Talk:Christianity in the United States/Archive 1

Shaping Up

I like the recent work User:Carlaude has been doing here; really makes it spiffier. One thing I would suggest is that the table is currently very heavy in appearance. Maybe some form of lightweight thing, not a strict table, might be a better way to present this information. Also, I think the table might well be placed later in the article. That would have the advantage that it wouldn't conflict with the boxes and pictures that are (rightly) near the top. Also, the Christianity box shouldn't be there; it's being phased out in place of portals and footers. Tb (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo with the flags

Many Christians in the US are made extremely uncomfortable by easy assumptions that civil patriotism and Christianity have anything to do with each other; this article is not about pro-US Christians, but about Christians in the US. Accordingly, and in view of WP:FLAG, I removed the picture. The idea behind the picture is a very good one: something that shows a church, clearly in an American context, but the particular way of depicting American context (use of a flag) is not ok. Tb (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

State Flags

Do we need the flags in the table? Looks like another case to examine WP:FLAG.Brian0324 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the flags in the table should go, and it should be organized alphabetically by state, not by region. But kudos to all the hard work making this page look so nice! Tb (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

These flags add to the rapid loction of data and is an excellent use of flags-- but state names are there are as well. See Wikipedia:subnational flags. I quote: "A common example of use of subnational flags is in tables or lists of... Another applicable situation would be that of a list concerned with subdivisions of a specific country." Note this quote is for a good use, in contrast to the bad ones.

Since the table is sorable, readers can make it alphabetically by state at any time.--Carlaude (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's for cases where the only identifier for the locality is the flag, which is done because there is no room for a complete name. The question here as always is to ask what the flags are doing to contribute? Do people remember state flags as well as state names? Tb (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No-- a flag as the only identifier is a bad practice. It seems you should read WP:FLAG.

People can find the image of a flag much faster in a long list that the name only. Most people will know the image of there own state-- the most common state for them to want to read.--Carlaude (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree completely. You have a preference for graphics: I don't know why; but they are a waste of space and do not include comprehesion. People know the alphabet, and can scan an alphabetical list very quickly. Indeed, people are usually more interested in things they do not know: that is, other states. Tb (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Images in table

The guideline for including images and icons in tables should be whether it actively contributes, or just "makes it pretty". Icons and images are generally a bad thing it tables. I am willing to be convinced, but I'm not willing to accept images and icons in this table without a clear explanation of why they give information that cannot be understood any other way. A typical example of a good use of US State Flags in a table can be found in U.S. state, where the table is telling the reader what the flag looks like. But this page is not U.S. state, and so this page is not the place to tell the reader general facts about the state. Especially things like church logos do not belong here. In particular, the desire to have a logo has produced the creation of a logo where none exists: namely, the use of the Papal logo as if it were a Roman Catholic logo. This is directly contrary to WP:FLAG. There is no generic logo for the Roman Catholic Church. Inventing one is not allowed. Tb (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Regions in table

The use of region names in the table is extremely problematic. For the reasons indicated in U.S. state and List of regions of the United States there is no sensible reason to choose one particular regional grouping than another. The nice map graphic already gives convenient regional information. I object to the listing of region as a column in the table without a specific justification for why the particular regional assignments make more sense than some other. Tb (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is about Regional Christian Demographics -- Many denominations are stongest in certain regions. There is no better way to convey this infomation except to sort by region.

To require justification for one regional grouping over all others is an totally artificial and unneeded requierment. If you think another regional assignments system in better tell us why or at least why it is not. By the way this system seemed to fit with patterns on denominations listed on adherents.com, but I am open to others.

"For the reasons indicated in U.S. state..." You mean like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The choice of regions is not neutral, and the way region boundaries are drawn can change the way the data appear. It is simple to change the title to say Christian Demographics by State. To pick a single regioning without defending it is not only to advocate a POV, it's to advocate one without any reason. I am entitled to object to a POV without proposing an even better POV; rather, I object to any regional labelling of states as having any particular relevance here. Tb (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you notice, by the way, that the map you give of census regions (one regioning among many) does not match the regions you have chosen in the table? Why do you prefer those regions? Where did they come from? Why are they the correct regions to group by? Tb (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The choice of regions could be POV but it is not automaticlly POV. You have to tell us why or how this system is POV-- not just claim it is. --Carlaude (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure-- my point is that I am not stuck on on set "system".--Carlaude (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is that any assignment of regions is inherently POV. For example, your assignment puts New Jersey in the "Mid Atlantic" and New York in the "Northeast". Why? This expresses the view that New Jersey is more closely associated with Pennsylvania and Delaware. Why is New Mexico "West Coast"? Shouldn't New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma go together? But then we can't put New Mexico and Arizona together. Any grouping will say "this state belongs with that state, and not this other", and thus will be inherently expressing a POV about the natural grouping of states. As U.S. State explains, there is no natural grouping for such purposes. Tb (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviation of denominations in table

I think it would be useful to abbreviate denomination names in some sensible way in the table. For example, "Episcopal" and "Presbyterian" are reasonable abbreviations, provided the wikilinks go the right place. But I'm not sure. As it is, the info is visually cluttered because of the length of the names used. Tb (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why the icons are so useful to help identity them.

Use of "Presbyterian" for the PC(USA) is not a good idea, as PCA apeers three times in the chart.

The main problem with you idea is that some denominations have "good" and some do not.--Carlaude (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the PCA in there; that is a wrinkle. But your latest revision had some abbreviations in it, which I think do go a long way toward improving readability. Icons don't help: that's like making up a new abbreviation which has never been used before and putting it in, at least, when you make up icons that are not actually existing icons of that group (like the image of a baptism, the photo of the Mormon temple, or the papal insignia). Tb (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Christianity series box

Of course, the series box is going away anyhow, but for the time being, note that it is not present in the other "Christianity in XXX" pages. Series boxes are not duplications of categories. It is inappropriate to think that this article is "part of the series" unless simply every article touching on Christianity is part of the series, and that's not plausible. Tb (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is false.

You just do not like the template and do not want this helpful template used. It is very simple-- this article is better with the template.--Carlaude (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Chart Errors

Just check the actual state pages. They often don't match this table. I checked Colo, Cali, Ariz, and Fl and they are all well of the mark. --User:Roy Brumback

You must be reading the chart wrong somehow. These are from the actual state pages.

The chart says Colorado's top three denominations are Roman Catholic, LDS Church, and Southern Baptist and Colorado#Religion says the top three are Roman Catholic, LDS Church, and Southern Baptist

The chart says California's top three denominations are Roman Catholic, LDS Church, and Southern Baptist and California#Religion says the top three are Roman Catholic, LDS Church, and Southern Baptist

The chart says Arizona's top three denominations are Roman Catholic, LDS Church, and Southern Baptist and Demographics_of_Arizona#Religion says the top three are Roman Catholic, LDS Church, and Southern Baptist

The chart says Florida's top three denominations are Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, United Methodist and Florida#Religion only lists these denominational families (as top)

Roman Catholic, 26%

Baptist, 9%

Methodist, 6%

Why are you wasting our time? -^{Carlaude:Talk} 23:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do rude? It's wasting my time to keep pointing this out to you. The chart says 43% of Arizonans are Christians whereas the article of Arizona's demo's says it's in the sixties. The chart also lists Colo. at 43% but the article has it at 65%. Florida is listed with 47% but the article on Florida has it at over 70%. Georgia is listed at 61% but the article has it over 80%. Maine is amazingly listed at 39% when the article has it as 82%. I could go on but as I have not encountered one stat on total percentage of Christians in the state listed on the chart that is correct so far, I'm deleting it until either you or I or anyone else can make these numbers more accurate. I don't know how the numbers on the chart were arrived at. Maybe it's only counting Christians of certain denominations and not counting non denominational ones, I don't know, but those percentages are clearly not accurate.Roy Brumback (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I was rude. I could not see any errors you saw until you really pointed them out.

Please stop edit warring. Let the chart stand while we seek consensus. This is per WP:BRD--^{Carlaude:Talk} 11:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

what is ther reason for the removal of "stats based on Census data"? Somebody went to great pains to collect this data here, and I see no reason to replace all of it by "NA" on a whim. --dab (𒁳) 16:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops it was not Census data.

I collected the data from this web site, where it is listed for each group for each state. I coulded see why the stats are always different but now I do. The state pages have data based on self-reporting of indivduals (people tend to over-report their own religous involment) and ARDA data in this chart is based on contacting the churches themselves.

I agree the chart should stay, but I am open to ideas how this can be made more clear.--^{Carlaude:Talk} 17:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's easy. Find a respectable poll of what individuals in a state say their religion is. What is religious involvement, going to church? Can one be a non-denominational Christian? If so, they won't show up in any list of church membership, so unless we are going to exclude them, we can't simply go by what Churches say about their membership numbers. I'm a Christian, but I don't belong to any Church officially although I do attend my wife's Catholic Church with her, but I would not be classified as a Catholic.Roy Brumback (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, one can very easily be a nondenominational Christian. +Angr 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not what a nondenominational Christian is. Non-denominational Christianity are churches made of people that do not make up (in their opinion) part of a denomination. What you have is something like a non-church Christianity.

By the way, Angr, you should use youself as an example-- or talk about examples as yourself-- if/since then others get insulted when people make comments or points about youself the example.

There is not one right way to collect and post data of size of religious groups. Read for example the lead to Major religious groups. I think this is an excellent way to collect the data, but that is not why I am using it. I am used it because I found no other source. If you find and organize data based on self-reporting of individuals I think it would be great to have them side by side on the same chart. We just net footnote and hatnotes or something.--^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't we already have it in the data in the state articles?Roy Brumback (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes-- for most or maybe all states-- as far as I know. Someone would still have to collect it, etc. I guess you could see if the state pages site one source and then try and get it there. --^{Carlaude:Talk} 08:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is Orthodox categorized with "Old Catholic"?

In the Mainline vs. Evangelical section, it has Orthodox/Old Catholic... However what do these two groups have to do with each other? The two are in no way similar. See Orthodox Church for further information... --OrthoArchitectDU (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

White evangelicals? Sounds strangely racist to me

I'm not an American, and I came to this article with an interest that turned into genuine curiosity. The lead tells me that white evangelicals are the largest cohort. I can find a definition for evangelical, but am struggling to comprehend the white bit. Is America still really such a racist country, discriminating on skin color that much, even in classifying its religious divisions? HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not institutionalized racism and discrimination, but rather the sociological fact that for better or for worse, whites and blacks have their own separate subcultures in the U.S. and many people of one race rarely if ever socialize -- or worship -- with people of the other race. While Catholics and more liturgically oriented Protestants like Lutherans and Episcopalians have racially mixed churches, other groups like Methodists, Baptists, and Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Pentecostalists are very often divided along racial lines, not just at the level of individual congregations but also at the level of separate (sub)denominations. Not because anyone is forcing them to, but just because whites tend to congregate with whites and blacks with blacks. There are several traditionally Black churches like the African Methodist Episcopal Church, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and any of the Baptist denominations that have the word "National" in the title (except, I think, the National Association of Free Will Baptists). The other Methodist and Baptist denominations are then predominantly white: Blacks aren't explicitly excluded, of course, but in the traditionally white denominations (such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant church in the U.S.) they'll be a tiny minority (just as whites are in the traditionally black denominations). +Angr 10:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good synopsis, Angr. Many Protestant get along great regardless of skin color or background, but it does seem like there aren't many churches which are mixed closed to 50/50. Of course, saying that they are specifically white evangelicals could be removed I can see how many people can classify them as such, just because of the average make-up of their denomination. So you see, HiLo, it's not so much racism as it is stating the norms. I have no problem with it if y'all want to drop the 'white,' but I could go either way. Invmog (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The religion of children - do we have a right to "identify" for them?

A new claim and poll refenced in the lead says that 78% of the population identify themselves as Christian. That's simply not true. The poll would have only asked adults. I believe we should reduce that figure by the 25% who weren't asked and who could not yet have made a responsible, informed choice about religion. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be original research. We can only report what the published surveys say, not how we wish to interpret them. +Angr 05:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my observation is a form of original research, but you cannot deny its truth, thereby demonstrating that the source, no matter how highly it is generally regarded, cannot be regarded as a reliable one in this case. There is no point in reporting garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The only thing we can do safely is report what the reliable sources say. We can report on disagreements among the sources, if there are any, but we can't disregard a respected source based on one editor's interpretation of it. You can bring it up on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if want some more general opinions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You are playing "legal" games with Wikipedia's rules. You know my point is valid, but won't discuss it here. Simple logic tells you that I am right. Stop deflecting the argument. That is poor policy. HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for airing your personal opinions. Since your suggestion above, "we should reduce that figure by the 25% who weren't asked...", would violate Wikipedia policy, it's not a viable option. Whether you are "right" or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion. +Angr 19:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I just asked a question, among other observations. How about responding to my other points as well? The popints both respondents seem despearate to avoid. The basic issue is that simple logic tells you that the reference is not sound, in this particular case at least. It has ignored the obvious reality that children cannot have givne the claimed "identification". The edit depending on it should be at least reverted, and I will do so if no-one can convince me that the reference is sound HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Most Christian denominations baptize children at birth or at any rate long before they're old enough to decide for themselves what religion they want to belong to. Therefore, there's no requirement or expectation that children be old enough to actively identify themselves as Christians in order for them to be identified by others that way. Granted, it would be interesting to know whether Baptists (a not inconsiderable proportion of American Christians), who don't baptize children until they're 8 or 9 at the youngest, and other credobaptists count their unbaptized children when answering such surveys, but there is simply no reason to doubt what the source says. +Angr 06:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Baptising a child might make that child a Christian in the eyes of the parents or their church, but to many other people, including myself, a person is not part of a religion until they have made a personal choice to that effect. The wording in the lead says "...identify themselves as Christian". Clearly the children don't do that. Someone else is doing the identifying. The article should reflect that reality. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The data come from Gallup, not parents of said children. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 07:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In my first post above I made the obvious point that Gallup would not have asked the children, only their parents.

I also know that, while what I'm saying is logical and true, it is, for most people, a radical way of looking at polls. I expected opposition for precisely that reason. People are naturally resistant to changing long held perceptions. I'm not going to push my position too hard. I just hope others will take time to think about what a Wikipedia article should actually say in situations like this which involve children and polls. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That isn't how Wikipedia works. It doesn't interpret sources, it merely reports what they say. The only really relevant questions are: is the Gallup poll a reliable source? And if so, are we reporting the material faithfully? I think the answer is yes to both questions. I'd imagine most people would find Gallup is a reliable source, and it says specifically that "...78% of Americans Identify as Christian", so we're clearly reporting what it says faithfully. What you're suggesting is an interpretation of the data that doesn't appear directly in the source. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place for that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Since someone is trying to say I'm wrong, I am forced to stay in the debate. Yes, the way you are thinking requires us to look at the vailidity of Gallup as a source. I think I have demonstrated that what Gallup is saying is not likely to be true. The children would not have been asked. What Gallup is saying is wrong. Hence it is NOT a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you have not demonstrated that what Gallup is saying is not likely to be true. You don't know whether children were asked, you merely assume they weren't. You also assume that they would be incapable of answering if they were asked. You also assume that it makes a difference whether children were asked or not. None of those is a safe assumption. In addition, you are relying on your own personal definition of what "identifying as a Christian" means. +Angr 13:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Gallup does not say that it asked children. On the balance of probablities, my reading of Gallup's position is far more likely than yours. Do you really believe that Gallup asked 2 year olds about their religion? HiLo48 (talk)

Did I ever say they did? My point is it doesn't matter whether they asked children or not. The issue is completely irrelevant both to the poll and to the article. +Angr 21:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia constantly requires us to makes judgements about sources. Gallup uses language that implies that it speaks for Americans of all ages. It's unlikely that they asked children. Hence, in this case, Gallup is an unreliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DFTT. This is not the place for this discussion. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss the topic rather than me. I have politely but clearly refuted every argument presented against my view on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. It's obvious that a number of you are not yet ready to accept a new and more accurate way of looking at opinion polls. I've seen this type of situation many times before, especially when a new approach challenges a long established orthodoxy. Sadly, I suspect too that some of you were basing your responses on a strong POV about where you want Christianity to stand in the USA, rather than really trying to understand what I was presenting. I will stop rocking the boat here for a while, and watch and wait to see when somebody actually understands my point here and is able to discuss it logically and maturely. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

State Demographics

The table with state adherent rates was completely wrong. It looks as if the original creator had sorted on one column while leaving another column unsorted, thus messing up the data. Here are the correct data for evangelical adherents/1000 from the original source. Anyone want to help grab the other religion groups? Alabama 405.87 Alaska 124.53 Arizona 94.77 Arkansas 431.48 California 71.84 Colorado 106.3 Connecticut 24.06 Delaware 51.57 Florida 140.43 Georgia 277.76 Hawaii 81.35 Idaho 89.54 Illinois 102.82 Indiana 159.99 Iowa 116.99 Kansas 156.15 Kentucky 336.75 Louisiana 215.34 Maine 33.25 Maryland 77.31 Massachusetts 23.7 Michigan 107.88 Minnesota 111.41 Mississippi 397.28 Missouri 247.46 Montana 111.58 Nebraska 146.18 Nevada 53.89 New Hampshire 24.38 New Jersey 24.14 New Mexico 130.71 New York 29.46 North Carolina 255.78 North Dakota 97.33 Ohio 99.5 Oklahoma 414.91 Oregon 113.7 Pennsylvania 57.34 Rhode Island 16.19 South Carolina 294 South Dakota 138.13 Tennessee 369.55 Texas 243.77 Utah 19 Vermont 24.24 Virginia 171.09 Washington 98.29 West Virginia 110.64 Wisconsin 126.6 Wyoming 113.54 --Jsorens (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

split?

Because of the overwhelming complexity of US Protestantism, I would propose to split this off to a dedicated Protestantism in the United States article. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. alright by me. Invmog (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support as well. We should leave a summary section however. Ltwin (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per Ltwin, there should be a summary section here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

OK... I was bold and went ahead and created the article. More work is needed but at least the first step has been taken. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try to help improve the article as well. Ltwin (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New Thought Movement

According to the article on New Thought, all references to Christianity were removed in a 1957 declaration. New Thought therefore does not even consider itself a branch of Christianity, let alone be thought of as one by others. This is quite different from Mormonism, which does consider itself a branch of Christianity, and which is considered such by many non-Mormons as well. Therefore, while a summary of New Thought may be appropriate in the article Religion in the United States, it isn't appropriate in this article, which is just about Christianity. —Angr (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually That was one New Thought umbrella organization which includes other New Thought schools of thought which do not consider themselves Christians it was meant to be inclusive. Now the three specific Branches here are a whole other case they do, that is why they are the focus. If you where to investigate and not have your conclusion already drawn. (I say this since you did not discuss and removed) New Thought is focus's on what each group has in common not what separates them . Very unique group, so there it is. 66.108.86.141 (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe listing the see also could be to the three separate articles and not to the New Thought page.66.108.86.141 (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To frank, we can only include the high-points of Christianity in the United States in this article. Even if we were to agree that the NTM is "Christian", has it has not had a large part in the history of Christianity in the United States-- or any place that I know of-- it is thus uncalled for and WP:POINTy to include it in the history section of this article-- or any other section.

Per Angr, maybe try Religion in the United States. Maybe not. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess you made your mind up and no real discussion will take place from reading your statement. iIntellectual curiosity, I believe would make a better Wikipedia. 66.108.86.141 (talk) 11

23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the sources and the numbers

• The CUNY source is broken.
• The Pew and Gallup studies are on USA adults 18 and older of which Pew clearly states in the source there are 225 million adults over 18 in the US (page 3).
• The adherents.com source is using 1990 data when it states 85% and it's number states 224m, not 243m and 224 million adults in 1990 is impossible since the population was lower then. I would go as far as striking the adherents as a reliable source when it is so far out of line from the other two demographic studies.
• Where the 243,186,000 figure comes from is unknown and not in any of the sources so I'm going around and correcting it. Alatari (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)