Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 23:42, 6 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religion in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months

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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Reformed Christianity / Baptist / Quakers / Methodism / Latter Day Saints / Adventist / Witnesses / Charismatic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 (assessed as Low-importance). 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 (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Baptist work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (assessed as Mid-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 (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (assessed as Mid-importance). Atheism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Hinduism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Buddhism Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

great article; better graphics svp

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

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

Inaccuracies of independent polling section

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

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

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

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

Came here to make the same point. Many of the bullet points seem tenuously related at best, and some are outright false. As noted, it seems pretty straightforwardly false that polling "consistently" fails to predict election results. There exists a margin of error, and there have been some high-profile examples of polling "misses," but polls do have quite strong predictive power. Additionally, political polls attempt to model turnout and capture "likely" voters, which introduces complexity and potential for error that is not a problem for simple opinion and demographic polling. It just doesn't seem necessary to have so large a section just to warn that polls may not be perfectly accurate, so I fully cosign Tasqing's comment above. Specific, relevant, notable critiques might be worth keeping, but a broad suggestion that polling in general is unreliable is silly and irrelevant, and should not be kept in this article. DustyConditions (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Intro section is clearly biased

Just compare the intro section to the respective articles on other countries. It is clearly whoever wrote this doesn't like the idea of the USA undergoing secularization, the text fights the idea at every line, and even when it concedes the idea of nones growing, it still claims the they are much more religious and therefone not "none" at all. This intro was clearly written by a conservative christian who doesn't like the idea of the USA becoming more secular. 2804:388:A035:5C20:5B1B:5B72:8841:DE00 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's true that there's been massive secularization in the US over the last decade, more so than other Western countries (probably because they've already secularized many decades ago). You should provide some sources, which are easy to find.

Another thing I noticed is that virtually nothing is said about the massive decline in Protestants. The article goes on and on about early history and gives readers the impression that little has changed, when in fact Gallup, cited in the article, shows a massive decline in Protestant adherents: from about 69% in the 1940s down to ~30% of the population today. The Catholic numbers have held at ~22%, although that was likely maintained via Hispanic immigration. Overall, the data shows a consistent decline in American Protestants (and religious adherents generally) and a trajectory that's likely to continue with more secularization.

Another flaw in a lot of American articles is that, while they acknowledge the country as 'diverse,' they tend to speak about cultural factors in homogenizing tones. The lead in this article is a typical example of a piece that starts by acknowledging the country's diverse religious culture but then spends almost the entire section on Protestants, with one measly line about Catholic immigration in the 19th Century. There isn't actually a single "national culture" in the US and religious culture is no different: while American Evangelicalism is dominant in the Bible Belt and Midwest, Catholicism is strong in the Northeast and outnumbers Protestantism in at least 4 critical states, including the NY City area, the largest metropolitan region in the world. The US is perhaps the only developed country that fetishizes its hinterlands and tries to minimize its major metro centers, where in other Western countries it's quite the opposite. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"~30% of the population today" Protestantism is still so influential in the United States? I wonder why. In Europe, Protestantism no longer has much impact. Per the article on Protestantism by country, "Protestants constituted nearly one fifth (or 17.8%) of the continent's Christian population in 2010." Dimadick (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It's true that Protestantism has always been a minority 'religion' (or whatever it is) in Christian Europe and that's still the case. And I don't doubt that the US has the largest population of Protestants of any country, although this is not exactly surprising. It's more interesting that American Protestants were over 2/3rds of the population ~80 years ago and now approaching 1 in 3. The Catholic numbers have barely budged over that same timeframe. At least 4 US states have more Catholics than Protestants -NY, NJ, Rhode Island and Massachusetts -and there seems to be some debate about Connecticut elsewhere on this page.

Of course, when we talk about 'Protestants' we are often grouping denominations that have little in common with each other, but I realize that many reliable sources do this for whatever reason. Roman Catholicism is the largest single denomination/church in the US and has been for some time. There's actually an enormous subset of the US population that has some direct contact with the Catholic Church beyond the number of religious adherents: millions of Americans have been educated at Catholic primary or secondary schools and/or universities, receive healthcare through the Church (as far as I'm aware, the CC is the largest non-profit healthcare provider in the US), treatment at Catholic hospitals or are involved in Catholic charities in some way. I'd say that counts as a lot of 'influence'. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, as I raised this same issue on the talk page back in October 2023. These conversations indicate no consensus for removing the paragraphs about secularization and yet there have been repeated attempts to do so. I note that the account that did this most recently was previously banned for edit warring but seems to still be engaging in the same type of behavior. TempDog123 (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change Mormonism to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

There is no Mormon Church, he was a great man, but we are the church of Jesus Christ 24.149.24.16 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is probably related to the push by the LDS church to distance itself from the "Mormon" label, as mentioned in Name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Informal and abbreviated names. Liu1126 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Should race be a factor when discussing income/education?

There's some ambiguous language and, depending on how it's interpreted, potentially misleading. In one of the sections on income it reads:

"though the overall percentage of Catholics in high income brackets is far lower than the percentage of any Mainline Protestant group in high income brackets, and the percentage of Catholics in high income brackets is comparable to the percentage of Americans in general in high income brackets."

What does "of any Mainline Protestant group" mean? Individual churches, or mainline Protestants as a whole?

Also, when Pew breaks down religious stats, it sometimes differentiates race or ethnicity which sadly affects the way these groups are ranked. For example, there's a higher percentage of white Catholics earning >$100k than white mainline Protestants, although Asian mainline Protestants rank higher than white Catholics. Hispanic Catholics, on the other hand, are at the bottom, which may have something to do with why Catholics appear to be at the population average when grouped together.. In terms of advanced educations, white mainline Protestants and white Catholics are about even (see previous link for income/education data). Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph because graphs don't work, and added it here for archival reasons.

Historical trends

• Sources: Based on Pew Center Research, especially editions 2007-2014 and 2019, CID-Gallup Center since 1948, Public Religion Research Institute, Christianity Today 1900-1950:Religious Trends in the United States, The Database of Religious History, and Historical information sources.

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

References

1. Cite error: The named reference pew2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference In U.S. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. "Religion, Gallup Historical Data". February 10, 2021. Archived from the original on September 14, 2017. Retrieved October 18, 2019.
4. Cite error: The named reference PRRI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Archived December 10, 2021, at the Wayback Machine (link Book) 1900–1950 Survey: Religious Trends in the United States
6. DRH Archived December 10, 2021, at the Wayback Machine (The Database of Religious History)
7. The U.S. Is Retreating from Religion Archived December 10, 2021, at the Wayback Machine Scientific American
8. Fast Facts about American Religion Archived November 24, 2021, at the Wayback Machine Hartford Institute for Religion Research

Change in religious identification, 1950–2020

Percentage of Americans by religious identification (1950 – 2020)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of moving graphs to the talk page for archival in case graphs in the form they're in ever come back. Otherwise, if an alternative is created, they could be converted manually or maybe automatically. _Dial 18:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference galluprunning was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Metaphysically unaffiliated are separate from atheists and agnostics

Misplaced Pages and the US statistics bureau are confused because they biasedly deem religion (= belief in standardized supernaturalism = teleological causality violations) the hypernym of all metaphysical worldviews.

Rename the article: Metaphysical worldviews in the United States

Not all metaphysical worldviews include the supernatural to be religious or religions.

Hypernyms mustn't be hyponym-based and biased. 2.84.217.128 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Oxford comma 64.189.18.51 (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Rewording of line on Judaism & Wealth in section titled "Protestant Denominations"

In the section titled Protestant Denominations, there is the following line:

"Episcopalians and Presbyterians tend to be considerably wealthier and better educated than most other religious groups, and numbers of the most wealthy and affluent American families as the Vanderbilts and Astors, Rockefeller, Du Pont,Roosevelt, Forbes, Fords, Whitneys, Morgans and Harrimans are Mainline Protestant families, though those affiliated with Judaism are the wealthiest religious group in the United States..."

The sources for the part of the sentence highlighted in bold are "WASP—From Sociological Concept to Epithet" and "America's Changing Religious Landscape". The problems with this line and its sources are:

1. The first source, "WASP—From Sociological Concept to Epithet" was published in 1975 and so is almost 50 years old. To put it mildly, the statistics contained in it are out of date. It is thus not a relevant source to site when considering modern demographic statistics, and should not be cited in this article.

2. The second source, "America's Changing Religious Landscape" is a Pew study that is very relevant to this article, but it doesn't quite say that Jews are the wealthiest religious group in the US. What it does say is that Jews and Hindus are significantly more likely to report having incomes over $100,000 per year, as of 2014. However, saying that Jews are more likely to make over $100,000 is not quite the same as saying that Jews are the wealthiest religious group in the US.

Given the points above, I suggest the following:

1. That we remove "WASP—From Sociological Concept to Epithet" from this article given how out of date it is.

2. That we change the wording of this sentence to more accurately match the information contained in "America's Changing Religious Landscape". My suggested wording is:

"Episcopalians and Presbyterians tend to be considerably wealthier and better educated than most other religious groups, and numbers of the most wealthy and affluent American families as the Vanderbilts and Astors, Rockefeller, Du Pont,Roosevelt, Forbes, Fords, Whitneys, Morgans and Harrimans are Mainline Protestant families, though those affiliated with Judaism and Hinduism are significantly more likely to report household incomes of $100,000 or more than other religious denominations, with 44% of Jewish households and 36% of Hindu households reporting incomes over $100,000, compared to an average of 17% for Protestant households and 19% for American households more generally..." sfgfan10 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Have attempted to cleanup this paragraph here, although only partly in the way described above. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

2023 PRRI Survey For Pie Chart

More recent and more specific than the Gallup data since it shows that 40% of America is Protestant.

https://www.prri.org/research/census-2023-american-religion/ 164.119.5.58 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Any explanations of why there are so many Protestants in the United States? Dimadick (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

2024 Pew survey for pie chart

41% Protestant 20% Catholic

https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/fact-sheet/national-public-opinion-reference-survey-npors/ 166.181.84.117 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This should be added as its almost 2025.164.119.5.58 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It is only one of several surveys even by Pew and isn't finely grained (for instance no separate results for Muslims or Jews or for that matter Christians who don't fall into the Protestant/Catholic divisions ). Pew itself states they use it primarily for adjusting the results of other surveys (i.e., to counterbalance that some groups use the internet more extensively than others). Erp (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense. They DO have the “Other faith” for all of those groups. This is the most recent data and it clearly needs to be used. It’s ridiculous that even the 2023 Gallup data has been replaced by 2014 data on this article. Where are the editors to fix things? 2600:100A:B1E0:9985:4426:A39F:7731:F56A (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

More recent doesn't automatically mean better. Erp (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Religion is teleological supernaturalism which isn't the hypernym of all metaphysical worldviews (= missing page)

Misplaced Pages isn't tautological to the US statistical bureau, thus Misplaced Pages is responsible for its own biases. Misplaced Pages hypernymizes religion as the false hypernym of all metaphysical worldviews (= missing page). That's why they like to present the "united unaffiliated" against religion. Because the US's statistical bureau and Misplaced Pages's bias is the term religion, and not any possible metaphysical worldview. Atheists and agnostics have different metaphysical worldviews, but polemically under the bias of the false hypernymization of religion, the US & Canada's statistical bureaus and Misplaced Pages, don't care to honestly present all different metaphysical worldviews but they want to boost the false hypernymization of a metaphysical hyponym. Misplaced Pages acts unencyclopedically for years. They know the problem but being unethical they promote their biased forced and false hypernymization. 2A02:2149:8BAC:EA00:8051:85ED:CC45:DCE2 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8BBF:6100:8051:85ED:CC45:DCE2 (talk)

The two edits that were made today need to be undone. The article is now false.

Editor Alienlong falsely claimed that the chart they replaced the previous one with is from 2024, but it is in fact from 2014. The Gallup data from 2023 needs to be restored ASAP. 2600:100A:B1E0:9985:4426:A39F:7731:F56A (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh? Sorry then It's from 2014 must've been not noticed I'll try to gather better info AIienlong (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

however I've found 2024 source hope It'll helps AIienlong (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/ claims to have data for 2024 However not all of religions are in the actual data so it needs calculation AIienlong (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem with that site is figuring out its sources. It seems to be using the 2016 Gallup Poll results. https://news.gallup.com/poll/200186/five-key-findings-religion.aspx It does break out Muslim but merges all non-Catholic Christians in contrast to the 2023 Gallup data. Erp (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused, where do you see the religions data on this site: https://worldpopulationreview.com/?

Also, it would be helpful to use a reference that at least outlines Abrahamic and Eastern religions to align with the article's structure. This way, the 'Other Religions' category won't be confused with the content already in the article. I believe the Pew Research Group has data on this topic. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Here example, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/highest-catholic-population AIienlong (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Which is using four sources one of which is wikipedia itself. The ideal source is one that is reliable, complete, recent and single (the last means don't combine multiple sources though it is permissible to use a reliable source that itself combines ). The reason for not combining multiple sources is that the sources may using different ways of counting (self-identification, religion reported figures , missionary guesses about other religions); a reliable secondary source will do the necessary analysis to safely combine and will have the necessary tools to do so; wikipedia editors aren't in that position. Erp (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand that I just checked in, that same source has a problem with counting system which makes it even harder, for example 21% of Catholics and 51% of protestants in which if we count them with Non religious 33% will add up more than a 100%, also SBC have as recent data as 2023 and Mormons also, which will make whole counting irrelevant, but In my opinion we can at least make a 2023 pie chart more precise which I tried to make, but data was from 2014, btw.

In the article under pie chart we need an update on the section of Christianity for the recent data on major religious groups which I did apart of pie chart. AIienlong (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Erp's thoughts. Perhaps we could use this source instead? Keeping the categories simple would be best. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

We shouldn't use that source because they are projections based on 2010 data. The US has also the most polls on religion out of any country (and it is not even close). We will just have to wait until there is another one. Rolluik (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Catholicism articles
• Mid-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• B-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Low-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• B-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Low-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• B-Class Anglicanism articles
• Mid-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• B-Class Lutheranism articles
• Low-importance Lutheranism articles
• WikiProject Lutheranism articles
• B-Class Reformed Christianity articles
• Low-importance Reformed Christianity articles
• WikiProject Reformed Christianity articles
• B-Class Baptist work group articles
• Mid-importance Baptist work group articles
• Baptist work group articles
• B-Class quaker articles
• Mid-importance quaker articles
• WikiProject Quakers articles
• B-Class Methodism work group articles
• Low-importance Methodism work group articles
• Methodism work group articles
• B-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Mid-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• B-Class Seventh-day Adventist Church articles
• Mid-importance Seventh-day Adventist Church articles
• WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church articles
• B-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• Mid-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• B-Class Charismatic Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Atheism articles
• Mid-importance Atheism articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• Low-importance Hinduism articles
• B-Class Buddhism articles
• Low-importance Buddhism articles