Talk:Religion in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Scientology

I am not a scientoligist, but should that "religion" be included here? That "religion" was invented here...76.16.123.193 (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The only people I've seen consider scientology as a "religion" are scientologists. The rest of the world considers it a buisness. Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The US IRS recognises it as a religion, and this is about religion in the US. 89.243.45.254 (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to other Nations

Early on in the article, in paragraph 3, there are comparisons to Sweden and the UK. How were these two nations chosen? I somewhat understand how the UK was chosen, because the roots of this nation are stemming off from Great Britain, but comparing to Sweden doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that they were chosen from a biased viewpoint, making the US look good by comparing them to nations with higher "no religious affiliation" statistics. I did not look for nations with lower statistics in that category, but I'm sure there are. I only say this because I think there may be some biased text here, and I don't think that we should put one country above the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geek 2.0 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

i don't think that's where the bias is coming from70.160.102.251 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Rodiggidy

No religion

I note from the table further up this Talk page that the great majority of those answering "No religion" did not specifically identify as atheist, agnostic, humanist or secular. What does that leave? Loganberry (Talk) 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All of them are considered philosophies or states of mind where there is a lack of religion, or lack of importance of religion. Atheism is the absence of theism, Agnostic is absence of gnostic; Humanist places the value of everything in our natural state above religion; Secularism is the separation of religion. So to conclude these definitions, I would say that all of them lack meaning in religion, or religion itself. Nawcom (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Neopaganism

A long Neopaganism section was recently introduced. It contained a number of dubious and contradictory sources, including some by people involved with the movement, and gave far too much weight to it. I have requested the editor discuss here before adding it back.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just snip some of the dubious parts of the section and leave in the good parts rather than removing th whole section? Also, could you be more specific as to which sources you found to be dubious and contradictory? Asarelah (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That user has a history of cluttering this article with dubious claims, I'm not going to go through it on the off chance that something might be useful. As for which of his references are dubious, it's most of them. This one is from an advertisement for some woman's book that claims that Wicca is "the modern revival of the ancient, indigenous, pre-Christian Goddess religions of Europe and the Middle East". This and another book by this same author were used multiple times despite their unreliability. This one appears just to be an internet posting that quotes some other book on Wicca. This is used a number of times. Then there's the book by David Waldron, which gives an entirely different figure for the number of Neopagans in the United States than the others (even the reliable ones, like the ARIS study). Of the other stuff he added, some of it might be useable on the Neopaganism in the United States article, but it was given far too much weight here for a balanced article on religion as a whole in the United States.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're stating that "woman" is a liar and Wicca does not exist, please read this article. --Esimal (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All I'm stating is that Wicca is not "the modern revival of the ancient, indigenous, pre-Christian Goddess religions of Europe and the Middle East". That woman's books are not reliable if they make such claims. Please discuss your edits before adding them in again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Phyllis Curott's reliability is not determined by the POV of a Catholic user (you). You haven't the right to deleter other user's contributions: it's Catholic censure. --Esimal (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I must ask you to quit with your personal comments. My religion has nothing to do with why I believe Curott is an unreliable source, and it's certainly not "Catholic censure" to revert non-constructive edits with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Curott is unreliable because she makes false claims, not because of her religion. Now please discuss your intended changes WITHOUT the personal commentary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Curott is as unreliable as the Vatican. Personal opinions aren't relevant: you think Curott is unreliable as I think the Vatican is. --Esimal (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The Vatican is not being quoted here. I asked you to stop with the personal comments.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican is quoted in 99% of the articles of Wikipedia concerning Catholicism and statistics of Catholics. According to the Vatican, Czechia is 90% Catholic. --Esimal (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources in question are not reliable. The deletion is supported not due to censorship of facts, but due to a desire to see a Wikipedia free from random author's personal oppinions. Personal opinions ARE irrelevant as we strive to be NPOV. The back bone of which is that all claims must be VERIFIABLE. What does Brittanica say about Wicca in its Religion in the United States article? -- SECisek (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Phyllis Curott is Wiccan leader. Wikipedia is full of personal opinion of Catholics and evangelicals, but they are not subject to censure. --Esimal (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not being quoted here, or on the Czech Republic article you mentioned above. I think you are grasping at straws. Personal opinions should not be quoted for facts in any article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

France is 83% Catholic, hahahahaha! --Esimal (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Using sock puppets is no way to get your way, Esimal. Please stop this silliness.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your POV censure, Cuchullain. --Esimal (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, you haven't addressed the concerns I've brought up, you insist on making the dispute personal, and you resort to sockpuppetry and petty vandalism to get your way. I don't see that there's anything more to talk about.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I apparently violated 3RR and have reverted myself. I posted at WP:ANI for further help in solving this matter.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

YOU have vandalized the article removing material just because you don't like them. You've not just reverted, you've deleted pictures and links to other religions (non Christian). --Esimal (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. All I did was revert you and then try to clear up the section on "other religions" to clarify the links to the specific religions. You are not helping your case with these baseless allegations.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Above I see "[a]ll I'm stating is that Wicca is not 'the modern revival of the ancient, indigenous, pre-Christian Goddess religions of Europe and the Middle East'. That woman's books are not reliable if they make such claims..." Do you mean the sentence should read "Wicca, as it is currently practised in the U.S. and Europe, is an attempt to revive ancient, pre-Christian Goddess religions"? What part of the sentence needs clarification or citation? I'm no expert on the subject, but I thought Wicca was a (relatively modern) attempt to revive the ancient goddess religion(s) of the druids. While the druids were literate (mentioned in Caesar) I don't believe any authentic texts survived (if any ever existed, it was mostly oral tradition in those days, like Homer) and so Wicca is necessarily reconstructive. Pete St.John (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to a quote from one of the sources Esimal introduced. The author claimed Wicca is "the modern revival of the ancient, indigenous, pre-Christian Goddess religions of Europe and the Middle East". This is not true, it is a modern religion that claims its practices and beliefs are based on ancient traditions, but there's no independent verification that this is the case (for instance, the Druids certainly did NOT practice a "Goddess religion", there are a number of sources for Celtic polytheism). That the author makes such a claim demonstrates she is not a reliable source and should not be used at Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuchullain, yes, I understood about the quote. What surprised me was that the only difference between what was offered (Wicca is...) and your understanding (Wicca purports to be ...) is the difference between claiming to be a modern reconstruction of an ancient religion, and being a modern reconstruction of an ancient religion. To me the difference is not great, however, I'd be fine with adding the word "claims" or "strives"; e.g. "Wicca seeks to reconstruct the ancient and mostly pre-literacy earth-goddess religions of Europe, similar to what may have been practiced by Druids" etc. We all agree that there is a lack of original source material for religions that predate writing. I think dismissing the source on the sole ground of using (or not using) "purports" or "seeks" or whatever, is too stern. We don't say that Christianity purports to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth, even though nothing whatever was written down during his lifetime. Pete St.John (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not entirely sure about the last point, actually. And, granted, it would be possible to say that over the intervening time between Jesus' death and the first books being written, generally thought to be no more than about 30 years, but still within the lifetime of the writers, some things may have been changed. That is remarkably different from a case where people are attempting to revive what they think might have been a tradition whose verifiable practice may have ended several hundred years earlier. Lastly, I'm far from sure that the source in question necessarily meets WP:RS standards, although I can't find which specific source is being referred to. If it doesn't, then that would be sufficient basis for its removal on that basis alone. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on Esimal as the editor who introduced it to indicate the source is reliable. I gave that one quote as an example of how she makes false claims and therefore her reliability is in question. The wording changes you suggest would make a lot of difference, but that's besides the point, as it's a direct quote from her site. At any rate I can't imagine she's a reliable source - her book is not a peer reviewed publication, and she appears to have no academic degrees from accredited institutions. --Cúchullain ^t/c 00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some confusion here: the paragraph in question was about Neopaganism/Paganism, whereas this discussion is focusing on Wicca and Neo-druidism. This is an oversimplification in that while all Wiccans are Neopagans, not all Neopagans are Wiccan. (Ex. like all Catholics are Christian, not all Christians are Catholics). The paragraph should be about Neopaganism in general, with specific mentions of Wicca as it is one of/the most dominant forms of Neopaganism in the US today. Also, its not all about Goddess worship, among most its polytheistic, or dualistic. And Cuchullain, legitmate outside secondary sources can be found, within reason. Zidel333 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure legitimate outside secondary sources can be found, but Esimal's sources do not qualify. It was also him that introduced the confusion of Wicca and Neopaganism. I doubt that either needs its own section here (more than say, Sikhism needs one) - all the minority religions can be discussed at once, as they do not, after all, make up a very large section of the population. However, that's just my opinion, and I am open to discussion, as long as it doesn't devolve into personal comments and sockpuppet vandalism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! You've deleted ALL informations about Neopaganism and other religions. --Esimal (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Esimal, a few points:

1. Your contributions between 19:58 and 20:09 UTC 25 Feb 2008 indicate that your are unfamiliar with the guidelines at WP:CANVASS. Please do not attempt to canvass support for yourself in a discussion, as this is frowned upon. It also indicates that you are aware that your argument is weak.
2. Please desist from making implicit accusations of bad faith (no pun intended!) against editors who happen to be Catholic. The Wikipedian Rede is "comment on the edit, not the editor". Making the claim that an editor is taking a certain viewpoint because of their religion is unacceptable.
3. Please go and look up and compare the words "censure" and "censor" in a dictionary.

For the record, Cúchullain and others, I agree entirely that the source (Curott) added by Esimal is not reliable enough to remain in the article. Tonywalton ^Talk 12:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed regarding Curott. I can't find any independent reviews of the work in question to establish reliability. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly resent Esimal's actions here. There's no excuse for how he's behaved, trying to manipulate the discussion by dismissing me as a Catholic and refusing to discuss his changes in any meaningful way. If the discussion is going to proceed it will have to be without this kind of nonsense.

As I said above I would be open to (rational) discussion about a Neopaganism section. At this state I don't think it necessitates its own section any more than the other minority religions do. Neopagans just seem to have a more vocal presence in certain circles, like the web. However, there's just not very many of them by any reliable estimate. That said, if it is decided that a section on Neopaganism should be added, I reiterate that it will have to be accurate, balanced in weight, and use only reliable sources (ie, not the ones I expressed concern about above). --Cúchullain ^t/c 00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While I made aware of this page by Esimal's request, I would like to propose something of this nature. I believe [Neopaganism in the United States]is an article that can be improved by find more recent sources for the article. If the accuracy and the depth of this article is improved I think that these improvements could lend itself to the articles just like the sections on Islam and Hindu do. What do you think?Mulcibersforge (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems this article has some bigger problems than just this - for instance, there's no good article on modern Native American religious practice.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Percentages in lead section...

How can Judaism's 2.8 million adherents constitute 1.4% while Islam's 2.4 million constitute only 0.6% - 0.7%? One of those must be wrong. -Elmer Clark (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of surveys in the lead is a bit of a mess

Why do we have some religious groups listed in the lead by both Pew and ARIS survey estimates, and one religious group listed with both ARIS and an independent survey? On top of this I'm entirely confused about where the total population estimates for Islam and Buddhism are coming from. The Pew survey provides an estimated percentage of the adult population of the United States. If someone is multiplying this against some total US pop. figure then that is not acceptable, and it violates WP:OR. Another link to the Pew Forum provided clearly states that the Pew estimates that there are in fact 2.35 million Muslims in the United States based upon a confluence of factors (as in not just the self-identification results we are reporting). ARIS has a much lower figure for both populations, at 1,104,000 Muslims and 1,082,000 Buddhists. These figures are, again, specific to the "adult population." We should not be mix and matching surveys like this, and we should report their results accurately and transparently. Pew does not offer total population estimates (but only percentages), both Pew and ARIS estimate only "adult population," and both surveys deal with "self-identification." The last issue is very important in the mix-and-match because if the survey questions differ they can get wildly different results, especially for categories where affiliation may be variously defined, for different reasons, like with Buddhism and Judaism. I will also note that from years of following this on Wikipedia it is common to see people haggling over population estimates of religious groups as if it is always the goal to show the highest possible for one's own group (and or to lower estimates for groups one may think less of). This makes the lack of consistency here an even bigger problem. In light of this I suggest we stick to one survey, or at least pick the two largest ones (ARIS and Pew) and consistently and accurately apply their results across all religious groups mentioned. Any thoughts?PelleSmith (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• a lot of detail for a lede!!! How about: Non-Christian religions (in descending order: Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and other) collectively make up about 5.5% of the adult population according to ARIS --JimWae (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• The COLLECTIVE % is far more revealing about religion in the US than a seemingly-endless list of diverse "others" --JimWae (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. What do other people think?PelleSmith (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Source Number 11

The part of the article that claims "The negative results of organized religions resulting in the 2001 terrorist attacks and the emergence of Christian fundamentalist groups campaigning against evolution and abortion have been cited as reasons for a growing number questioning mainstream religion and abandoning it altogether" using a source that is describing the situation in Europe. Even the title of the source is "European atheists now more vocal". That source is therefore not credible at all since the wording of the article supposed that we're talking about the US, when in fact, the source is referring to Europe.

This needs to be changed immediately, if the article is to maintain any integrity.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.186.154 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Religions founded in the United States

If Scientology is listed in this section, why isn't Satanism? Anton LaVey, the man who synthesized modern Satanism, founded the Church of Satan, an organization which to this day remains the primary authority on authentic Satanism, on April 30, 1966 in San Francisco, California. 76.228.118.32 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Islam numbers

I have reverted this revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_the_United_States&diff=224805031&oldid=224756587

• The edit summary is false - the link is ALREADY included in the text
• There is no indication that "study" is the correct term to apply to these figures - even the one that "sources" the number gives no methodology other than guesstimation
• The edit removes significant amounts of material in many sections - including the Islam section
• The edit is full of incorrect speling "corrections"
• The edit links dates for no reason at all --JimWae (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • See: http://www.allied-media.com/AM/AM-profile.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_numb.htm
  • I would like to see the entire paragraph and page from: Muslim of Illinois, A Demographic Report, Ilyas Ba-Yunus, East-West University, Chicago, 1997, p.93. --JimWae (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

From this diff it is apparent (except for tha additional fault of deleting sections) the user is repeatedly blindly reverting to the article as it was basically on July 1 - the day he was blocked for violating WP:3RR. --JimWae (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The user is ignoring all improvements to the article since that date- INCLUDING the addition of the VERY same reference he says is not included --JimWae (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the editor continues to revert to the same old version & has not yet used this talk page, I will post the parts of the 2 versions that I suspect are the main point of contention: --JimWae (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The number of Muslims in the US is controversial. The highest, generally-accepted estimate of Muslims (including children) in the United States is 2.35 million (0.6% of the total population ). Some sources mention estimates as high as 6-7 million. Such estimates were accepted by media for some time, but any empirical basis for these higher numbers is not documented.
2. The number of Muslims in the US is controversial, with studies yielding estimates ranging from 2.35 million to 6-7 million.

Church attendance

Hey, just wanted to let everyone know why I removed and replaced the previous stats under church attendance. The previous one had no citation for its results. So I found a World Values survey and replaced it. The numbers are a bit out of date, but still relevant and have a source now.

"No religion/Atheist/Agnostic

I do not see why these are grouped together. Sure, 15% of the population may claim not to have religion, but that doesn't mean they're atheist or agnostic. Ever hear of deism? Or how about just a personal God (a large percentage)? So why isn't there a list under "No Religion" like there is under every other religion? Does this category include those who refused to answer? Why is disbelief in God separated from possible belief in God ("no religion") by only a slash? Wikipedia you've done it again.

In case you didn't know, less than 1%...that's right less than 1 PERCENT of the population are atheist or agnostic, according to one of the very polls used in this article. Yet it seems as though this statistic was conviniently avoided. Go ahead, check it out yourself: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html And of course most of the "important findings" by Wikipedia "editors" center on one perceived trend towards anti-religion...opposing trends fail to be "important" I guess. ...not sure why this all happened...oh wait, I do.

And THIS is a complete joke: "The Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the recent spate of religiously inspired bombings in Europe, and the emergence of organized campaigns by Christian fundamentalist groups against evolution and abortion have been cited as reasons for a continued increase in the number of individuals questioning mainstream religion and abandoning it altogether." There is then a citation to a Washington Post article called "European atheists now more vocal". Wow...just, wow. Just because atheists are getting more vocal means they are gaining numbers? The statement is a complete generalization backed up by a misinterpreted, unrelated observation. So now, can I add a sentence stating that people in general are abandoning atheism, and back it up with a lone article on something about a specific group of Christians stating their belief? Sure I can, but would it stay up?

And what's with the polls in the "Belief in God" section? Surveys of just a couple thousand people? Are Wikipedia editors that desperate to fulfill their agenda?

I can go on and on, but I have a life...unlike many of Wikipedia's editors and general population. By the way, I took the liberty of adding this small excerpt from your Washington Post article: "The Washington Post states, 'In a nationwide poll last year by University of Minnesota researchers, Americans rated atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' They also associated atheists with everything from criminal behavior to rampant materialism.' Now go ahead and delete it, kiddies.

Please, get out into the real world. That or pick up an Encyclopedia Britannica and see how it's really done.

Later...for good.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.245.72 (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"A study at the London School of Economics and Political Science, based on a U.S. sample, showed that Americans who are atheist and liberal tend to have higher IQs by an average of 6-11 points. In addition, American men who identify as atheist and liberal are more likely to be sexually exclusive than average.[20]" Higher IQs than whom? More likely than whom? There is no referent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.187.117 (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Native American religion section needs citations

This article has improved greatly over the past year, but the Native American religion section is badly in need of review by an expert and supporting citations. Any help would be appreciated. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

History

The History section has had a neutrality tag since December 2007. I believe this relates to the following text:

The result was that many of the people who rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776 cited reasons of a religious nature for their actions, and, according to Alexis de Tocqueville, Americans shared a conviction that religion was indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.

The efforts of the founding fathers to find a proper role for their support of religion - and the degree to which religion can be supported by public officials without being inconsistent with the revolutionary imperative of freedom of religion for all citizens - is a question that is still debated in the country today.

The reason for inclusion of this text is unclear. It does not "feel" appropriate to the history section, because it addresses current issues. I propose that both the tag and the text be removed from the article. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason why such a short section on history be included here, irrespective of any neutrality issues. The opening paragraphs of the article already gives a succinct historical context, much more competently than this section, and links to the article on History of Religion in the United States. And the sections on the individual religions provide more relevant historical background. Whatever purpose the History section once might have served is clearly now moot. Let's delete it entirely.5000fingers (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)5000fingers

OK, here is the outmoded and deleted History section. Again, there is much better historical context in the article's opening paragraphs. If any of this information is crucial enough to warrant inclusion, here is the text that was deleted:5000fingers (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)5000fingers

Main article: History of religion in the United States

The religious history of the US began before the former British colonies became the United States of America in 1776.

Some of the original European settlers were men and women of deep religious convictions, who came to America to practice their own religion without being obliged to conform to state religions. That the religious intensity of the original settlers would diminish to some extent over time was perhaps to be expected, but new waves of 18th century immigrants brought their own religious fervor across the Atlantic, and the nation's first major religious revival in the middle of the eighteenth century strengthened the influence of religion among Americans.

The result was that many of the people who rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776 cited reasons of a religious nature for their actions, and, according to Alexis de Tocqueville, Americans shared a conviction that religion was indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.

The efforts of the founding fathers to find a proper role for their support of religion - and the degree to which religion can be supported by public officials without being inconsistent with the revolutionary imperative of freedom of religion for all citizens - is a question that is still debated in the country today.

Consistency?

In the opening section, the article cites two studies showing the percentage of U.S. population who are Christians to be 76.5% and 78.5%. Yet in the Belief in God section, the article cites a study which found that only 73% of American even believe in a God. Doesn't that seem just a little strange, that there would be a subset of Christians who don't even believe in God? And since when was the CIA considered an acknowledged academic reference for an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5000fingers (talk • contribs) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. The numbers don't add up. Protestants 51.3% + Catholics 23.9% + Mormons 1.7% + others 1.6% = 78.5% This section needs to be re-written for consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodr (talk • contribs) 03:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No Religion text removed

I removed the following text:

The Washington Post states, "In a nationwide poll last year by University of Minnesota researchers, Americans rated atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' They also associated atheists with everything from criminal behavior to rampant materialism."

Please, folks, let's keep the personal agendas out of this article. The point of the article is to describe religious activity in the U.S, not to delve into the attitudes that one group has of another. The point is not to prove that Christians are good and atheists are bad, or vice versa. The low regard that Christians have of atheists is not exactly news, and isn't relevant to the subject of the article.5000fingers (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)5000fingers

Yes, Im not registered, but I was litterally about to say/do the same thing. That poll is being used as a scare tactic, and that definately isn't something that should be in this article. Hopefully someone sees this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.154.156 (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it offensive that people are "rating" people as "lower" than Muslims... am I the only one that finds this offensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.181.40 (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts in numbers

a minor change needs to be made to the population statistics of Islam and Hinduism specifically (maybe others) so that they agree with each other. The page lists the number of Muslims in the US as 2.35 million, compromising 0.6% of the population while the population estimate for Hindus is around 800 thousand compromising 0.4% of the population. The ration of population to population percentage should be the same for both but its not (the ratio of population:percentage for Hindus is almost twice that for Muslims). Therefore, at least one of the four numbers is incorrect. Just trying to do my little bit 24.155.178.205 (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Ed

I just ran the numbers with these results: 2.35 million is .6% of 393 million people, and 800,000 is .4% of 200 million people. Some discrepancy might be expected, based on the year that the statistics were gathered, since population does change from year to year, but judging from the above calculations, neither of these reported results makes sense. We should be consistent in the way the statistics are reported. Population statistics are best reported as percent of the population with a note on the year the data was collected. Actual numbers, if reported, should always be reported by year. For example: One study found that Muslims comprised .6% of the US population in 2004, or 1.75 million of the 292 million individuals living in the US in that year. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 10:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Protestant

This is not a denomination of Christianity, but merely a way of saying "I'm not telling you what I am, except I'm not a Catholic". Do we not have separate figures for Methodists, Pentecostalists, Baptists, Presbyterians and the rest? When they're not being anti-Catholic together, they're being just as inimical towards each other (theologically speaking). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

ARIS 2008

Saw the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey was posted and figured there should be some updates, using the table here. If anyone does find this large table broken down by state, please post a link. The state break down is only major groups.--Patrick «» 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidents

"However, many presidents have themselves had only a nominal affiliation with Protestant churches. Several early holders of the office were Deists, with at least four presidents being Unitarians, and several, such as Thomas Jefferson, having no formal affiliation."

No mention of Barack Obama, who follows Black Liberation Theology, or Mit Romney, who follows Mormonism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.216.6 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources 70 and 71: redundancy and possible accuracy issue

sources 70 and 71 refer to the same quote The second reference, a link to about.com, could be deleted without loss of useful information. The quote being from a well-known published work(and therefore easily verified by anyone with a library card), one reference would suffice.
The quote itself refers to the time that Obama spent living with his mother in Indonesia, but examination of the broader context calls its meaning into question. The quote is from one of Obama's books, but it does not accurately reflect his entire upbringing, as he spent much of his youth living with his grandparents.
In light of this, it is a matter of opinion whether or not he is an exception to the rule that Presidents and vice Presidents have all have all been Christian. The question itself seems a bit odd as well. This is not an accusation of intentional POV, but a recommendation that the section on religion and politics be revised with an eye to possible unintentional POV.

 ~~randomundergrad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomundergrad (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 

Massive issues in the Islam section

The very first sentence of the section on Islam makes a claim (by implication) that is contradicted by its most reliable source, the Pew survey. The historical claims are also problematic. It seems to me that this section needs to be largely overhauled.Mangoe (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Are Muslums Christian?

I am sorry to say you might as well put Muslim as being Christian if you are going to put LDS and Jehovah witnesses. The traditional historical definition that defines what church is Christian is based on "Who God is" and "How you are saved". That definition includes the Trinity(Father, Son-Jesus, and Holy Sprit as GOD). Since Jehovah Witness and Mormon believes do not believe Jesus was God then I would think it would be an insult to categorize them as Christian. Maybe they put themselves in that category, I do not know, but does not fit traditional definition of Christian. A few of the Muslims I know beleive that Jesus was a prophet of sorts but that does not make them Christian. What do Jehovah Witnesses believe He was or what do Mormons believe He was? The information here is very misleading. Special:Contributions/66.68.47.160.

Wikipedia is more interested in scholarly secular definitions than in religious "traditional definitions". See here and here.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing "scholarly" or "secular" about accepting patently false claims made by spokespeople for a new religion in attempt to gain it legitimacy. I think such an attitude is more accurately described as postmodernist obfuscation. -- Herzen (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mormons do believe Jesus was a god, just a separate entity from God the father. They are not the only sect on that list not to abide by trinitarianism. Ferris0000 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So, Mormons are polytheists. Christianity in contrast is monotheistic. Unitarians reject the triune God, but they are not polytheists. -- Herzen (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The first Christians did not believd Jesus was God. That was a Roman addition. How is it an insult to call someone who believes something closer to the truth as christian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.224.70 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

LDS Clergy

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is listed as having tens of thousands of ministers on this page, however they have no professional clergy. Other religious sects with no professional clergy have that field left blank. Since the number of member-assigned bishopric is mostly static, or at least on a geometrically steady climb, I suggest that someone at least add a footnote with a link to the section of the LDS page referring to their non-professional clergy. I'd do it myself, but I'm biased in this matter, so I'll leave it to someone who can view the correct procedure more objectively. Ferris0000 (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Priesthood_hierarchy. "At the local level, the church leadership are drawn from the laity and work on a part-time volunteer basis without stipend." Ferris0000 (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

See also: Priesthood (LDS Church) & Laity#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubious statement re Evangelicals and the irreligious

The following passage is cited to a CNN story: "Christianity in the United States has become more polarized with the numbers of evangelical Christians increased which, according to the studies, also contributed to the increasing numbers of Americans who are rejecting religion completely." However, the story doesn't say exactly that. The claim that the rise of evangelicals in American Christianity is making other Americans irreligious doesn't come from the studies; it's the interpretation of Mark Silk. Silk is not without authority, but I question whether his etiology of irreligion is generally shared in the field. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The running battle over the Mormons

Is there some way to deal with the Mormons that resolves this "yes they are/no they aren't Christian" struggle? Mangoe (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

official LDS statement:"Of course we are Christians. Why would anyone say otherwise?" [1] I am not sure if mormons are saying this or if anti-mormon people are changing the statements made in article. They are different enough in their beliefs they could claim otherwise but i think if they say they are then they are. Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The longstanding conflict is that they are so far from the Nicene consensus-- even the Jehovah's Witnesses (who are Arians) are closer to "orthodoxy"-- that one could as well identify Elizabeth Clare Prophet as a Christian. It seems to me that the biggest problem is in the section Denominations and sects founded in the U.S., which mixes willy-nilly groups ranging from mere administrative divisions (ECUSA, and to a degree the SBC and UCC) through various movements (Pentecostalism and Adventism) and sects (the JWs, Nation of Islam) to religions invented out of whole cloth (Scientology). I think this section needs to be addressed with a lot more taxonomy, as it seems that most groups have ended up here out of a desire to tag them as more or less weird. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, since the German Democratic Republic called itself "democratic" (despite shooting its own citizens who tried to get over the Berlin Wall etc.), it was a democracy. -- Herzen (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that Unitarian Universalism is not listed under Christianity, even though Mormonism is. This is completely crazy. Unitarians did not invent their own "holy book", the way the Mormons did. It makes MUCH more sense to call Unitarians Christians than it does to call Mormons Christians: for one thing, Unitarians are not polytheists, whereas judging by a comment above, Mormons are.

It makes sense that UUs aren't included in the Christian section because members might not follow Christian teachings and instead another. We could give a listing of the UUs who identify as Christian under the Christian section though, and have other UUs under a different category in the list. ~Stidmatt —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

I am inclined to correct this absurdity by moving Mormonism into the appropriate spot outside of Christianity, which would probably be after Judaism, based on the size. -- Herzen (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Continuing Islam issues

There continue to be lots of issues with the Islam section. Here are some that I've noticed:

• The competing claims for numbers are ill-organized. There's too much space wasted on the claimed numbers and not enough on those that are statistically-founded, not to mention Obama's number-out-of-the-air.
• The "20,000 converts a year" number needs a source, and needs to be portrayed as a claim if it is such (and it almost certainly is, if the Pew study is to be believed).
• Growth in Muslim numbers is fueled almost entirely by immigration. The vast majority of Muslims in the USA were born abroad.
• Conversions are mostly among African-Americans. The Wash. Post story on Latino conversions is human interest; 25,000 Latino Muslims (another claim, BTW) is a drop in the bucket.
• Estevanico was Catholic. It's not clear to me that there's any point in fishing for random conquistadors or the like in searching for a "first Muslim".

Mangoe (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Another issue: There are more Muslims in the US than Jews. The table states the opposite. There are definitely more than 0.6% muslims in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.224.70 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Find a reliable citation that says so, and you are welcome to make the change. But sources comparing on the same basis (e.g. polling) show that there are few Muslims than Jews. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Islam as Christianity?

i have left a Unsourced Welcome statement at User talk:Marsback Reverting the statement for a second time Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your Reference to Sikhs

Your reference to Sikhs, according to your statement, - present in the US for over "130 years", has many of them emigrating to the USA to escape British policies (from a Punjab that was not annexed to British India until 1849) "at the turn of the 19th Century" i.e. circa 1800; presumably this should be "at the turn of the 20th Century" i.e. circa 1900? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.5.11 (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes: checking with the cited work (see how handy it is to have citations, folks?) I see that we're definitely talking 1900. I've clarified the passage. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ranking of religions

It's not really accurate to state that "Buddhism is the fourth largest religion in the USA" based on the Pew study. First of all, the number two slot is occupied by all sorts of irreligion, lumped together, and it's questionable whether that could be categorized all together as a single "religion". But the other thing is that the margins of error in the Pew study are not small enough to where one can give definite rankings past Judaism (if indeed even for that faith) (see here). Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Unchurched Belt

Is this term actually in use? If it isn't, I recommend removing it from the lead section. Clearly, the term "Bible Belt" is in use, so it should remain. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I had never heard of it, but two of the references in Unchurched Belt refer to it, including an LA Times article that says, "... Pacific states have long been called the 'unchurched belt' ... ." --B (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Saw that, and I find it most absurd. A quick Google news search shows that the term is purposefully inserted into news articles as some kind of artificial balance to those who object to the term "Bible Belt". The fact is, Rodney Stark is the only human being on the planet who uses the term, yet he has somehow managed to get the entire media to use it? Doesn't add up. I've lived in the Pacific states for my entire life, and I've never heard the term used. I realize that the learning process doesn't end with adulthood, but to wake up one day and find out you live in the "Unchurched Belt" is a bit of a surprise. Something is wrong with this picture. Let me be very clear: This is pure nonsense. This only measures whether people are members of churches or attend them, as if that was a good indicator of religious belief. Does anyone honestly believe this is accurate? Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the article exists, I don't see a reason not to link to it. The bigger question is whether or not Unchurched Belt needs to take a trip through AFD. From Google scholar and Google books, there are a handful of uses of the term, but they all seem to be Stark himself or someone quoting Stark. While I don't have a strong opinion either way, I'd probably be slightly inclined on the side of !voting to delete it (albeit a very, very weak delete) simply because the article and most anything we might say about it is an interpolation on Wikipedia's part. The article is not about the unchurched belt, rather, it's about religion (or lack thereof) in the northwestern US. The topic of politics in the Bible Belt, social issues in the Bible Belt, etc, is a meaningful topic with a gracious plenty of source material. But nobody has ever set out to study "politics in the unchurched belt" or some such thing - they study "politics in the northwestern US". --B (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see a reason to minimize the mention if not remove the phrase altogether: undue weight. Mangoe (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah Witnesess

Jehovah's Witnesses are not Protestants! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.54.80.247 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, although the source data (page five of [2]) incorrectly includes them as Protestants. I'm not sure how to fix it other than the original research of giving them their own category in the table and doing the math to subtract them from the "Other Protestant Denominations" category. --B (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source

The sentence, "The majority of Americans (76%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly with Protestant denominations.[3]", and the proceding statistics are from a survey with 50,000 participants. And America, has, like, 307 million people? Ya, bigger sample size needed.Infringement153 (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not for these gross numbers. If you think you can prove otherwise, present the statistical analysis to show it. 54K responses for a survey like this is actually huge.Mangoe (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for my ignorance. I got little sleep last night. I'm sure what I initially intended to put there, before my sleep-deprived brain sabotaged me, was that we should change it to say, "In a (whatever year) survey of (whatever the number of people is), 54% responded...."etc. Maybe mention who conducted it. Not just outright say, "54% of america..." etc. 75.80.137.22 (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in.Infringement153 (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

They are not American, they're U.S. citizens

Why on EARTH are they referred to as Americans?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkLightA (talk • contribs) 10:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WHO is "not American"? What is the definition of "American"? --Richard S (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

An "American" is a person from either N. or S. America. Saying a U.S. citizen is American is like calling an Italian 'Eurasian' DarkLightA (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Webster defines "American" as "(1) an American Indian of North America or South America, (2) a native or inhabitant of North America or South America, (3) a citizen of the United States, (4) American English." It is accepted usage to describe citizens of the United States as "Americans", and has been since about 1740 or so. Eastcote (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

POV Text Under No Religion Section

The No Religion section contains the following:

A study at the London School of Economics and Political Science based on a U.S. sample, showed that Americans who are atheist and liberal tend to have higher IQs by an average of 6-11 points. In addition, American men who identify as atheist and liberal are more likely to be sexually exclusive than average.[22]

While those are fine, well cited facts, and certainly inflate my ego, it seems quite biased to put them here instead of on the main article on atheism. I know I wouldn't tolerate it if this article talked about how Christian conservatives live longer, or how American Muslims have lower divorce rates, or how Jewish people trend towards being better educated.

Would anyone here like it if the Race in the United States article talked about how good black people were at basket ball? If everyone would, I'll reconsider my position. But otherwise that text should go.

I support this motion, especially considering this article is geared towards statistical adherence to religion (or non-religion) in the US and not statistics about those who practice.--FrankieG123 (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The text was removed but reverted by someone else, it still seems like it would be better suited for the Irreligion in the United States page, considering the main body is a demographics section that it would fit into perfectly. Anyone else have any input? --FrankieG123 (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why delete only this portion? Another portion of the article discusses "In God We Trust" on coins, which has nothing to do with actual adherence to religious denominations; and another portion discusses the history of US constitutional thought concerning religion, but again having nothing to do with "statistical adherence". Another portion talks about poll results indicating American distrust of Atheists, and another portion discusses polling concerning whether Americans would vote for an atheist for President; which have nothing to do with "statistical adherence". Is it reasonable to keep segments that show disapproval of atheism, but get rid of statements that say something relatively positive? Eastcote (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and that portion about Atheists being considered lower than Muslims does not belong, nor does that brief and somewhat misplaced text about "In God We Trust" being on US currency. If nothing else these things should be moved to the page devoted to each specific religion in the US. For example Irreligion in the United States page is barren, and I would advocate moving the text in question there if nothing else.--FrankieG123 (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd buy that. So anything related to the proportional adherence to a religion (or lack of one) stays. Anything related to the character of religious denominations (or irreligious ones) should go. Likewise, the stuff about "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance seems out of place, and should go. After some thought, though, the historical piece at the beginning of the article seems to be appropriate, as a background for the variety of religious expression the rest of the article is devoted to. Thoughts? Eastcote (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about religious denominations, it's about religion in America & the deistic motto on coins says something about the official status of religion in the US. However, the part about use of eagle feathers in Native American ceremonies seems unnecessarily detailed. The part about Muslims being more assimilated is borderline, but should probably stay. The part about atheists is not POV, but is perhaps unnecessarily detailed. It probably does not belong in the atheism article though, as it is too US-centric.--JimWae (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am reading the text that was in the article, right now. Its definitely being spun to fit a POV here as it a make it sound like it's a causation of having a Higher IQ. That some how Atheist is to be superior. Its emphazizing facts from a study to support a original conclusion not what the study says about the topic of Atheism in America. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

More accurate statement would be Americans who have a Higher IQ are more likely to be Liberal, Monogomuas and Atheist. "more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse liberal political ideology and to be atheists, and more intelligent men (but not women) are more likely to value sexual exclusivity." Its really twisting the source here to say "A study at the London School of Economics and Political Science based on a U.S. sample, showed that Americans who are atheist and liberal tend to have higher IQs by an average of 6-11 points. In addition, American men who identify as atheist and liberal are more likely to be sexually exclusive than average."The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It also should be pointed that despite their large numbers of scientists, intelectuals, celebrities, there are almost none openly non-religious American politicians, which leads to suspicions of discrimination.85.242.238.224 (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Age demographics

I came to the page expecting some statistics on religious demographics in various age groups. If anyone knows of a source for such stats I think it would be a valuable addition to the page, for inferring changes over generations (such as increased atheism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.70.14 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible Table of State's demographics

It could be a really useful statistics tool to have a table of all the states that could be sorted using the largest religious groups in America with each State's membership. Sound good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stidmatt (talk • contribs) 05:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

percentages...

under the main religious preferences heading, it says christianity is from 59-76, when the chart next to it gives a value of 78.5%... i assumed the first statistic was a summary of surveys, and the second was from a specific one. shouldnt they overlap though?

elph98

break down by schism DELETED

Urgent fix required.

The break down by schism was wrong, as it did not show protestant as being in the number one position or any position. In fact, the break down was not showing ANY protestant or protestant related church, not even Church of England/Episcopal.

There is now two ways about it. It was a very bad propaganda. 250 million citizens, 125 million christians, 50 million catholic. That means around 60 million protestants, which MUST be represented in a clear and inclusive manner.

Anglican, Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist, Wesleyian, Lutheran..whatever, add them in as protestant in the main break down, then break them down in a later section please. This represents the catholic vs non-catholic divide in a FAIR way. I really don't go for religion myself, I am not being pro-Baptist or pro-Luther or anything, I just think that its obviously bias to exclude protestant from being counted as a major schism, and in fact to leave the protestant main stream christians out of the break down altogether is just bizarre.

It may be a mistake in understanding the referenced material. They may leave the mainstream protestants out of the break down, by including them as "everyone else". Its a complex issue, an expert needs to fix it, but it was bias to publish a list not mentioning protestants clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.33.42 (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the link in the reference. It is just the top 5 denominations. "Protestant" is not a denomination--JimWae (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons with total Protestants and with non-Catholic Xns appears elsewhere on page--JimWae (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Native American religious practice

I have blanked this section since neither version was cited. Mangoe (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of Date

The table under the heading "Membership Reported by Congregations" is just the sort of table I had hoped to find; it comes from an impeccable source (The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, hereafter Yearbook) and makes distinctions within confessional families that the ARDA and ARIS surveys don't. (In ARDA you're either evangelical or mainline if you're a Protestant, even if you yourself wouldn't adopt either of those labels. ARIS allows for some confessional distinctions [e.g., Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian], but ignores the substantial divisions within them [WELS v. LCMS v. ELCA; UMC v. FMC; PCUSA v. OPC v. PCA].) Thus, the Yearbook data offer more specific information than those found in the next two tables. The only problem with this particular section is that the data were transcribed from the Yearbook back when it was still being published on clay tablets written in cuneiform. The data haven't been updated in at least a decade--and some data haven't been updated in nearly two decades. At any rate, I would suggest that somebody should see to it that the table is updated every time another edition of the Yearbook comes out. (Any professor of religion out there looking for something for a grad student to do?) They would be doing Wikipedia a great service.Jkellrmn (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Opinion on religious leaders

A new edit referencing a Duke University professor was inserted in the lead. The article says that two-thirds of the American population would like their religious leaders to be less involved with politics. This would seem more germane if data were furnished on the same topic from a different time. Protestantism is (among other things) a revolt against the clergy telling anybody what to do. It is unsurprising, I would think, that Protestants would primarily want their clergy to stick to their pulpits on Sunday. That was the main idea to start with. Because of Protestantism, Luther's liege lord and Henry VIII (among others) were able to break away from Rome and do as they pleased. If the figure were broken down between Protestants and Catholics, it might make a difference. The author's connection between the Catholic priest's sex scandals and the reaction of Catholics, seems tenuous and not germane. Not sure that this should be in lead. Maybe not in article. Student7 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It belongs in the article on Religion and politics in the United States. Not in this article.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetical

When disagreements arise about subsections, wikipedians usually set them in a alphabetical order. I have never come across an agreed upon "adherent" principle. Pass a Method talk 03:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Adherents

Well, I guess we can check on demographics of the US for what they've done, if anything. It seems silly to me to list adherents below, say 1%. Or a 0.5%. It seems like WP:SPAM once you get below that. (Can't claim the same for demographics on immigrants!

I concede that I have heard of Cao dai in connection with Vietnam. There are 30,000 in the US. If 30,000 watch a tv program, it's long gone! Or most national products. We shouldn't be promoting tiny religious, political, or merchandising groups IMO. Student7 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the ones with the least adherents are getting a lot of free publicity as to their beliefs, etc. I would think their tie-in with the US is in order, e.g Mormon, Baptists, Universalists, Native American beliefs. But outside of that, interested readers can go to the article on that religion. The religion has no differing beliefs in the US than they do anywhere else. The material should be kept germane and WP:TOPICal to America. Student7 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Excessive tables

There are 6 tables in this artile, most of them in the bottom half; thats staggering. I have never seen that many tables on one article before, plus they are useless anyway since they mostly repeat information already convered in the body. I think at least two tables should be deleted. Can someone help me to chooe which ones to delete? Pass a Method talk 00:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I would keep the tables which are not too long, and are easy to read. Those tables provide a useful overview. I don't have the patience to read the very long tables, and I don't think most people do. We could remove them, and possibly summarize the highlights, and provide a link to them either in the endnotes or the external links. If we were to get rid of two tables, I would remove the tables under the headings "Membership reported by religious congregations" and "ARIS findings regarding self identification". If others want to keep the latter one, I think that only the right half of that table is useful. The table under the heading "Religious affiliation in the U.S." is the PEW survey. I have often heard that survey mentioned. I would not remove that survey.JDefauw (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

On the growth rate of Wicca

I have removed this claim for the lede for several reasons. First, the website that provides the analysis is not, in my opinion, a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#religioustolerance.org). Second, there are reasons to doubt their analysis. Wicca is/was undoubtedly growing pretty fast, in part because the starting point was so low. But this is essentially a cherry-pick of one number. Is it still growing at such a rate? Hard to say. It might be worthwhile to say something about the growth of neopagan religion, but in that subsection, and using a better source. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Apology and explanation for annoying little mishaps.

I apologize for having had to undo my own edits two times in 35 minutes. I hope this has not been too annoying to those who are patrolling this article. I was trying to remedy two problems at once (one of the problems was real and the other was imaginary). I thought the reference in "Judaism" needed a page number, and I couldn't simply add it to the "ref name" set. I also thought we had lost one of our convenience links over the last month or too. My plan to remedy both problems lead to confusion over whether one of the convenience links was leading me to the full pdf of the Pew study or one page of it. I hope this explanation sheds at least some light on what I was trying to do. Again, my apologies.Dulcimer music 05:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

Table of religions

A user recently redid the table of religions in the #Statistics section, removing links, references, and helpful bar tables for majority religions in the US (Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, Black church, Catholic, Mormon, and Eastern Orthodox), and replacing them with links to minority religions in the US (Unitarian Universalism, Wicca, Druidry, Spiritualism, Bahai, New Age, Sikhism, Scientology, Humanism, Deism, Taoism, Eckankar). This edit also replaced a 2012 Pew survey with a 2004 estimate. As far as I can tell, the change is unhelpful, since the new table basically duplicates the list immediately above, removes a large amount of information about the makeup of the largest 80% of religious adherents, and adds a bunch of useless information about the smallest 1% of religious adherents. I reverted the change, but they reverted back. I'd invite the user (and any other interested editors) to comment here before this turns into an edit war. (I think the article should be reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO, but I don't want to make the revert myself.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted because you gave an inadequate edit summary, saying the 2012 cite was "better", but not saying why it was "better". Pass a Method talk 03:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In my edit summary I said the bar chart was better [than a table of numbers] and that "the 2012 Pew study is better than the 2004 estimates". Perhaps I could have been more explicit, but I gave two valid reasons in the edit summary, as well as more here on the talk page. Would you care to specifically address the points I raised? And if we're reverting for "inadequate" edit summaries, what am I supposed to do when you leave an edit summary of "table"? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never come accross anyone who had a problem with plain table charts on WP. Furtermore, the data i used for m table is reproduced in several reliable sources. You have still not explained why the 2012 Pew data is "better". Pass a Method talk 04:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Because 2012 data is better than 2004 data. It's more recent. And a bar chart is more useful than a table of numbers because you can see and understand the information more quickly. It makes it easier to compare different groups graphically, and you don't have to do any math. You still have not addressed the concerns of replacing information about the top 80% of adherents with information about the smallest 1% of adherents. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not base superior sources on "recentism" and there is no such policy. There is however a policy stating that data which is reproduced on multiple occasions is more notable. Therefore your statement is baseless, as it suually is. I will keep a close scrutiny on your edits from now on. Pass a Method talk 04:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the concerns of replacing information about the top 80% of adherents with information about the smallest 1% of adherents. Or the concern about replacing graphical information with a table of numbers. As for the claim about no policy saying that "recent" sources are better than older sources, try WP:Identifying reliable sources. It says, "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available". I found that in 30 seconds, and I'm sure I could find more if you require more. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There are 3 other tables on this article specifying the details of specific denominations. I thought it would be redundant to repeat. You clearly misunderstand the difference between a religion and denomination. Sunni and Shia on their own are not religions. Nor is Episcopolian by itself a religion. The table also more correctly illustartes the title of this article. You might have a point if the article title said "religions and denominations in the US" or so. Pass a Method talk 04:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And there was only one table with helpful graphics, and you removed it. The only way the new table better illustrates the title of the article is if the article name were something along the lines of "Minority religions in the United States". Which brings us back to the fact that you still haven't addressed my point about why we should replace detailed information about the top 80% of adherents with detailed information about the smallest 1% of adherents. Understand: I'm completely fine with adding information about minority religions, but it shouldn't get UNDUE weight, and it certainly shouldn't crowd out the information about majority religions. If you want to add some of the religions in your table to the Statistics section, there is a paragraph immediately above where you can do it. I'll even make a compromise edit and do it for you. Here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, I just tried to compromise and you reverted it without discussion. Could we please set aside our personal issues and focus on building some sort of consensus? ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ever since our edit dispute on God you have followed me to at least 40 articles you have never edited before. First prove that your not trolling me, then i might consider debating for a consensus. Pass a Method talk 05:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, as a total, i have so far had to explain my edits to you more than i have had to all other editors combined. I think this indicates some sort of arogance on your part. An arrogance amplified when you consider you single me out for my short edit summaries when you ignore the vast majority of other wikipedians who also give short edit summaries. Pass a Method talk 04:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, if it helps, I haven't singled you out on the edit summaries. See [3] for a recent example :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, i copied my edit summary style from other experienced editors by the way. I have even once shown my edit summary style for edit review and nobody saw a problem with it. Maybe you need to revamp your understanding of edit summary usage. Pass a Method talk 05:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I'm heading to bed now. I hope that after we both get a good night's sleep we can work this out tomorrow. Hopefully we'll get some sort of a third opinion by then. Good night. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Ok, firstly I'll ask that, from now on, any continuing discussion be focused on the content and not on the other editor. Please see WP:NPA. Now, User:Pass a Method can I ask why you feel 2004 data is more appropriate in an article such as this than 2012 data? Surely, when referring to demographics, the most up-to-date figures are superious (unless the article is specifically about a period in history). Furthermore, you stated "I have never come accross anyone who had a problem with plain table charts on WP" - this does not mean that a more readable table (which I feel User:Adjwilley's stance includes) should be reverted. Please see WP:OTHER. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies give more weight to sources which are repated over several places. This source for instance is also included in Adherents.com (the biggest online reference source for religion), and by a variety of publishing houses, [4], as well as multiple reviews by newspapers. The latest Pew has not had such coverage yet. Secondly, i think the Pew table is redundant since it mostly covers denominations/branches (of which there are 3 on this article already), but my table gives details about distinct religions rather than about branches/denominations. I'm pretty sure that being superfluous is unencyclopedic. Pass a Method talk 09:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would counter with the following: Is a modern up-to-date source that has had a less time to be covered more relevant than an older out-of-date source with more coverage? If that's the case then why does Wikipedia use (for example) the most recent UK census in 2011 rather than the census of 2001 despite the 2001 having substantial more coverage in reliable sources due the 10 years of it being primary source? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, as a comrpomise i have mentioned both Pass a Method talk 12:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The top half of your table is redundant with the list at the beginning of the section, while the bottom half of the table is religions with adherences of less than 0.1% of US population. I liked my compromise better (i.e. append religions to the existing list with percentages, instead of duplicating them in a new table with raw numbers). ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the tables at te bottom of the page is also redundant. Pass a Method talk 19:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:Other stuff exists. (I think that's what Cabe intended to link above, but the redirect went to the wrong place.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I meant to link WP:OTHERSTUFF but forgot the stuff bit. Oops! I think that appending the additional figures to the existing table with %'s is the best option going forward for this page. I like the % table as it is much easier to read than a raw number table. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If we do that, there are at least two options.

1) Adjilley's compromise above. The ten religions in the last table that are under 0.1% are simply listed as Other ~0.1%.

2) Create a separate raw numbers table for these ten religions with the title "Religions in the U.S with fewer than 400,000 members" or "Religions in the U.S under 0.1% of the population".

I am willing to agree to either proposal. Proposal 2) would ensure that we have a sense of the small numerical size of these 10 religions, so as not to give them undue weight. I included this proposal because it may be of interest to some students of sociology to see a list of all the minority religions in the U.S that have at least 30,000 members along with the numerical size of each religion.Dulcimermusic 03:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

P.S.--I won't be able to respond to any comments until Saturday. As I said, I will agree to whatever the others decide.Dulcimermusic 03:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

I implemented 1) above. I think if a more comprehensive list is wanted, then someone should create the article List of religions in the United States.

Good idea.Dulcimermusic 04:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

Removed unsourced material.

I'll leave it here in case anybody is able to verify it. My own search for a source was not successful.

Among American Jews actively observing their faith, 33% belong to Orthodox synagogues, 32% are affiliated with the Conservative tradition, 28% belong to Reform congregations, 3% are Reconstructionists, and 4% belong to some other tradition.Dulcimermusic 02:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

the numbers look strange. The national Jewish population survey of 1990 asked 4.5 million adult Jews to identify their denomination. The national total showed 35% were affiliated with the Conservative tradition, 38% were Reform, 6% were Orthodox, 1% were Reconstructionists, 10% linked themselves to some other tradition, and 10% said they are "just Jewish." see Jack Wertheimer (2002). Jews in the Center: Conservative Synagogues and Their Members. Rutgers University Press. p. 68 online. I added that to the article Rjensen (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Space on Christianity vs "Other"

While roughly 70% of Americans claim Christianity and 7% "Dharmic," Islam or "other," 7% have about double the space in this article compared the 70%. This seems WP:UNDUE IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement you are referencing in WP:UNDUE is: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

If we include the section on Judaism in our word count, then you're right. The sections on the non-Christian religions taken together have well more than twice as many words as the section on Christianity. On the other hand, if we exclude the section on Judaism, then Christianity has 760 words, and Islam/Dharmic/Other taken together have 1160 words.

I would like to hear what other contributors have to say. If they share your concern, then we could think about shortening "Judaism". Also, I'm not sure we really have to have sections on Druidry (30,000 members) and Wicca, since both of those religions are already mentioned under "Neo-paganism", and we also have a main article link to "Contemporary paganism". Taoism (56,000 members) could just be mentioned in the list that appears in the introduction to entire section. On the other hand, Unitarian Universalism has almost 900,000 members (and probably has influence that is disproportionate to its numbers). I would also allow the brief section on the Native American religions to remain in the article because of the prominent role of the Native Americans in our history. The New Thought movement has historical interest as well, having its origins in early to mid 19th century America.Dulcimermusic 04:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

Looks like the Druidism/Wicca sections were added here. I personally think they should be merged into the Neopaganism section, but if I make the edit myself I'll get in trouble :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the above suggestions are good ones. Shorten Taoism. Merge Druidism/Wiccan. Student7 (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of change to wording in intro section

Changed the second paragraph to -- "The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), which is what the US Census Bureau cited in their 2012 Statistical Abstract, 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians" -- in order to provide more consistency and a better comparative. In the Pew survey, more recent, the number of aggregate Christian adult population was estimated at 73%, while ARIS, from 2008, shows an aggregate Christian population of 76%. Added to citation to US Census Bureau, which since they cite this series of surveys in their latest statistical abstract, lends credibility to their methodologies, despite the data being four years old. 10stone5 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

When the results of the recent Pew survey were published in Oct. 2012, I hesitated to substitute that survey for the 2008 ARIS survey for the reason you mentioned. The ARIS survey was based on a sample of over 54,000 Americans. The recent PEW survey is based on an annual survey that was certainly based on a much smaller sample.

On the other hand, the results of the more current study cannot be dismissed either because the moderately rapid increase over the last 5 years in the number of those who say they are unaffiliated means that any 2008 survey, regardless of its accuracy, is likely to give us an underestimate of their number in 2013. ARIS will probably publish a new survey in 2015. In any case, it is never a good idea to place all of our reliance on only one survey.

I decided to incorporate the results of both surveys in the lead sentence of the paragraph in question. The complete results of both surveys are presently included in the article (ARIS is in the remainder of the same paragraph and in a chart towards the end of the article, and 2012 PEW is in the second chart in the "Statistics" section).Dulcimermusic 02:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

"non-theist" congresspeople

It's inaccurate to say that Kyrsten Sinema is the only non-theistic congressperson. Pete Stark was publicly an atheist, as one can read in this HuffPost story. I also can't find a self-identification for her. I'm not too keen on the phrase "non-theistic" anyway given that a Buddhist could be so classified. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Religion and politics first paragraph - biased source

The first paragraph contains a reference (87) to the Pew Forum. It is obvious that this is an entity with a heavy inclination to drive their particular agenda. Abortion, Church-state relations, Death Penalty, and Gay Marriage are among the top issues in the Pew Forum web-site. This is similar to the focus points of the ACLU. Biased entities can deliberately or unconsciously deliver a biased statistical study.

It seems to be commonly known that this is a biased forum. For example:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/shame-on-pew-worlds-most-biased-poll.html

It would be good to have a reference to a study made by a university with credibility (perhaps from the most neutral state) or from the government with evidence that this it is not biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivangarcia44 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There is already an "unbiased" Internet encyclopedia for such matters which treats the Pew Forum as biased: Conservapedia. Thus, referring to the Pew Forum is not a problem. People who have problems with the Pew Forum can use Conservapedia instead of Wikipedia. – Herzen (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia should be named as Liberalpedia. This would be a more accurate description. By having a neutral name it might give people the false impression that Wikipedia is not biased. I believe that Wikipedia tries to achieve neutrality.

At the very least this section should indicate that the study was made by a left biased entity and that it is expected that the result is not completely accurate. For more accuracy on the study a more neutral point is needed. This should be written in the section to avoid giving the wrong impression to naive readers that they are reading facts when they are really reading opinions.

A blog is not going to cut it as a contrary source. Find a book, a journal article from someone reputable, or some similar source. Mangoe (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

the allegations are ridiculous-- Pew is a leading research center. The "bias" and POV rules in Wikipedia are about the EDITORS (and you can see the bias ooze out here). For the record, such issues as "Abortion, Church-state relations, Death Penalty, and Gay Marriage" are also a high priority for the religious right in the US. Indeed they are high priority issues on the political agenda for right, left and center. For a serious look at the high quality and range of expertise at Pew (as published by a conservative religious publisher) see Erik C. Owens; et al. (2004). Religion and the Death Penalty: A Call for Reckoning. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 14. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4