Talk:Religion in the United States

great article; better graphics svp

can we have a simple summary table without all the sects ? also, IMO, thepie charts don't work - to many colors and to many variable but a simple table, say Christian jewhish moslem etc for the top 10 would be really nice thanks

also, please please less color coding !! if you have to use all these colors, a really bad idea, at least make sure they are consistent thru the entire article !! thanks

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2022

Change Presbyterian in the protestant denominations section to Presbyterian JonasJoestar (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness, Mormons are not Christians

Someone please edit this document.

Jehovah Witnesses do not believe Jesus is the son of God. They do not believe he is devine and therefore cannot satisfy basic tenants of any denomination of Christianity. Actually, they believe you are blasphemous in even saying that. How can someone who thinks the basics of Christianity to be evil, be a Christian? That makes no sense. Muslims believe Jesus existed, only as a prophet. No one considers Islam a form of Christianity, why would you then consider JW, which has the exact same belief?

Mormons, also are not Christians. They believe that humans have the potential to become a God, just as they believe our current God used to be a human at some time in His past. They believe in Jesus as a prophet; however, they are works based. Mormans still live judged by the Mosaic law. They are basically Judaism, with a new age cult flare.

Many cults have proceeded from the Christian religion. All have a similarity. They all steal the divinity and saving grace from Jesus Christ. This is by no accident. A Jesus that has no saving power does not fulfill the prophecy of the old commandment and this is not Christianity.

The bible dictates what a Christian is. You must believe that God has come to earth as he promised in the old testament. He was nailed to a cross, died and rose again to life, defeating sin. Christians must believe that faith in Christ saves, not adherence to the Mosaic law.

There are many theological differences between Christian groups like Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist to name a few, but the basics must remain. Even if you want to go as far as saying Modern Catholics are Christian (which they aren't, because they do not meet the faith only and Christ only test), Mormans and JW definitely, in no way are close to being Christian. Actually, a Christian would be rejected at one of these institutions, just as much as they would be in an Islam or Judaism temple.

If we are going to be classifying people as religious groups, there must be a basis for what those classifications are. What better for Christianity than scripture itself? You classify race based off skin color, nationality based off of nation, what then religion but based off their Gods word, doctrines, or dogmas?

Mormons and JW would argue that their heretical books are also scripture. One could argue this, but they are not scripture of Christ the King and saviour of the world. They are scripture, but not Christian scripture. We are currently debating Christianity as a definition. There is no argument that these books not only go against what the disciples wrote about in the gospels but also against the red text of Jesus himself. Mormons argue that their prophet had a vision of God who gave them new doctrines, so do muslims. They are scriptures analogous to the Qur'an. They are amendments after the fact that steal Christ's saving grace.

If you have a tortilla with meat in it, you have a taco. If you cover it in sauce and bake it, you now have something totally different, an enchilada. Even more greater is the difference here. Sure they share some of the same ingredients, like the old and new testament, but the changes they made, created something completely new. In this analogy, Mexican food is the religion demographic. Tortillas, and meat are the old and new testament.

Simply adding a man name Jesus to your backstory does not mean your religion is a denomination of Christianity.

Would a Spanish romance novel with a lead character named Jesus be considered Christian scripture just because it has a man named Jesus in it? No! That is obsurd! What makes Jesus special are the characteristics promised to us in the old testament and conveyed in the new. Any other Jesus is not the Jesus in Christianity.

Religions do not follow the post modern way of thinking. Religion is not subject to what ever you want it to be based on your own feelings or traditions. Religion is dictated by God and is unwavering. True religion does not move or flex to someone else's feelings.

Do we doubt what Hinduism is? No debate. Hinduism is listed with one option on this page. Likewise, so is Buddhism. Islam the same. If an atheist started believing in God, could he remain "atheist"? 76.142.113.221 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No change needed, both Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints consider themselves Christian, are derived from Christianity, and are consider by scholars of religion to be Christian. They are, however, outliers within the diversity of denominations within Christianity. Note Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism are also diverse. I can think of one group of Muslims that many other Muslims consider apostates but are still classified as Muslim by scholars. Some modern Hindus go in the other direction and consider groups like Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs to be within the umbrella of Hinduism (see Hindutva); note that Hinduism is a term originated by European scholars to include a wide diversity of practices and beliefs within India. Erp (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This response had little substance other than disagreeing and false facts.

"Both Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints consider themselves Christian"

As I said before. We are referring to religion in realism not post-modernism where there is no truth and everything is defined by each person.

If I bowed down to a Hindu God and called myself Christian, with your logic, I would be so. Post-modernism is the virus plaguing our world today that creates no truths.

Simple logic reveals that it doesn't matter how you think of yourself. When we classify based on facts and attributes, those become our norms, not what the person identifies as, which is exactly the argument you are making.

Simple logic aside, the statement is false. in informal discussion with someone from either group, they will refer to themselves separate from Christians especially JW. Both of these groups actually see themselves as superiors to the Christian faith. They believe they possess information and scriptural changes that make them different from larger Christian group. These changes actually move them outside of Christianity. Both of these groups are actually refuted by Paul as being part of the church.

Matthew 7:21-23

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

This is one of the many versus from Jesus' own mouth that proves what you say is wrong. Claiming to be a Christian doesn't make you one.

Over the last 2023 years, there have been way more false religions claiming to be Christian that have been rebuked by the true Christian church

"Are derived from Christianity"

Urine is derived from the food you ate and drank earlier in the day, would you drink your urine? Simple logic destroys this comment.

The fact that you used the word "derived" infers a change, something different.

If we are considered all religions derived from another, the parent religion, the Christians are Jews. Muslims are Christians and then Jews also. Simple logic proves this line of thinking is false.

So lets ignore all these fallacies and pretend these religions are "derived" from Christianity. How is this so?

JW rewrote scriptures to give them new meanings, different from all accepted scripture ever found. If you rewrite a book so that it has a different story line, is it the same book? And if not, why would this be different?

Mormons wrote new books, and in many cases, these new books override the existing books, is this not the same?

"Are consider by scholars of religion to be Christian"

This is subjective. Who are these scholars? Not scholars of Christianity I presume, as I am one myself.

From the beginning of the christian church, both of these religions were warned against by people who are in the scriptures.

"Scholars" of the Christian faith have on many occasions cast out these religions as being heresy. Universities, Nations and ancient theologians have all counted the ideas of these religions as being heresy.

I am sure if you go to a liberal university, which may be biased against the Christian faith to begin with, you may hear supposed scholars consider these cults as religion.

We can agree that both these religions "derive" from the initials book of the old testament. By using scripture in this book alone, we can refute these religions as not meeting basic qualities needed to be similar.

Actually, the books from which Christianity and these cults derived call these religions blasphemous.

I have been involved in the Christian church for over 40 years on my own and longer than that as a kid. I have the largest Christian history and theology library out of anyone I know.

I have been to Christian churches from many denominations, befriends JW and Mormons; non of them in these years would consider JW or Mormons as being "Christian".

"They are, however, outliers within the diversity of denominations within Christianity."

This is a gross representation of the truth. First of all, an outlier infers that the measurement is on the scale.

For argument sake.... other than the poor argument of "they think they are, so they must be", and the phony expert opinion defense, why are these two religions Christian?

What constitutes a Christian? Please define one. The scriptures that both of these false religions are "derived from" tell us what one is.

In reality, there is no sound argument to defend the JW and Mormons are Christian. Any argument that you make will immediately put many of the most practiced religions in the world all under the parent of Judaism.

Further, any argument would reduce religion down to nothing more than a malleable fantasy that takes the shape of who ever decides to change it.

The fact is, truth exists. Properties, attributes, and other terms for dividing and classifying exist. Each one of these terms can be handled as a variable.

Just as in algebra, x= something. In a multi-linear function, many variable create x.

x = yA + zB + wC + qD

In our function, x equals religion, y z w q are the coefficients of Christianity or attributes of Christianity (there are more coefficients for all religions, but for simplicity, only Christianity's are show).

Since many of these coefficients are binary (TRUE|FALSE), 100% or 0% would be the variable A B C D for each coefficient.

Go-NoGo test: In order to be Christian, y z w q must exist (because they are the attributes) and A B C D can not be zero. Or in other words:

x = y(100%) + z(100%) + w(100%) + q(100%) = Christianity

I have now argued with logic and math. 76.142.113.221 (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

With regards to your initial point about JWs, I just checked JW.org, and it seems that Jehovah's Witnesses do believe Jesus was the Son of God and divine in nature (https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20110401/jesus-where-he-came-from/). So, not the "exact same belief" as Muslims. 2600:4040:578B:7300:111F:638D:784:393A (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Doubts about the pie chart from the Cooperative Election Study

I have a concern about the pie chart at the top of the page which claims to be from the Cooperative Election Study. It seems the numbers used in the pie chart come from the tweet referenced, but it is not clear how the author of that tweet came to his findings as the numbers from Pew and CES are vastly different and not similar to the ratios in the tweet. I have checked, and it's not simple averaging of the findings between the two. FThe source attached simply leads to the home page of the Cooperative Election Study but not the actual study. Upon actually finding the source listed, "2020 Cooperative Election Study", the only page which seems to talk about religion of the US population is on page 73 and those numbers are unweighted. Judging by the political choices of the respondents, Biden would have won the popular vote by 57% to Trump's 39% which obviously isn't true. The CES weighs population values as necessary to get proper political data. The ratios for religion present in the CES study are useless as they are not an accurate sample of the populace, nor are they meant to be. As a result, I believe the pie chart should be removed for a lack of clarity. As this article is semi-protected, I thought mentioning this in the discussion board would get the problem removed before I get a confirmed account.

I believe Wikipedia should instead be using a pie chart based on recent data from either Gallup, Ipsos, or PRRI. Those institutions are all reputable and report similar rates of Christianity and unaffliation. The Gallup and PRRI polls are strikingly similar. Perhaps there can be a table collating the findings from the organizations mentioned and Pew. 2600:4040:578B:7300:F952:9EDF:4EDF:8B28 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. I've yanked the pie chart. We obviously can't cite twitter and not raw data from the second source. Erp (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax I note that for the second source (Staff. "Cooperative Election Study". Harvard University. Retrieved January 4, 2023.) is a full fledged website with no indication about where we should find the info. One file does seem to be the Schaffner, Brian; Ansolabehere, Stephen; Luks, Sam, 2021, "Cooperative Election Study Common Content, 2020", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/E9N6PH, Harvard Dataverse, V4; CCES Guide 2020.pdf However that seems to deal strictly with actual voters and not the entire population (and the figures on page 23 didn't match the chart). Or are you using a different source on that web site. Note if prepping a chart or table for publication, it is sometimes useful to use one's sandbox until all references are checked and it looks right then move to the appropriate entry. Erp (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

We should use secondary sources for wikipedia WP:Secondary as opposed to raw data from a primary source - as this does lead to misinterpretations and selection of data or distortion of data by any random editor (see WP:Primary). I saw some discrepancies too for example according to CES 2020 [1] page 26 says Protestants are 41% and Nones are 31%, not 34% and 34% on the CES chart that was removed. I think the Pew is a better choice for the pie chart too. Pew has been tracking religion closely for a few decades now with extensive number of reports, whereas Cooperative Election Study is more focused on voters and does not generate reports on religion if any. Studies which show careful analysis of religious demographics are more useful for encyclopedic purposes. Also the Pew data and chart do align more also with General Social Survey (GSS) [2] as well. I would prefer GSS since they have done this since 1972 like Gallup, but Pew is good too with extensive break downs of demographics like the Unaffiliated.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Erp, I see the same Cooperative Election Study pie chart in the United Sates article too United_States#Religion.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I Seriously Question Pew Research's Accuracy

For starters, their religion surveys don't tend to even include Scientologists.Speakfor (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the Scientology article, there appear to be less than 50,000 adherents in the U.S., which is less the 1/10 percent of the population. In other words, is very likely the survey would not have any respondents who are Scientologists. Indyguy (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Where is the other Gallup and Pew numbers in the lead?

Where are the Pew numbers for 90% belief in higher power ([3]) and the Gallup 21% for Nones ([4])? The lead should be transparent and show how diverse the surveys are, not cherry picked.

The lead, currently, seems to just show 81% belief in God from Gallup and ignores latest Pew number which also asked that question (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/25/key-findings-about-americans-belief-in-god/) and got 90%. The lead also just show 30% from Pew on Nones and ignores the latest Gallup results (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx) and got 21%. I know other surveys show (PRRI) Nones in the 20%s too. The point is that surveys get different numbers.

I cannot edit since page is protected. Please restore those numbers as a range between Pew and Gallup since it would balance the article a bit more because it makes no sense to use Gallup and ignore Pew or vise versa when they touch on the same points. All surveys are estimates and their methods do lead to different results. This should be reflected in the lead to ensure neutrality. Other references in the lead (Burge, Johnsosn, Drescher, Pew) already show nuance on the Nones since they all show that most Nones believe in God and good chunk participate in religion even without self-identifying with any religion. Thank you. 65.223.10.226 (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Yes Pew and Gallup do show diverse results like you mentioned. Their methodologies yield different results and that should be reflected in the lead instead to show WP:NPOV since the situation is complex. The analysis of actual scholars like Burge, Johnson, etc show the complexity between belief, belonging and behavior and that mere numbers on affiliation do not signify the whole story on religiosity in America. Ryan Burge looked at the Nones and after breaking everything down he says "The center of the Venn diagram indicates that just 15.3 percent of the population that are nones on one dimension are nones on all dimensions. That amounts to just about 6 percent of the general public who don’t belong to a religious tradition and don’t attend church and hold to an atheist or agnostic worldview." and also observes "What I discovered was that while many people have walked away from a religious affiliation, they haven’t left all aspects of religion and spirituality behind. So, while growing numbers of Americans may not readily identify as Christian any longer, they still show up to a worship service a few times a year or maintain their belief in God. The reality is that many of the nones are really “somes.”" [5].

The numbers between Pew and Gallup can be explained by the different wording and choices offered in their surveys. They capture diversity of religiosity. Pew is more open ended and Gallup is rigid in the direct question of belief in God (81% and 90%) in the sources you cited for example. Affiliation and belief are two separate variables - and they do not correlate 1:1. Pew and Gallup are good sources since they have long histories of tracking religion and are used by sociologists of religion. Other researchers such as Mark Chaves and Michael Hout echo Burge's observations. For instance, Hout (2017) says "The rise of the “nones” is probably the best-known trend in American religion over the past two decades. It is also the biggest. Other trends imply only slight religious decline since the 1980s. Strong religious commitment did not decline. It was weak initial attachment that gave rise to today’s non-affiliation. People who used to occasionally attend services no longer attend at all, but regular attenders persist. Most Americans believe in God and pray to that deity. The irony is that people disaffiliating from organized religion barely registered in the churches because the “nones” rarely attended services." [6]. Even negative trends in church attendance are explained by demographics, not drop in belief, per Hout.

So there are diverse nuanced views among actual researchers. The article should reflect the diversity of results from reliable surveys (not just random ones who do not track religion extensively) - some get higher values and others get lower values. It is what it is. Also, sources should not be limited to the 2020s since much of the analysis and data come from 2000 and up. It takes time to do detailed analysis and publish findings. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. The numbers for Pew and Gallup should be mentioned as a range since the reliable surveys do differ among themselves but they give you a good upper and lower limit on both belief in God and affiliation. Both Gallup and Pew ask these questions directly and separately and so they would not be linear necessarily. The quotes provided from researchers do show that America has a complex relationship with religion and the Nones are not uniformly irreligious. Only a minority actually is. The rest are "somes" when beliefs and behaviors are taken into account. This complexity should be reflected in the lead. And also sources can be from a few decades back (not just the 2020s - its only been 3 years) since analytical papers do take time to publish and assess previous years demography results. Pew, Gallup, etc are sporadic with their reporting so as long as we have the latest version available from them from 2000s or 2010s, it should be ok. desmay (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"The irony is that people disaffiliating from organized religion barely registered in the churches because the “nones” rarely attended services." Big deal. In my experience, disapproval of organized religion is often tied to opposition to the clergy, to their political activities, or to specific rituals. People may well continue to practice their religion in the privacy of their homes, or they may have idiosyncratic views of their favorite deity. Over 90% of the population in Greece (where I live) are self-declared Christians, but regular church attendance is increasingly rare. It is not an essential part of peoples' lives anymore. A decades-old-joke is that the Church is the last love for old women, since excessive religiosity is typically limited to elderly widows and spinsters. I still remember a sermon of our local bishop when my class was about to graduate: "Now that you are young and healthy, you feel no reason to believe. When you are old, sick, and your death approaches, you will find the need to believe". Dimadick (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Leading image

I had added the following collage of different images to add to the lead depicting different religions in the US:

Clockwise: Native American man performing the Fancy dance, Window from the Catholic Cathedral of San Juan Bautista,Buddist temple Byodo-In in O’ahu, prayer for Rosh Hashanah led by a jewish army chaplain, celebration of the hindu festival of Holi, Mosque in Buffalo

It was removed and replaced with an image of Washington National Cathedral (which was subsequently removed).

Does anyone have any objections on if a image like this was re-added? We can discuss the specific images added to the collage, but do people feel as if the general idea is good? Bluealbion (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this image is too bulky for the page. It is quite distracting from the text of the article. Some of it looks foreign-ish too. A more focused image may be more appropriate, if any is to be added at all. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 March Wall Street Journal-NORC poll

Self-identified religiosity (2023 The Wall Street Journal-NORC poll)

  Very religious (17%)

  Moderately religious (31%)

  Slightly religious (23%)

  Not religious at all (29%)

Hi, @Ramos1990:. The claim that a majority of Americans don't consider themselves particularly religious comes from the Wall Street Journal article on the poll itself. The survey itself lumps together "slightly" (e.g. "Culturally Christian") and "not at all religious". KlayCax (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The source does not say the "majority" or "particularly religious" [7]. It only gives raw numbers. What you are doing is WP:SYN since you are generating an interpretation when the source makes no such interpretations. By looking at the numbers, the number of people who see themselves as religious in some way is 71% and only 29% do not. Even with the lumping it is only 47% Very/moderately religious NET vs 52% Not religious at all/slightly religious. Not a majority. You have to be careful with this.

On top of that the wall street journal is not an academic source like Mark Chaves who is a professional researcher who deals extensively with these sources. You keep on removing reliable academic secondary sources and use random newspaper polls primary sources. These academic secondary sources are the ones that can best interpret primary sources per WP:SECONDARY. Mark Chaves uses GSS data and says that most Americans are religious and spiritual. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Using primary sources and interpreting from that can be problematic. We should use academic sources by experts since they are more nuanced and careful than journalist sources which tend to be sensational and variable. Mark Chaves is the better source on this and especially since he looks at the same categories from NORC and concludes differently. Even from the 2023 Poll, clearly most Americans see themselves as categorically religious. Mark Chaves also notes "spirituality" which is another variable that is used in place of "religious". desmay (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead cleanup

Hi. I agree with the trimming done today on the lead by User:Epidrome [8]. The lead should be a summary of the article body and should be short. It is not a place to put such detail (much of it using primary sources and relying on variable trends interpreted by non-experts). The lead should be stable too, not susceptible to so much change. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I have recently made some reductions to the lead as well, and will hopefully be able to comment in more detail this weekend. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the trim you did was pretty good. The lead right now is around 25,000 characters. That is a lot. I would like to hear more from you. I think you would agree that the lead should not be treated like a newspaper sensationalist dumping ground. It should be more stable with higher quality secondary and tertiary sources per Wikipedia policy. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Pie Charts in lead

I removed the pie charts from the "infobox slot", and KlayCax restored them. Epidrome also removed them and was again reverted.

There are a few reasons I don't think the pie charts are helpful:

1. In my opinion, they look ugly. The colors are distracting and arbitrary.
2. There is no distinction between "mainline" and "evangelical" groups in the specific survey used, and the "Just Christian" category is extremely vague.
3. The information in the chart is already described in the text of the lead section.

Walt Yoder (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what you said. 2 editors removed the pie charts already. I think that if there is a pie chart, it should only be one. Too many charts is distracting and of course many times editors manipulate them - so they are not stable. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Pie charts can be useful but there use should be restricted to cases where the source is reliable, the information is highly relevant, and the pie chart will contribute to readers' comprehension (there should be at most one pie chart in the lead). I note in the case of the WSJ/NORC poll that the sampling error is high and that the main aim of the poll was elsewhere than religion. Erp (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. As with virtually all other religion articles, there should be a single pie chart to express the United States' religion statistics. It should preferably be from a reputable source like Pew Research, because their categories are clear and consistent, in contrast to the "Generic Christian" category that has already been mentioned as vague. I definitely don't think that the single WSJ poll should be the source for the single pie chart on this page(as it currently is). Harshalrach (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your assesment. The the lead of this article is a mess and KlayCax keeps reverting any changes that make it a little more readable. Regards Epidrome (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all of you. Erp's observation that the NORC poll is not a focused survey on religion is on point. I also note that the source says "cumulative response rate of 4.3 percent" which means very few people even responded to it. Polls catered to newspapers like WSJ, the Economist, or polls focusing on politics like "Cooperative Election Study" are not the best sources for religion especially since the are not weighted for religion. Pew or Gallup is more appropriate since they have long track record on religion reporting, if any chart is to be shown. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Shall Pew or Gallup, and ARDA and PRRI be considered valued alongside others too? Though ARDA only for reported membership statistics and churchgoers by attendance? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

User:TheLionHasSeen, I do know that sociologists of religion tend to use all of the ones you mentioned but they perform a more detailed analysis using a mix of these databases and even others like congregation or church membership datasets, because alone these polls tend to not agree with each other because of numerous problems emerging from self-reporting surveys (very low response rates, lower accuracy, lower sample sizes etc). Significant discrepancies are found over the same variables in self-reporting survey - for instance the number of Nones or what "nones" even mean to respondents. ARDA is a good super database of multiple datasets collected and can be very handy. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say the Pew Religious Landscape Studies of 2007 and 2014 are the largest and most in depth. ARDA is a collection of data sources so each would have to be evaluated on its own merits (and some of ARDA's sources strain credibility). Gallup has a long base line though doesn't go into as much depth. Another point on pie charts is there shouldn't be too many items in it (and the colors have to be distinct enough). For instance if we require a limit of 1% or greater and use the Pew RLS 2014 survey results we get 11 items (this includes collapsing Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu into other Non-Christian Faiths, Judaism is 1.9% and also collapsing Orthodox Christian and Jehovah's Witnesses into Other Christian). Erp (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Article heading structure

Currently, there are sections titled "Christianity", "Other Abrahamic religions", "Dharmic religions", "East Asian religions", "No religion", and "Others", each of which contains sub-sections. I would like to change this to be "Christianity", "Other religions", and "Irreligion", with minimal changes to the current sub-sections. Comments? Walt Yoder (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It does look very divided. I would say the sections should be more broad to "Abrahamic religions" and have Christianity, Judaism, and Islam be subsections. Then have a section of "Eastern and other religions" and have Daoism, Hinduism, etc be subsections. Finally a section of "No religious affiliation" (these a more neutral term since the majority of the Nones believe in a higher power [9] and [10]). Ramos1990 (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to group Christianity and Islam together in a discussion about religion in the United States. As far as "No religious affiliation" -- you make a good point that a discussion of "Spiritual but not religious" would fit better under "No religious affiliation" than "Irreligion". Walt Yoder (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The three notable religions in the US are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Perhaps keep "Christianity", "Other Abrahamic religions", and consolidate to "Eastern and other religions" and "Spiritual but not religious". I think this would achieve what you are trying to do. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

LDS

I would like to add a section on the LDS Church to the article, presumably as a sub-section of "Christianity" (but possibly in a section on "Major religious movements founded in the United States"). I am not sure if that section would be specifically about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or about the Latter Day Saint movement. Thoughts?

There is currently a section titled "Great Awakenings and other Protestant descendants" which is one unsourced paragraph; I would remove that as part of this change, moving material on the Pentecostal movement to some section yet to be determined. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it would fit as a subsection on "Christianity" as a subsection of its own - like the other denominations subsections. That section has history and Latter Day Saint movement would be more appropriate since it is about the historical movement. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracies of independent polling section

This section is really low quality and I'm not sure it can really be improved without turning half of the article into a meta discussion about the complexity of religious belief, self identification, and data collection.

The first part is a set of general issues with all non-political polling but the information is presented as a set of pretty vague bullet points. Ignoring the first one which is factually incorrect (polls are generally quite good at predicting election outcomes), the other bullet points are virtually meaningless to anyone who isn't fairly well-read on polling and/or religious demographics. Is it considered good editing practice on Wikipedia to insert a generic warning about issues with polling data in any article that uses polling data?

I don't get what useful point is made by the second part. The paper used as a reference is largely an attempt to argue that the "none" category of answers in religious surveys includes a substantial number of people whose beliefs about religion, spirituality and/or supernatural phenomena could be argued as being closer to having some religious belief than having no religious belief. I don't want to get into a big discussion about the quality of the paper itself (although I am willing to - I think it isn't high enough to be used as the sole source for a claim in a Wikipedia article) but it is a fairly recent paper which has not been cited by other papers at all, so I don't see why it should be taken as a reliable source that reflects academic consensus or debate. Reading it (along with a good portion of the accessible references) makes it quite clear that the authors are extremely vigilant in noting every possible flaw with methodology in studies that they don't like, while citing uncritically studies that agree with them.

The third part is ok in content but I think having an entire sub-heading section with one sentence and one source that effectively says "assume the independent polling data contained in this article is inaccurate" is a bad editorial decision. It's especially bad because this section comes before any of the survey data is presented, which I think conveys the message that this caveat about polling methodology is of greater value to a typical reader interested in Religion in the United States than decades of survey data. And while the general content of this part is ok, I think that, on top of being moved to another section, the bulk of this should be a brief overview of idiosyncratic relationships with religion. The existence of these belief systems and the fairly diverse range of belief systems in the USA is a much more relevant topic to cover in this article than methodological issues with polling/surveys or the opaqueness of the "none" answer. Tasqing (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

Change "Secularity in the United States is paradoxical in that secular people reject and affirm religious elements in their own lives." to "Secular people in the United States, such as atheist and agnostics, have a distinctive belief system that can be traced for at least hundreds of years. They sometimes create religion-like institutions and communities, create rituals, and debate aspects of their shared beliefs. For these reasons, they are surprisingly religion-like despite often being opposed to religion."

This page cites my book (I'm Joseph Blankholm). It doesn't cite its argument correctly, however. In these suggested changes I give a more accurate summary of the book and its argument. Inscrutablescrivener (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

RuckusJones (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Add a hyperlink to Nondenominational Christianity in the pie chart where it says "Just Christian" since most of these people go to an evangelical or a mega church that does not adhere to any particular denomination

Not necessarily since they could also be cultural christian and go nowhere (especially since 30% of the respondents say they never attend religious services). This btw is why I think the Pew survey is a better choice since it goes into more detail (even if it is also almost a decade older). Erp (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is Hinduism missing?

I don't see Hindyism on the chart of % of US population 2600:1700:38D0:56D0:7DDE:D975:BAD6:67C (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The 2014 Pew Research polls are grossly inaccurate and should be removed

Almost all other available data (including data used in other Wikipedia pages) shows Catholics outnumber Protestants in California, Nevada, New Mexico, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.

The Pew Research poll displayed deeply misleads readers and should be be scraped all together or replaced with more accurate poling numbers.

Thank you for reading my suggestion, I hope it is listened too. 100.33.82.60 (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)