This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Reformed Christianity / Baptist / Quakers / Methodism / Latter Day Saints / Adventist / Witnesses / Charismatic High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy. This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity. This article is supported by Baptist work group. This article is supported by WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Methodism work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 15 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cjf006. Peer reviewers: Dwr002, JacobJDawson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdedman15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'This Christian geography and statistics web page is copyright © 2000 by Adherents.com. Please address send comments, questions, etc. to webmaster@adherents.com. Webpage created 10 August 1999. Last updated 24 January 2000. '

It hasn't been updated since 2000 and the data is from 1990 studies. It is now unreliable compared to Pew study of 2009 and ARIS study from Trinity College of 2008. Alatari (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is totaly WP:OR to mutliply any number by 78% or 85% and then to put 177 million in as a statistic.
• Furthermore, per WP:BRD, you need to now discuss before making any such a change. You need to stop making edits to the page until there is a new WP:CON.
• The Pew study is a totaly different measure than the adherents.com number. The Pew study is based merely on the self-assesment of people themselves-- and (for this reason I supose) it only measures adults.
• The adherents.com data– if I recall-- is based on the more reliable numbers of religous bodies themselves. It is best to include both these two measures– and it would also be much better if we make the differences in these numbers more clear. I think we can also indicate that the adherents data is for 1990. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 04:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 243m number in any of the sources. There are only two stated numbers in the sources. The outdated 1990 information from adherents of 224m and the AIS number of 173m. We need updated numbers and the ARIS is the only from this decade that states an actual total. Alatari (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop avoiding discussion. Stop making edits without discussion. Stop making edits without WP:Consensus.

You also do not show what the 173m number really is, because the AIS page is down and you give no detail. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 08:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did try and explain the two figures in the lead but Carlaude is going delay and stall any changes to reflect the more recent figures. Adherents data is 21 years out of date. It says very clearly on their site the date of the figures. So I will tag the article as out of date. ARIS page is working for me: http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf Alatari (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN... adherent data is from 1990!!! The page is out of date... This is ridiculous that one editor refuses to accept newer information. We'll have to go to the wider Wikipedian base to get an opinion. Alatari (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, provide an unarguable, precise definition of what a Christian is, and then we can start discussing how many there might be. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what the sources say a Christian is. The ARIS studies of 2001, 2008 and the Pew study give clear definitions of who they count and how. The information from adherents is from Russel Ash's Top Ten... book of lists from 1997 and I can't find the book and have no idea how he came up with the number 224 million and searched for an hour and found no later references to Christianity from his later publications of that Top Ten book series. No matter the quality of his work it is now 14+ years out of date whereas we have two high quality reliable polls performed in the last 5 years. There are anonymous and rogue accounts trying to push a 243m figure from unknown sources into Wikipedia Christianity articles so that they can say the USA is the largest Christian nation in the world. It's political. I have asked 3 different editors who have tried to place the 243m figure into the articles to just please give a reliable source but they won't. Wikipedia is inherently positivist in philosophy. Alatari (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing a positivist philosophy as Wikipedian is wrong. Wikipedia is to be neutral in POV. I don't care about the claim that the USA is the largest Christian nation in the world. To state it that way would be worse than how it is stated. But Alatari seems to be wanting to censor the Adherents data because he doesn't like it– or he thinks two different numbers measuring two different things cannot both be correct and useful.

Adherents has the clear precise definition. The ARIS and Pew studies do not. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 01:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is not anything but positivist. Adherents data comes from the Top Ten list of Ash Russel which has NO information on how it was compiled. The Adherents definition maybe correct or not. Doesn't matter when it's pulling the data from an unreliable source. Even if it IS reliable it is from 1993, 94, 95 or 96 and so it is too old for this article. I want to exclude that data because it is just too OLD... Why is this so hard to comprehend? There are newer studies. There are much newer books from Ash Top Ten series that could be quoted so why are we using information from the mid 1990's? Alatari (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I find you idea that Wikipedia "is not anything but positivist" as very wrong, it would be best here just to take that to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view or another policy page, since it would have to be part of a Wikipedia policy before it was relivant here.

Ten years is only out-to-date if this was data that changed quickly— and this data just doesn't change quickly.

That said, if there is more up-to-date data of the same sort— based on the (more reliable) numbers from the religous bodies themselves— then great, we can agree to use that. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1990 the USA population has increased 58 million people and there have been many deaths in that time period. The adult population of Christians has dropped from 86% to 76% of the population and the number of unreligious has risen from 14 million to 34 million people. I'm confident those are large enough changes in demographics to be able to cast the 1998 Top Ten list data as out of date. Did the Top Ten books of Ash Russel stop listing Christianity? The Census Bureau isn't of help here. Alatari (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that adherents.com is generally reliable, and that it is generally counted as a reliable source for our content. However, that does not necessarily mean that if it uses outdated data, that such data should be included. Whether it itself engages in OR is of course a separate matter entirely, but, if the content were to be found to be sufficiently important for inclusion in the article, for whatever reason, I think it would be acceptable to cite the information with adherents.com as the listed source. Personally, unless the article is to include information on the changes in population of Christians over time in the United States, I myself would be more inclined to not include the information and the source than to include it. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A researcher at PEW answered my email request about demographics of all US Christians:

Thanks for your inquiry about our research. I don't think we have a published document with exactly what you are looking for that is currently available. However, I can tell you that before the end of the year we expect to publish a report with the information you seek. It will describe the population of Christian adults and children, including all the details you requested and significantly more.

Best regards,

Conrad

Conrad Hackett Demographer Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

so the new info should be available soon. Alatari (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it inappropriate to lump the LCMS in with Evangelicals. Many throughout the LCMS, especially in the seminaries and institutions of theological education, constantly rail against "Evangelical Christianity," and go to great lengths to define how the LCMS differs from it. For example, this article itself defines "Evangelical" denominations as those that emphasize "personal conversion" and gospel-related action. Although the LCMS does have conservative theology, and does believe in the inerrancy and inspiration of scripture, as an Old Lutheran denomination, the LCMS most emphatically denies "personal conversion," synergism, "choosing Jesus," "making a decision for Christ," "feeling the presence of God," or anything other than Lutheran single predestination. Furthermore, the LCMS can't really be accused of emphasizing that anyone do very much of anything, gospel-related or otherwise. Even though such goading toward "right doing" may be enshrined in the theology, it is absent from the practice. 72.8.255.85 (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I think it comes from the desire to categorize all Protestants as either "mainline" or "Evangelical", which isn't really accurate. Angr (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Data from [1] may be extracted and redone as a free license graph to be added here (and to articles about irreligion in the US). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like straight copyright infringement to me. How would it be a free license? tahc ^chat 21:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to edit the image so that the key is available on the Wikipedia page. It took me several clicks to find out what those colors were supposed to mean. I'm not familar with how to do it, or I may do it myself. If someone has a good refernce I'm will to give it a shot Fulner (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christianity in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709082644/http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm to http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928035636/http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/Project.aspx?ID=850011 to http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/Project.aspx?ID=850011

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christianity in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614124201/http://www.trincoll.edu/NR/rdonlyres/AFCEF53A-8DAB-4CD9-A892-5453E336D35D/0/NEWARISrevised121901b.pdf to http://www.trincoll.edu/NR/rdonlyres/AFCEF53A-8DAB-4CD9-A892-5453E336D35D/0/NEWARISrevised121901b.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609091659/http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo200/religion.html to http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo200/religion.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article names the UMC as third largest church in the US. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist_Church there are 6,671,825 adherents of the UMC in the US. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_membership_statistics_(United_States) there are 6,721,032 adherents of the LDS faith. Considering LDS church growth and UMC membership trends(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist_Church#Membership_trends) it seems proper to replace UMC with LDS as third largest denomination. Any opposed? Shai-Huludim (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have Reliable Sources (not Wikipedia) for your numbers? Editor2020 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all the above data is linked to external sources. Take a look. Shai-Huludim (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody against the article being changed? Shai-Huludim (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Editor2020 (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was able to change the text, but on trying to edit the references, I couldn't really enter the list. What now? Shai-Huludim (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be able to edit the references where they appear in the reference section, but can edit them in the article itself, where they appear after the thing they are referencing. Editor2020 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shai-Huludim (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So after more than a month of me announcing to make a change user "Tahc" deletes my changes minutes after I'm done. Serious? Justification for the change being an "estimated" number? So estimates are now legit reasons for wikipedia entries? Maybe a mod should take a good look on this. Shai-Huludim (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the National Baptist Convention USA estimate were considered unreliable then it should not be listed-- but if it is considered reliable then we should not claim that these three other denominations are 3rd, 4th, 5th, and largest black, etc. tahc ^chat 19:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The World Council of Churches states a different number of 5 million. An it doesn't call it an estimate. So how come the difference? https://www.oikoumene.org/en/member-churches/national-baptist-convention-of-america-inc Since the data seems not reliable, it should not be used. The other churches provide precise numbers and they're up to date. But you're more than welcome to contact the NBC and get some reliable numbers if you please. Shai-Huludim (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the World Council of Churches site is a more suitable source you can update the data on that section for the NBC, and see if anyone objects. tahc ^chat 06:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of this article references a 2014 survey and then compares it backwardly to a 2015 survey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.254.169.145 (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a new chapter here on "Christian nationalism" where we mention a growing number of conservative American christians are trying to change their country into adopting their religious laws like "abortion criminalisation" and suceeding in states like Texas? While also those americans who strongly embrace Christian nationalism— about 30 million adult or 20 percent of white americans, want to enact voter supression on ethnic minority communties and many tend to support Trump? https://time.com/6052051/anti-democratic-threat-christian-nationalism/ Unicornblood2018 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Celtic Orthodox Church in the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 8#Celtic Orthodox Church in the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Christian church directory of the United States and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 9 § Christian church directory of the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the numbers of christian do NOT add up. Are you suggesting that Orthodox and others (outside of Catholics and Protestants) do not count? Also what is protestant and what is not? is that even defined? JOCA (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JOCA Lots of numbers in the article, can you be more specific about which ones don't add up. Erp (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that "owing to its size," Catholics are more likely to complete higher education and earn in excess of $100,000 a year than other denominations, but I don't think this is correct. A large share of American Catholics are Hispanic, but Hispanic Catholics have much lower levels of income and educational attainment than white Catholics. In income, white Catholics are above all other ethno-religious groups but Asian Protestants, Asian-unaffiliated, Jews and Hindus, while Hispanic Catholics are at the bottom (even Asian Catholics are above white Protestant groups in income.)[2]. So it is not merely the size of the denomination producing these results.

And what is the purpose of lumping in all these different Protestant denominations together as if they form a coherent religious grouping? Is it just because most reliable sources are still doing this? Historically this would've made more sense. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the statement: "Owing to its size, more Catholics hold college degrees (26% of all US Catholics) and earn over $100,000 per year (19% of all US Catholics) than do members of any other US denomination." First because it isn't accurate, Hindus are nearly 3 times as likely to have a college degree (77%) and even among Christians, mainline protestants slightly edge out Catholics. Also not true on income. In addition, the "owing to its size" seems to be pure original conjecture. (also a better format for the source Pew Research Center (2015-05-12). Chapter 3: Demographic Profiles of Religious Groups. Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project (Report). Retrieved 2024-01-19.). It seems to have been added in November 2019. Erp (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote that was probably thinking in terms of Christian denominations, which is probably true in terms of income but not because of "owing to its size". And you're right about education -mainline p's slightly edge out Catholics although it's very close. Harvard's religious demographics show Catholics as the largest religious group, but the largest group of adherents and non-adherents overall is agnostics, and atheists aren't far behind Catholics.[3]. I wonder what agnostic/atheist income data looks like?

Since this article is about Christianity in the US, I think a statement could be made about white Catholics having the highest income levels of white Christian denominations without speculating on what the reasons are. The Pew Research you linked lumps all Catholics (and all Protestants) together, without taking ethnicity into account. White Catholics have higher income levels than white Protestants as do Asian Catholics, while Asian Protestants have higher income levels than all of these groups.[4] Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]