atheism, etc made the observation that experienced surveys that have had consistent results through time show different values compared to WIN/GIA. This is what the ref observes when looking at multiple other surveys that are available on the exact same topic. Other surveys are in this wiki article already such as GSS, Pew, Gallup, ARIS, etc so there is diversity of results already in the article. ARIS and GSS are by far some of the most reliable surveys because they are dominated by academic organizations specializing in this stuff and are of course better analyzed. In fact, though the US Census bureau has not asked about religion for more than 50 years, they used ARIS data (1990, 2001, and 2008) to represent the religious profile of America [28]. ARIS in particular is known for its reliability and also it was done by Ariela Keysar as well. By the way, ARIS is done by the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC).

Pew, Gallup, Win/Gallup are all private and for profit organizations whose methods are less reliable- which is why they suck at predicting simple things like elections. WIN/GIA is not even academic it is a marketing firm. No wonder their global numbers on atheism are inconsistent from 2005 to 2017 with a sharp rise (nearly doubled) and fall (nearly halved) in just 12 years?. May even be a reason why WIN/GIA is no longer there. The methods it uses are common, but the quality is not there necessarily since cheap news polls like CNN poll or Associated Press polls use the same stuff (some sample size, standard error, etc) but how does that make them reliable? Academics do not use WIN/GIA for any detailed analysis in their research. But they sure use GSS, ARIS, and other more respectable surveys because of the quality they provide. The numbers for many of these surveys are sort of all over the place due to each one's limitations and methods and also the very low response rates they all get may be part of the problem overall.

If you are disputing the caution claim from a reliable source (keep in mind I wrote caution, not inaccuracy since the source advises caution) then find a reliable source that states that WIN/GIA is a very good survey and you can add that there too. I see no issue with that. Otherwise, there is not much to discuss. Since the ref adds context to a survey which is not seen as good by top researchers on irreligion, nonreligion, atheism, etc. then it is relevant. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead needs rewriting

In general, we need to follow WP:Lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate that. I was thinking that it is getting very crammed too. I will make some changes right now by creating some sections to reduce the text in the lead. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

@AddMore-III: I have noticed that you have made lots of removal of content recently [[29]] (which for the most part I do not object to), but you are not really summarizing some sources correctly and making some WP:SYN.

I have for instance rectified the nuances in some of the sources as for the most part nearly all surveys state the the number of Nones in the US are between 21-33% of the population. The number of spiritual but not religious is actually 27% based on the sources. Neither one says that they are 40% or more. In fact no source or poll states such high numbers. Perhaps you misread them, but that looks like WP:SYN.

Also, the polls in general actually state that the number of people who identify as atheists is less than 10% consistently. This is of course the consensus views based on numerous independent polls. This should be reflected on the article since it makes it look like it is up in the air when it is not.

I think this article should be cleaned up, but we should not throw away the baby with the bathwater since there are nuances in the studies that should be kept since in reality there are almost no studies on irreligion. You generally do studies on religion and religiosity and then infer from the numbers increases or declines of religion. That is what researchers of religion an nonreligion do. It is certainly hard to actually measure negatives especially since even the sources specify that even those who have are None actually have things like belief in God (majority) and many still affiliate with religion without identifying so.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Ramos1990, you are mixing several issues. There are definitely studies on irreligion in the United States, which are barely mentioned here. Instead, there is a pile of primary sources: "according to that poll, X are Nones, according to this one, Y are Nones" and on and on and on. An article about irreligion is not to be concerned so much with the beliefs of the non-affiliated religious people (The “nones” are mostly religious individuals who are unwilling to join a church or are indifferent believers - Galen et al, The Nonreligious: Understanding Secular People and Societies, p. 130) but with actual irreligion. At the moment, I'm trying to condense the ton of trivial polls the article is filled with. That's indeed not optimal, what the article needs are academic-level books and papers, not those about the "Nones" but mainly about the truly nonreligious, 8%-15% of Americans. AddMore-III (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "actual irreligion". There certainly is no "actual religion" since people are not that pure or ideal. Even Phil Zuckerman observes that there is diversity among the less religious. "Of course, things can be messy. For instance, someone can be secular and yet not be an atheist, such as an individual who never attends religious services or activities, doesn’t describe herself as religious, and yet still believes in something she would refer to as God (Shibley, 2004). Or a person can be religious while also being an atheist; there are many religious traditions – particularly in the East -- that don’t contain a specific belief in God (Eller, 2007; Martin, 2007), and for many other people, belief in God is largely absent from their idiosyncratic religious identities (McGuire, 2008; Casebolt and Niekro, 2005). Then there are people eschew the designation “religious” in favor of “spiritual” (Fuller, 2001; Stark, Hamberg, and Miller, 2005). Finally, millions of people are “culturally religious,” identifying with a religious tradition, but without believing in the theological content thereof (Demerath, 2000; Zuckerman, 2008)" - Page 950. 2009. Phil Zuckerman. Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions. Social Compass. Vol. 3 Issue 6

There are a few studies that actually focus on irreligion it as even Phil Zuckerman has noted in his work on secularism (pages 95-97 of Zuckerman, Phil (2008). Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. New York: New York University Press.) and most of it goes through discussions of religiosity and secularization. Nonetheless, the nones are not merely unchurched believers, they are not generally participating in religion (lower church attendance, higher non affiliation, etc). There is lots of dynamic here. Other wise, why not just use the Atheism in the United States article for this one? What I am saying is that you cannot lump some stuff together when the sources show much more complexity - even counter intuitive information and numbers like self identified atheists affiliating with a religion. Irreligion includes absence, indifference to, or rejection of religion. Very broad stuff and generally people are not this monolithic.

Secularization is very relevant to irreligion as that is a discussion that tries to explain the decline of religion, which leads to irreligion of various sorts.

Some of the "Nones" are irreligious, apparently most are unchurched. You confound the generic, rather meaningless and subjective identification as "not religious" and being affirmatively nonreligious/irreligious. Certainly, "secularity" is a huge word, and mapping levels of religiosity or the lack thereof is highly complex. But as long as the title of the article is what it is, it should be concerned with its stated subject, not with secularization and rising levels of secularity/diminishing levels of religiosity (which affect almost everyone across the board), and not with the "Nones". In Europe, being a "None" strongly correlates with irreligion, but in the US it is the other way around. If anything, atheism in the US should be merged into this article, because atheism is a subset of irreligion and there's little actual info over there. Anyway, the article's issue is that it's not an article but a huge list of polls. I'll see what I can do to mend this, apart from just deleting. AddMore-III (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that someone not identifying as a religious person does not make them irreligious. I would say that applies even in Europe to a major extent. But I don't think that the classification of "unchurched" makes sense since they clearly the nones on average are not seeking religion or committing to one. If anything it looks like a bit of indifference is going on in the US and even in Europe as opposed to hard secularism. Secular groups are not increasing in the US nor are they increasing in Europe. Certainly not to the extent of the Soviet Union. I agree that we can add more stuff from secondary sources on the issue that is qualitative as opposed to just poll numbers. For instance, adding some sources like "Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers" has lots of info on hard secular groups directly. But I am still not sure what you think belongs to this article since you seem to define irreligion as if people really fit this monolithically like some confound "fundamentalism" with being true religion while "liberalism" being not very religious by default. Should it just be hard atheists and agnostics? Secular humanists? non theistic religions? New age spiritualism?Ramos1990 (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Pie chart of religion

I removed the pie chart of religious beliefs as this is an article about irreligion and it did not include a survey of various irreligious beliefs. Maybe we could get a pie chart of atheists, agnostics, etc to better reflect the views in the article? 2600:1700:1111:5940:C172:8AFC:6256:2B84 (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You should probably add atheists, agnostics, etc. to the pie chart then and cite a reliable source that gives you the stats. Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 01:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC).

Cupcake547 I disagree, the question of whether or not the pie chart is due and/or appropriate has nothing to do with adding more to a pie chart, that only makes a bad problem worse. Please self revert. 2600:1700:1111:5940:C172:8AFC:6256:2B84 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)