Jump to content

Talk:Religion in England

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

No Religion

[edit]

Hi, I replaced the sentence in the section No Religion as it is relevant and verifiable. I think it is important to mention that England is not 'special' in this respect, but secularisation is simply a function of modernisation of society. If you feel that the assertion is wrong or not relevant then add something to the article, along with verification or references, rather than just deleting. - thanks Splodgeness (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I of course recognise that secularisation in general as is occuring in Western Europe (and debatably the United States); I would contend that the reason this is happening is because of the modernisation of society. For example, in Eastern Europe and in China, we can see the opposite happening.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alevi

[edit]

It seems, that there are also Alevi peope in England. I heard that they're about 200.000 in GB. Please look here: http://www.alevinet.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.40.169.71 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide an English source. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are probably included in "Islam". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.105.231 (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source is partly in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.105.231 (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Catholicism needs mention

[edit]

The Eastern Catholic Churches in England need to be included, lest readers think that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic Church. 144.82.193.166 (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Druids

[edit]

I think the blog in this case is okay since it was not posted through anonymous commentary, its not a personal blog, nor is not user-generated, but rather by the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids officials. The method seems plausible because of the higher pagan number stats and Druidry being the main category of paganism in Britain. The method also seems plausible as it takes into account previous estimates to come to a conclusion. With the website sourced to a primary Druid organization i think its credible. Pass a Method talk 16:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to cite a number, cite the 2011 census (4,105 Druids). Self-published blogs with people using "rough science" to inflate their numbers is exactly the stuff WP:RS warns against. Is it a common scholarly technique to take 20% of people who responded as "Paganism" and 10% of those who responded as "Mixed Religion" and classify them as Druids? If so, where's the source? And then he rounds the total down to 11,000 to account for errors in his "maths"... And finally, your edit doesn't even represent the source. He sums up the blog post saying, "In the final analysis, perhaps the most accurate way of stating the situation would be to say: ‘There are probably between 6 to 11,000 people in Britain today practising Druidry as a religion or spirituality.'" You only gave the 11,000 number. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a self-published blog but rather a major Druid website post by officials. Nevertheless, i have implemented your suggestions. Pass a Method talk 22:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specific information regarding people of No Religion?

[edit]

I think it would be useful to have more information regarding the rather small section regarding people of No Religion. Perhaps a link to Secularism in the United Kingdom would enhance this?

religious building

[edit]

why should not put east london mosque? It's the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.0.63 (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the same, why change to the East London Mosque? And why use a poorly composed picture that shows two nondescript multi-storey buildings with a mosque barely discernible at bottom left rather than the existing picture of a distinctive and clearly distinguishable mosque? NebY (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of its are the same mosque. Then baitul futuh is an ahmadya mosque, so you shouldn't mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.128.144 (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The three buildings are normally called the East London Mosque, the London Muslim Centre and the Maryam Centre; in that photograph, the East London Mosque is at bottom left. That aside, you haven't said why we should show the East London Mosque. I am aware that there has been something of a campaign (often involving quite short-lived user accounts) to replace various pictures of UK and European mosques with that one picture, but nobody has ever explained why that mosque or why that indistinct aerial view dominated by nondescript flat roofs is better than any other.
In this particular case, the existing picture is of an Ahmadiyya mosque. Wikipedia more than "mention" Ahmadiyya and will continue to do so; it has material on many faiths and many divisions. Wikipedia is not written from the viewpoint of any single faith or group; one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that it is written from a neutral point of view. I do recommend reading WP:Neutral point of view; you'll see it is not a negotiable position and it has many consequences. NebY (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all of them are east london mosque, and it is a famous mosque, so you must mention it in this article 31.52.143.102 (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to use a clearly distinguishable picture of a mosque. To avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority, I would prefer to include a picture of a mosque of the largest Muslim denomination in England. JimRenge (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might suggest using a picture of a Sunni mosque, and perhaps that it should be one that follows Deobandi principles rather be one that follows Bareilli principles or is Maudoodi-influenced (which the East London Mosque is). But such distinctions might be difficult and even invidious. NebY (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tHIS MOSQUE Serves the United Kingdom's largest Muslim community and It holds the United Kingdom’s largest Friday congregational prayer service and hosts weekly attendance exceeding 35,000 worshippers. It was also the first mosque in UE which was allowed to broadcast the adhan. So why shouldn't add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.52.128 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, this remains a very poor picture, whatever the merits of the mosque itself. Second, The East London Mosque is indeed a large one which is already mentioned in the article but if memory serves me right it was not the first in the United Kingdom to broadcast the adhan. If we are to pick a first, then the Shah Jahan Mosque, Woking has the more striking virtue of being the first purpose-built mosque in the UK - and we have a much better picture of it too! Lastly, please don't keep changing the article while we're still trying to reach consensus here. Not only does it give the impression that you're trying to impose your view, but it can also lead to you being prevented from editing the article at all. NebY (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neby you are wrong, east london mosque is first osque allowed to broadcast the call to prayer in all western europe (not only uk). The image is not poor.

If you mean the first allowed to use loudspeakers to broadcast the adhan, then Birmingham Central Mosque preceded the East London Mosque, having begun in 1985 - and that is just one instance from the UK. But we are trying to choose the best picture of a mosque to use here and if that was to be decided by which was the first in some way, then being the first mosque in the UK or the first purpose-built mosque in the UK would surely take precedence over being the first allowed to use external loudspeakers for the adhan. NebY (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neby, Birmingham Central Mosque wasn't the first mosque to allowed the azan, east london mosque is the first. You can ask at imams and chairman of this mosque. Regarding the image, I added this image also here, but then I thought it is better to add this mosque only here and in religion in europe. Thanks

That is not how we verify information on Wikipedia. Imagine if we all said to each other "It's true, ask my teacher" - or boss, or grandparent. Our policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability describes this very clearly; do read it.
I note that your passion for this image has indeed extended to inserting it into Religion in Europe so that the images of mosques now reach down and sit alongside the text on Judaism and Deism,[1] which is clearly not appropriate. I note also that this has been achieved only by padding the article out with lines containing nothing but hyphens. You are making it seem as if your desire to see that image of the mosque is greater than your commitment to building an encyclopedia; please hold back from doing so. NebY (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

now it is a better article

[edit]

I expanded the articles by adding sources and adding images, which made whitespace problem so far. 31.52.138.200 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COPYWITHIN; you copied and pasted large amounts of material from Islam in England and Hinduism in England as if you had written them yourself. NebY (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now the article is better. Before was very ugly. You should admit it. 217.44.73.111 (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't just take whatever we want, whether it makes articles better or not. Would you steal from a man to decorate the town square and say "it looks better now"? Surely not. Please read WP:COPYWITHIN. You need to write in your own words, not just take what someone else has written. Please also refrain from clicking "undo" again. You'll find good advice at WP:BRD. If you wish to simply add images, then do that. Just don't add copyrighted text as well. NebY (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to go reread WP:PRESERVE. If the article has been improved from elsewhere in our sharealike Wikipedia, leave the improvements alone. If there's a problem with attribution, draw it to the editor's attention (more politely and on their own talk page). If there's no admin around to do the sourcing for you, just make your own small improvement to the page and leave the attribution in your edit. — LlywelynII 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early Christianity

[edit]

Well, I was going to talk about the changes and improvements I made but it looks like this is all in the wrong place. This article should (a) just link to the history treatments rather than try to gloss something so incredibly involved and (b) focus on the present communities. — LlywelynII 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bahai

[edit]

It's incredibly UNDUE in start out talking about Bahai. Lead with Christianity and fit the others in as they come. — LlywelynII 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claim re East London Mosque is not in the reference cited

[edit]

AHLM13 has cited Kratke's Transnationalism and Urbanism (p 145) for a claim that had been disputed before both here and on other talk pages. The same editor has recently used that citation in several articles: London, Islam in England, Islam in the United Kingdom, Religion in England, Religion in the United Kingdom and East London Mosque. The reference does not support the claim, that the East London Mosque was "the first mosque in the European Union to be permitted to broadcast the adhan" - it just briefly recounts disputes over allowing the adhan in 1986. On being reverted, the editor has re-inserted the claim, a claim which does not even appear on the mosque's comprehensive website yet seems to be being used to give the mosque (and a particular image of the mosque) priority on Wikipedia over all other UK mosques. I will remove the claim again and ask AHLM13 not to repeat it without a source which clearly and directly states it. NebY (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Religion in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

[edit]

I disagree that this pie chart should stay in the article. The survey is about England and Wales, not England alone, and this article is about England alone. So, the pie chart is misplaced.

Pertinent main discussion here.--Wddan (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move most of orthodoxy

[edit]

The amount of material on Christianity aside from CofE and Catholicism seems WP:UNDUEly weighted towards various forms of Orthodoxy. It's good material, but doesn't belong here. I propose creating a new article on Orthodox churches in England and moving it there, leaving a summary here. Any objections? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sillyism

[edit]

Technicly there was new religion creatd called Sillyism , made by British Youtuber Max Fosh , being probably in top 5 of biggest religions in the UK so it should be added 45.148.43.31 (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion_in_England&oldid=1232349583"