Talk:Religion in Canada/Archive 1

Religioustolerance
This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Head of State, Succession
The article states: "The succession laws forbid Roman Catholics and their spouses from occupying the throne, and the reigning monarch is also ex officio Supreme Governor of the Church of England."

Yes, but the Statute of Westminister clearly released Canada and other members of the Commonwealth from rules governing succession to the throne. The question is, are there laws currently in place in Canada which would forbid a Roman Catholic from being Canada's head-of-state? No law requires us to recognize Elizabeth's eventual successor.--Ggbroad 00:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Separation of church and state
I'm from the U.S. and am curious to what degree Canada does or does not require or practice separation of church and state. Is the government ever prohibited from funding religious activities or messages, or can it do whatever it wants? Is there a line beyond which state involvement in religion becomes controversial? Do politicians make a big deal about religion when running for office? When did Canada stop having a state religion (when it was part of the UK, it was presumably the Church of England)? -- Beland 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as the article on state religion says, the Church of England was disestablished in 1854 as the state religion of the province of Canada. So, since independence Canada has not had a state religion. The restrictions governing the involvement of religion and state are found in Supreme Court cases referring to freedom of religion and the striking down of religious laws due to a perception of discrimination against those of other or no faith. But no, there exists no strict separation of church and state, which has led to a muted pluralism in Canadian policy. Homagetocatalonia (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian Orthodox #s
People are adding stats for the smallest groups of this small group. THis gives the wrong impression about relative %s. The largest groups are Greek Orthodox & n.i.e.s. If you are going to add your group please add the rest too. Here are the numbers for 2001 - but I doubt we should be including groups of 0.02%. Details are at: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/themes/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2001&PID=55822&APATH=3&GID=431515&METH=1&PTYPE=55440&THEME=56&FOCUS=0&AID=0&PLACENAME=0&PROVINCE=0&SEARCH=0&GC=99&GK=NA&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&FL=0&RL=0&FREE=0

--JimWae 00:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Christian Orthodox 495,245
 * Antiochian Orthodox Christian 5,680
 * Armenian Orthodox 11,875
 * Coptic Orthodox 10,285
 * Greek Orthodox 223,820
 * Romanian Orthodox 4,675
 * Russian Orthodox 15,610
 * Serbian Orthodox 20,520
 * Ukrainian Orthodox 32,720
 * Orthodox, n.i.e. 170,060

Jedi in canada
There are 20,000 Jedi's living in Canada, I feel they are not represented by this page http://www.jedichurch.org/webapps/site/4448/5930/news/news-more.html?info_id=32311 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.122.20 (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, Jedi is not a real religion. You people take Star Wars (a movie!) waaaay to seriously. 66.131.47.20 (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What classifies something as a "real religion"? 24.69.107.128 (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Schism?
Why is the Roman Orthodox Church seperated from the statistics of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Kostantino888Z (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where? I do not see it. Maybe this question is just no longer valid? User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 05:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Neopaganism?
There are a lot of religions left out of this. How can neopaganism be left out (and others I'm sure), when there isn't even an "other" category? I mean, the percentages only add up to 99.9%, but I still think more than 0.1% of Canadians are some religion other than those listed here. Even if the number is that small, perhaps it should be listed as other? Spock of Vulcan (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just realised that there is an other category. Sorry about that! However, that makes me even more curious about where that extra 0.1% is. Maybe people who refused to answer? I wish these surveys would be more thorough and not group so many people into "other". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock of Vulcan (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The 0.1% you mentioned have transcended into higher beings by ardently following their godess Statistica. The layman may call this "rounding error". -- 128.189.89.5 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect entry: perhaps you might consider deleting
Religion in Canada

The paragraph “While the majority of Québécois are still professed Latin rite Roman Catholics, rates of church attendance are today extremely low, in fact, they are the lowest of any region in North America today. “ is incorrect. According to Stats Canada, the highest level of non church attendance is British Columbia. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/c-g/4097584-eng.htm The Catholic Church in Quebec does not practice a Latin Rite, though permitted, on the grounds that they say there is a lack of interest amongst Catholics.

This also applies to “There are very few evangelicals in Quebec and in the largest urban areas, which are generally secular, although there are several congregations above 1000 in most large cities.” This may be an opinion but there is no evidence to support this highly debatably proposition that ‘large urban areas’ in Quebec are any more secular than large urban areas anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.163.102 (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Census 2006
New census out. 2006. 2011 will be out in Feb, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.84.213 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

ISO or Month day, year for refs
Apparently we must keep "keep yyyy-mm-dd for accessdates (and archivedates) per 2009-MAR-21 edit". I vote that it's not a natural format and would prefer Month day, year so that it matches dates as used in the article. We are free to change that as WP:DATERET and certainly MOS:DATEUNIFY only applies to body copy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have recently change my mind on this point - as per a talk I saw about date confusion because of the many formats we use. I came around because I agree that its  always best to make it as easy as  possible for our readers to know with a quick glance what is being said. Without dough taking the time to  write   out the month like  January 01, 2010 is going to be much easier to decipher then 2010-10-01 for our readers. So basically I am saying to hell with any MOS on dates that does not take readability into account as its main concern first. ....Just my opinion based on The rules are principles - . -- Moxy (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Walter's assertion that WP:DATERET & MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT apply only to body dates is not supported by those guidelines. If we do not adhere to RETAIN guidelines, we have no guidelines to reduce edit warring. Having people changing formats in the hope that nobody notices is not an acceptable effort at collaboration.--JimWae (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * if one argues that DATEUNIFY applies only to body text, you have lost any argument about having ref dates consistent. All the ref dates should be of the same format as one another - either the same as in the body or YMD (this is pretty much a paraphrase of the guideline)--JimWae (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * it is possible to have 3 dates (& maybe more) for any ref entry. Having the accessdate & archivedate in YMD format makes it easier to scan the ref entry for the date wanted.--JimWae (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No Jim Wae, MOS:DATEUNIFY cleary states it's for body text. I believe you'll have to prove that it applies to reference dates. If you're implying that I'm "people" who change date formats in the hope that nobody notices is ignorant at best and slanderous at worst. If you can't prove your point regarding those guidelines applying to reference dates I will be applying them again and you can take me to ANI and as far as ARBCOM. I feel you're using a hammer here that doesn't apply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Quoting MOS:DATEUNIFY: Access and archive dates in references should all have the same format – either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD. --JimWae (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk." from WP:DATERET. That doesn't say "if the refs used one format and the article used another each should retain its own separate date format. You're conflating MoSes and guidelines to imply things that they do not state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Common sense tells us one format is best (either or does not matter) - its a no brainier in my opinion to use a consistent format throughout the article No comments on readability anyone? -- Moxy (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Walter, first you repeatedly say DATEUNIFY does not apply to refs, then your "exactly" suggests what follows is from DATEUNIFY. Nowhere does MOS:DATEUNIFY say what you just claimed it does. WP:DATERET says that -- but does not pay attention to any possible exceptions (except a brief reference to STRONGNAT - which is right above it). However, MOS:DATEUNIFY] & [[WP:STRONGNAT explicitly state YMD is acceptable in accessdates & archivedates - regardless of any other format for other dates. Your reply is unresponsive to DATEUNIFY & STRONGNAT--JimWae (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article had YMD in accessdates from 2009-MAR-21 to 2013-JUL-14 until you ignored RETAIN - with no consensus - and changed to MDY on 2013-JUL-14. If we are not guided by principles & guidelines regarding RETAIN, there would be nothing to settle edit wars except brute force. It is not up to the whim of editors (with or without scripts which ignore guidelines) to abandon principles of collaboration and make changes based only on what they find acceptable (in opposition to other reliable editors). --JimWae (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you don't understand how the three relate.
 * I didn't ignore it, I correctly applied the date to the references. And I will continue to do so here and in other articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Medium growth projection for 2006 and 2031
I propose deleting this section. It is very much out of date (using projections from 2001). Specifically, based upon the latest national household survey, is already wrong (as of 2011) and it's projecting to 2031!!! Very silly to include this as it's own section. Mattximus (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference is from March 2010. That's not at all out-of-date. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter when the reference is from, it's when the data used by the reference is from. It uses data from the 2001 census that is already out of date. I can see no reason to keep this in as it is inaccurate. It does offer historical value (what we thought would have been the data in 2013 using 2001 data), but since we have 2011 data, why not use it? Mattximus (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think too that it is very misleading and serves no purpose. Vargmali (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Define other communities or not
. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I added this info as a note for the the column "Other religions" in the table in the Census section. I'm all in favor of the addition of more religions in the "Other religions" section if we have sources, but this reference is used by Statistics Canada as a definition of "Other religions" in its census, it doesn`t say that those religions are present in Canada or not; the way the reference was used on the article in the sub-section that I removed was a misuse of this reference. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Dharmic religions"
The topic of "Dharmic religions has been extensively discussed at Wikipedia; it's definitely not WP:COMMONNAME, and not accepted at Wikipedia.


 * WP:COMMONNAME - Count of usage:
 * Google Scholar gives 78 (seventy-eight) hits for "Dharmic religions", and 7.430 for "Indian religions". Google Books gives 73 hits for "Dharmic religions", and 93.000 hits for "Indian religions".
 * Google Books gives 73 hits for "Dharmic religions", and 93.000 hits for "Indian religions". When we exclude "Wikipedia, "Dharmic religions" gives 66, and "Indian religions" gives 236.000 - an amazing growth of numbers, which raises questions on this search-engine, but nevertheless, it's a ratio of 1:1208, or 1:3576.
 * Bing: Inidian Religions with 41,100,000 and Dharmic Religions with 121,000. Basically 340 to 1 in favor of Indian Religions.


 * WP:COMMONNAMES - Previous concensus:
 * "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced."

There has been previous concencus for the deletion of "Dharmic" pages and categories:
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 2
 * Articles_for_deletion/Dharmic_religion
 * Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board/Archive 3
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 10
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 30

The issue has also been extensiveley discussed at Talk:Indian religions, previously "Dharmic religions":
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 4
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 2
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 1
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 1

Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Furthermore this article is primarily not about religion per se but instead it's about the adherents of various religions, and in this case that means people with origins in India. Rjensen (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not common to a layperson, but it is when speaking about religions, which is what this article is about. It's about the Dharmic religions, not all of which people with origins in India, which is a racist and ignorant comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The term "Dharmic religions" is completely unknown to most persons ; apart from that, you too have to follow Wiki-policies. see the long list of links above.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Striked comment; hadn't notice your self-revert. My apologies. Any classification for religions is deemed to be imperfect.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Religion in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120127182349/http://www.environicsinstitute.org/PDF-MuslimsandMulticulturalisminCanada-LiftingtheVeil.pdf to http://www.environicsinstitute.org/PDF-MuslimsandMulticulturalisminCanada-LiftingtheVeil.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Religion in Canada. 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/20081216024628/http://newsroom.lds.org:80/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us/canada-alberta to http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us/canada-alberta
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012150130/http://www.canada.com:80/topics/news/story.html?id=c1ce5c3b-de23-4093-85b8-36162ac636a6 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=c1ce5c3b-de23-4093-85b8-36162ac636a6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100727042141/http://www.shalomquebec.org:80/members.aspx?mid=349 to http://www.shalomquebec.org/members.aspx?mid=349
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930045713/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC828094 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC828094
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517111657/http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2010/12/16/pagans-celebrate-solstice-with-yule-rituals/?wwparam=1359064476 to http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2010/12/16/pagans-celebrate-solstice-with-yule-rituals/?wwparam=1359064476
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227125601/http://www.acs-aec.ca/oldsite/Polls/30-03-2005.pdf to http://www.acs-aec.ca/oldsite/Polls/30-03-2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake percentages
This edit added back some odd percentages that dont match the data. Will look for the real number but 40 and 50 dont equal 95.--Moxy (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment by me (Eric): The current version (2017-08-20) is considerably different from the version of 2016-12-7 so the "fake percentages" comment isn't relevant anymore, but I thought it worth commenting on this since the 'fake percentages' comment is misleading, and, with the rise of intentionally wrong (i.e. false, or fake) facts the term fake should not be used to refer to mistakes or confusion.

The text in question was: "Christianity was the prevailing religion at more than 95%, with Protestants collectively forming a majority of more than 50% and Roman Catholics following closely at more than 40%.[55]"

40% + 50% do actually equal 95% in this case, and, no, I'm not being silly or facetious. Perhaps the wording could be better but it's pretty clear that the sentence is valid and makes mathematical sense (don't know if it's factual).

Point 1. Christianity was the prevailing religion at 95%. Point 2. Of that 95%, 50% were Protestant and 40% RC. That leaves 5% as other.

Nothing purposely misleading (i.e. fake) or accidentally misleading (i.e. incorrect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.152.112 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Christianity section has unsourced material
Reading through the Christianity section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada#Christianity) I am struck by the second half of the first paragraph. While there are links to definitions, the statements themselves are unsourced and unreferenced. Reading the preceding sentences does not suggest a source for these claims.

The second paragraph is also largely devoid of any sources, the one source (footnoted as 71 in my version of the page) is relevant to only one specific item. It's as if these paragraphs are taken from another source without regard to referencing conventions.

Paragraph one sentences completely devoid of sources:

Regional differences within Canada exist, however, with British Columbia and Quebec reporting especially low metrics of traditional religious observance, as well as a significant urban-rural divide, while Alberta and rural Ontario saw high rates of religious attendance. The rates for weekly church attendance are contested, with estimates running as low as 11% as per the latest Ipsos-Reid poll and as high as 25% as per Christianity Today magazine. This American magazine reported that three polls conducted by Focus on the Family, Time Canada and the Vanier Institute of the Family showed church attendance increasing for the first time in a generation, with weekly attendance at 25 per cent. This number is similar to the statistics reported by premier Canadian sociologist of religion, Prof. Reginald Bibby of the University of Lethbridge, who has been studying Canadian religious patterns since 1975. Although lower than in the US, which has reported weekly church attendance at about 40% since the Second World War, weekly church attendance rates are higher than those in Northern Europe.

PS Sorry to post this anonymously. I can't find my login credentials (and, can't be bothered ;). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.152.112 (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Many types of Catholics"
Regarding your your edit. WP:NOTBROKEN can hardly be an argument here, since the articles name(s) has (have) indeed been updated - see Catholic Church in Canada. For the record, its statistics says "38.7% of Canadians (12,728,900 as of 2011) baptized as Catholics". For the rest, what other "many types of Catholics" do you have in Canada creating so much confusion that appearently you cannot name the Catholic Church by its name in such an article? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the redirects are not working? If they are, then the only reason to change them would be that the WP:COMMONNAME has changed or the sources have changed. The first source, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130508/dq130508b-eng.htm?HPA, uses "Roman Catholic". Do any use "Catholic"?
 * My argument is we use COMMONNAME, and in this case, it's "Roman Catholic" and not simply "Catholic". And yes, there are other Catholics (and many more catholics) in Canada and it's best, in a general article such as this, not to confuse the reader. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed to generally keep Roman Catholic unless the context is clear (e.g., an article about a Roman Catholic diocese). I note that almost all the "Religion in" articles have been changed recently without much input (I've reverted the Religion in the Netherlands article given the historical role the Old Catholic Church has. We might also want to look at the article Roman Catholic (term) for general usage and history of the two terms.  The Roman Catholic church does not have a monopoly on the term.  --Erp (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I recognize that has happened, but I'm 1) not going to search and revert those and 2) I'm not familiar with the COMMONNAME in other locales. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The entries Atheism and Non-religious ain't the same. Politically, culturally and literarily atheists have a different worldview than the religiously indifferent. You can claim that a Muslim and a Christian have the same opinions, but that's statistically rare. Merging beliefs and attitudes is a mere distortion of the actual social dynamics! It's like merging Richard Dawkins - who never shuts his mouth - with the indifferent ones. Only a retard or a politically devious would do that (when addressing to simpletons). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8448:fc00:8898:9be:75d1:c9b1 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Religion in Canada. 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/20110810201649/http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm?sdi=religion to http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm?sdi=religion
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=c1ce5c3b-de23-4093-85b8-36162ac636a6
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shalomquebec.org/members.aspx?mid=349
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114222020/http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/DEMO30A-eng.htm to http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114222020/http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/DEMO30A-eng.htm to http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919045046/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001082 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001082
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614033118/http://www.faithandmedia.org/cms/uploads/files/8_guide-buddhism.pdf to http://www.faithandmedia.org/cms/uploads/files/8_guide-buddhism.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Religion in Canada. 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/20120205182419/http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30c-eng.htm to http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30c-eng.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Catholics arent Christians?
Catholics and other Christians should be added together and non religious should be removed as its not a religion. What do you guys think? Or better unaffiliated in the bottom to replace no religion similar to Religion in United States Magherbin (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not how stats for this works .--Moxy (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We report what StatsCan reports as they are the reliable source. While MOS:CALC allows for combination, it's simply better not to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I agree with Walter's view. Magherbin (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that should have been WP:CALC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Walter; note if we had details of other large Christian denominations those could also be separated out. I would suggest arranging the pie chart so that the Abrahamic religions are together; one reason for pie charts is to group like with like so the reader can get a quick overview on relative proportions of larger groupings.   There is a more extensive table at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3210019801 though with that data it is better to collapse the smaller Christian denominations which are too small to really be visible on a pie chart on their own (there is a balance).  Using Judaism as a benchmark for lowest to be easily visible (1%) that would add the Christian groups United Church (6.1%), Anglican (4.9%), Baptist (1.9%), Lutheran (1.5%), Presbyterian (1.4%) and drop Other Christian to (12.5%). --Erp (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't not think we should put them together as it would be misleading. We have the data so let's use it.--Moxy (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cardinal Gerald Lacroix.jpg

Irreligion again
The link is to irreligion in Canada. It has stood as non-religious for years. The 2011 census lists it as "no religious affiliation" at the top of page 3, so would it make sense to change it to "unaffiliated" as added and I reverted (and was reverted)? My concern is that unaffiliated could imply they are religious but do not have an affiliation with an organized group already listed, and might therefore be confused with "other religions". Another term that I have heard is "nones". Pew Research Center uses this term and has written about it. Before we disrupt the WP:STATUSQUO, I would like additional opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For the pie chart using the National Household Survey data what word should be used for what the source termed "no religious affiliation".  I think 'nonreligious' gives the wrong impression.  I believe  thinks 'unaffiliated' gives the wrong impression.   also had an opinion. So let's bring it to a discussion.  We could go with "no religious affiliation" as the source has it.  --Erp (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I wrote above. Walter Görlitz (talk)
 * was WP:BOLD and made that change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)