Talk:Religion in Hungary

Numbers in the 2011 census are wrong

I don't know where the information displayed comes from, but according to the Hungarian Central Statistical Office the numbers are quite different. Also, if you try to add up the current numbers, it's more than the total. Catholics, for example, appear at 3871000 in the xls file the Official census show. http://www.ksh.hu/nepszamlalas/tables_regional_00 --talk

Colours of the "undeclared" in the pie chart

I changed the colour of one section of the pie chart (for the group who didn't state their religion) from light grey to white. This was reverted with the comment: Unexplained change to visually overwhelmingly white - silver fits in aesthetically with irreligious and atheism. Obviously I should have explained the rationale for my change, however the user reverting my change actually did for me :-)

Silver fits indeed aesthetically with irreligious and atheism, as do the other colours of denominations of a religious group. However lumping together those, who didn't state anything, and a group that did (in this case the irreligious and atheists) is misleading. The undeclared didn't ally themselves with catholics, not with protestants and not with atheists or the irreligious - they just didn't say anything about their affiliation. They could be Catholics/Protestants/Atheists/Muslims/Buddhists/etc. being the opinion it's not a matter for the state to ask the religious affiliation of its citizens. I chose white for the following reasons: 1. It is visually distinct from the other colours (i.e. it doesn't lump this group to any other group) 2. It visually reduces the pie to those who actually answered the question - without concealing the fact that this substantial group exists. Therefore white seems to be the perfect colour of representing this group. Gugganij (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No, white is an overwhelming and glaring shade which ended up dominating the entire chart. You're welcome to use a pastel colour to differentiate, but please don't use a shade in such glaring juxtaposition to the deep purple and other colours immediately surrounding it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Religion in Hungary. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927225828/http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/volumes/18/tables/load1_26.html to http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/volumes/18/tables/load1_26.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

All Wayback captures were redirects to the home page. Replaced with correct archived capture available at WebCite. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Table of religion by county

Wiki-wuki, thank you for having added the table of religion by county. However, the data you have inserted is not the complete data from the 2011 census. Taking for instance Nograd, in the pertinent document, at page 26 you find the table of religions. The complete data from 2001 are: 71.6%-0.3%-2.6%-5.0%-0.7%-10.5% and 9.2% non-religious; while the complete data from 2011 are: 55.4%-0.2%-2.1%-3.9%-1.8%-12.2%-0.9% and 23.5% non-religious. Apparently, you have excluded the data of non-religious or non-respondents from the table. Please integrate them.--Wddan (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wddan, I did it intentionally. In the document I have also found both lists of datas. I have chosen the one with less datas, because the table is already wide enough and if I would write the two extra columns there it would be wider. So I leave it now. However for me it is no problem, if you would like to add the two extra columns. The reason I made the whole table was that I could not find a good table of the counties by religion on the internet and I wanted to create an available one because I am convinced that it can be really informative.--Wiki-wuki

Hello Wiki-wuki, I think that the non-responding population is relevant enough to be kept in the total count, since it may include people who are of any religion or of no religion at all (atheists, agnostics). The choice of not responding is itself a choice of not participating into the religion demography and therefore a sort of rejection of religion. The same applies to the pie chart, but I will avoid to further discuss it, for now, since I don't want to trigger other edit-wars with the user who has restored it a few hours ago.--Wddan (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't understand that data adjusting is a good thing, since leaving large non-respondent population in data compromits how things are in the real. I know that you are obsessed in searching data with most non-religious people as possible, since you don't have a neutral point of view, but you should moderate yourself. You can't say that all people who don't answer to the religion question reject religion, as you may wish, but they can have some other motivations, for example they don't trust in the government, or they don't want to give their personal informations. So leaving them in data isn't needed. Data adjusting is needed here. People who didn't answer are assumed to be in the same composition of people who answered and you can have the real composition of the population.FrankCesco26 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

FrankCesco26 First thank you for your changes. I appreciate it. But what I don't understand is your comment here. I'm afraid you have totally missunderstood the problem. I apologize if I offended you. Please read my prevoius comment. You have also the opportunity to edit my table. And I am really happy that you have contributed to it in a positive way. All the best. User:Wiki-wuki

Wiki-wuki: The personal attack of FrankCesco26 was directed at me.--Wddan (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wiki-wuki: Thank you. By the way, my WP:POV warnings were directed to Wddan.FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)