text:
Talk:Religion in the United States

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

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

Jehovah's Witness, Mormons are not Christians
Someone please edit this document.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * No change needed, both Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints consider themselves Christian, are derived from Christianity, and are consider by scholars of religion to be Christian. They are, however, outliers within the diversity of denominations within Christianity.  Note Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism are also diverse.   I can think of one group of Muslims that many other Muslims consider apostates but are still classified as Muslim by scholars. Some modern Hindus go in the other direction and consider groups like Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs to be within the umbrella of Hinduism (see Hindutva); note that Hinduism is a term originated by European scholars to include a wide diversity of practices and beliefs within India. Erp (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This response had little substance other than disagreeing and false facts.
 * "Both Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints consider themselves Christian"
 * As I said before. We are referring to religion in realism not post-modernism where there is no truth and everything is defined by each person.
 * If I bowed down to a Hindu God and called myself Christian, with your logic, I would be so. Post-modernism is the virus plaguing our world today that creates no truths.
 * Simple logic reveals that it doesn't matter how you think of yourself. When we classify based on facts and attributes, those become our norms, not what the person identifies as, which is exactly the argument you are making.
 * Simple logic aside, the statement is false. in informal discussion with someone from either group, they will refer to themselves separate from Christians especially JW. Both of these groups actually see themselves as superiors to the Christian faith. They believe they possess information and scriptural changes that make them different from larger Christian group. These changes actually move them outside of Christianity. Both of these groups are actually refuted by Paul as being part of the church.
 * Matthew 7:21-23
 * 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’  23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
 * This is one of the many versus from Jesus' own mouth that proves what you say is wrong. Claiming to be a Christian doesn't make you one.
 * Over the last 2023 years, there have been way more false religions claiming to be Christian that have been rebuked by the true Christian church
 * "Are derived from Christianity"
 * Urine is derived from the food you ate and drank earlier in the day, would you drink your urine? Simple logic destroys this comment.
 * The fact that you used the word "derived" infers a change, something different.
 * If we are considered all religions derived from another, the parent religion, the Christians are Jews. Muslims are Christians and then Jews also. Simple logic proves this line of thinking is false.
 * So lets ignore all these fallacies and pretend these religions are "derived" from Christianity. How is this so?
 * JW rewrote scriptures to give them new meanings, different from all accepted scripture ever found. If you rewrite a book so that it has a different story line, is it the same book? And if not, why would this be different?
 * Mormons wrote new books, and in many cases, these new books override the existing books, is this not the same?
 * "Are consider by scholars of religion to be Christian"
 * This is subjective. Who are these scholars? Not scholars of Christianity I presume, as I am one myself.
 * From the beginning of the christian church, both of these religions were warned against by people who are in the scriptures.
 * "Scholars" of the Christian faith have on many occasions cast out these religions as being heresy. Universities, Nations and ancient theologians have all counted the ideas of these religions as being heresy.
 * I am sure if you go to a liberal university, which may be biased against the Christian faith to begin with, you may hear supposed scholars consider these cults as religion.
 * We can agree that both these religions "derive" from the initials book of the old testament. By using scripture in this book alone, we can refute these religions as not meeting basic qualities needed to be similar.
 * Actually, the books from which Christianity and these cults derived call these religions blasphemous.
 * I have been involved in the Christian church for over 40 years on my own and longer than that as a kid. I have the largest Christian history and theology library out of anyone I know.
 * I have been to Christian churches from many denominations, befriends JW and Mormons; non of them in these years would consider JW or Mormons as being "Christian".
 * "They are, however, outliers within the diversity of denominations within Christianity."
 * This is a gross representation of the truth. First of all, an outlier infers that the measurement is on the scale.
 * For argument sake.... other than the poor argument of "they think they are, so they must be", and the phony expert opinion defense, why are these two religions Christian?
 * What constitutes a Christian? Please define one. The scriptures that both of these false religions are "derived from" tell us what one is.
 * In reality, there is no sound argument to defend the JW and Mormons are Christian. Any argument that you make will immediately put many of the most practiced religions in the world all under the parent of Judaism.
 * Further, any argument would reduce religion down to nothing more than a malleable fantasy that takes the shape of who ever decides to change it.
 * The fact is, truth exists. Properties, attributes, and other terms for dividing and classifying exist. Each one of these terms can be handled as a variable.
 * Just as in algebra, x= something. In a multi-linear function, many variable create x.
 * x = yA + zB + wC + qD
 * In our function, x equals religion, y z w q are the coefficients of Christianity or attributes of Christianity (there are more coefficients for all religions, but for simplicity, only Christianity's are show).
 * Since many of these coefficients are binary (TRUE|FALSE), 100% or 0% would be the variable A B C D for each coefficient.
 * Go-NoGo test: In order to be Christian, y z w q must exist (because they are the attributes) and A B C D can not be zero. Or in other words:
 * x = y(100%) + z(100%) + w(100%) + q(100%) = Christianity
 * I have now argued with logic and math. 76.142.113.221 (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With regards to your initial point about JWs, I just checked JW.org, and it seems that Jehovah's Witnesses do believe Jesus was the Son of God and divine in nature (https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20110401/jesus-where-he-came-from/). So, not the "exact same belief" as Muslims. 2600:4040:578B:7300:111F:638D:784:393A (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are absolutely Christian.
 * First off, we believe the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, therefore we don't follow it any more.
 * Secondly, unlike Islam we do believe in Heavenly Father (God) and Jesus Christ his son who is the Redeemer and Savior. A prophet's job is to testify of Christ
 * It is clear to me you have only heard about us via second-hand knowledge so here's a source:
 * https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/christians?lang=eng 2607:F898:4023:9D:5A93:E8C4:C513:5046 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Does anyone have any objections on if a image like this was re-added? We can discuss the specific images added to the collage, but do people feel as if the general idea is good? Bluealbion (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this image is too bulky for the page. It is quite distracting from the text of the article. Some of it looks foreign-ish too. A more focused image may be more appropriate, if any is to be added at all. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very vibrant image that would make the first sentence of the lead seem true. :) --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 17:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

 * 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)

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

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

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

The 2014 Pew Research polls are grossly inaccurate and should be removed
Almost all other available data (including data used in other Wikipedia pages) shows Catholics outnumber Protestants in California, Nevada, New Mexico, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. The number of Mormons in Utah and Idaho also seems highly underestimated.

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

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

 * Thanks for expressing your concern. However, do you have any sources saying what you are saying? We do not go by opinions here because we all have them and we are not experts on the issues. As far as I have seen, Pew is extensively used by academics as a valuable source on religion demographics. it also conducts some of the biggest studies on religion. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To give just two examples.
 * If you go to the religious demographics section of California’s very Wikipedia page it will list Catholics at 34% and Protestants at 27 (contradicting the Pew Research poll).
 * Well the page for Connecticut also sites the same questionable Pew Poll, however according to other reputable pollsters like Gallup Connecticut is the 4th most Catholic state in the entire country at 46% (that’s an over 10% discrepancy between Gallup and Pew’s estimate of Connecticut’s Catholic population)
 * The same basic story is true for all the states I mentioned. 100.33.82.60 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not denying Pew is an overall good pollster, however even the best pollsters come out with duds from time to time, and in this case pretty much all other available data on religion the United States says Pew is wrong. 100.33.82.60 (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Each survey actually produces very different numbers because they ask questions differently, provide different choices, and the samples vary. For example, here is Gallup routinely getting different rates on the same topic. There is no right or wrong survey. All you can say is that Pew says X and Gallup says y. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * “Do you believe in God” is a very complex question where you can get a lot of varying answers from the agnostic or irreligious crowd, “what is your religion” is a very simple question, there’s no way for people to misidentify their own religion (or lack there of).
 * The Pew poll shown in the article is simply out of step with pretty much all other polls of religion in the United States, in its current placement in the article it routinely misinform readers with blatantly inaccurate information.
 * Wikipedia as good stuarts of public education should not provide such questionable data, or at least put a heavy asterisk on the Pew poll, and provide readers alternative data. 100.33.82.60 (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually even affilaition is complex. It is not so simple even with affiliation. . - "First, even though the number of individuals identifying with a religion on surveys appears to have decreased over the last few decades, accurately documenting these trends is challenging since many liminal individuals (perhaps 20% of the population) change their religious affiliations and identities across time (Lim et al. 2010; Hout 2017). Recent research suggests that about 42-44% of U.S. adults have switched their religious affiliation from one religion to another, or from being religious to not religious or vice versa (Heimlich 2009; Smith 2015). The percentage is 28-34% when those who switch from one Protestant group to another are excluded. While it is possible to interpret these findings as a decline in religious commitment, it can also be argued that some people care about religion and are willing to shop around to get the best “product” for their needs (Sherkat and Wilson 1995; Stark and Finke 2000; Stark 2008). Switching may actually be a healthy practice in religious marketplaces, not necessarily a sign of decline."
 * The numbers of affiliation vary by survey, for example with the unaffiliated - Gallup (21%) and Pew (29%) too. You would think that people would "know" if they even affiliate with a religion or not :) None of them is the final word and it is hard to tell which ones are right. Here is an article explaining continuous discrepancies between two other surveys to get more context as to why different surveys do not get the same numbers. All surveys are problematic and they often fail at even predicting political election results. It means they are not good at capturing people beliefs and affiliations and behavior. See Wuthnow, Robert (2015). "8. Taking Stock". Inventing American Religion: Polls Surveys, and the Tenuous Quest for a Nation's Faith. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190258900. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But the example you cited is Protestants becoming different types of Protestants, it’s far rarer for Catholics to become Protestant or visa versa, and that’s the heart of what we’re talking about with the Pew poll, it’s the Catholic v. Protestant numbers that are not correct. 100.33.82.60 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it should be much easier to capture protestant or catholic vs unaffiliated, but that is clearly not easy. For protestant vs catholic stuff, I think that it is too narrow for these surveys to determine. What we generally do on wikipedia is, if you find a source that says X and you find a source that says Y, you can add both to wikipedia to provide alternative views. Do you have a source on Catholics and Protestant's that differ from Pew? Keep in mind that "protestant" is a category - not a religious identity. I have never met a person that says I am a protestant. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree that Protestant is a pretty broad umbrella term more then anything, but it’s still important to get this stuff right.
 * The Association of Religion Data Archive (ARDA) has some pretty solid data (neatly mapped out here by MCI Maps) I would highly recommend adding it to the Wiki page.
 * https://mcimaps.com/reformation-day-christianity-in-america/ 100.33.82.60 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ARDA is already in the article and has its own section. Feel free to update that section. The cite you linked is a blog, so that is not a reliable source. But ARDA is a reliable source. Use ARDA if you want to. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would edit it myself but the article is locked? It would be kind of you to add the just Protestant v. Catholic results of ARDA’s data
 * I linked the blog because it did a much clearer job at showing their data, but here’s a link from their official website.
 * https://www.thearda.com/data-archive?fid=RCMSST10 100.33.82.60 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You can make an account on wikipedia and after more than 10 edits and after 4 days you can make the edit as you see fit. See . The reason for this is that there has been too much vandalism on this page. So it is now protected. Anyways, you can also edit other pages with an account. It seems you are more passionate on this so it is best for you to perform the edits. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you go about making Wikipedia maps? 100.33.82.60 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that the maps are made by users and uploaded to wikipedia as jpg or other type of file type. Click the "View Source" tab on the article to see the code for the map on the ARDA section of this article. There are other maps in this article and you can browse how they were coded and also please look at WP:MAPS for more details on making maps and requesting help with that. I have never done a map so this is what I have read. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ARDA itself is not a source but a collection of sources which might or might not be reliable. The actual source here is the "U.S. Religion Census - Religious Congregations and Membership Study, 2010 (State File)" conducted by Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies and is created by asking religious groups how many congregations and "adherents" they have.  It is not a  survey of individuals.   Note that this could mean overcounting of those individuals who consider themselves affiliated by those denominations who consider once in you are in for life (barring rare circumstances) such as LDS and the Catholic church.  It could also mean undercounting of individuals who consider themselves affiliated  by those organizations who may have some hoops to join and/or continue membership.   I note the results are unbelievably precise (such as 4,877,067 for Black Protestants) given they claim to have adjusted numbers for "Black Protestants" since they know their survey undercounted.  https://www.thearda.com/us-religion/sources-for-religious-congregations-membership-data#Q7  What are the error bars? Erp (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Should stick with census data. The sample size is ridiculously low. Although some small sample supplementary sources may be added, the large data set of population figure and demographics from the last official census is the principal definitive source. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the U.S. Census asks about religious affiliation even on the supplemental questions. I know the standard form that everyone gets has not for decades. Indyguy (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. US Census has not asked about directly since 1976 as it was banned from asking questions on membership over church and state issues . All we have are imperfect polls. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Using Patrick Johnstone’s “study”
Patrick Johnstone’s study to cite conversions is extremely misleading as I’ve never personally seen it being cited by any critical scholars or have seen its trends being documented by independent news or research papers. The methodology is as solid as medieval hagiography with it simply citing a completely unknown “christian convert” who is anonymous (because, of course) and making extreme generalizations towards entire populations from the numbers of converts given from one supposed church. 169.148.43.82 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Distorted source
In the lede of the article, it is written: "The United States is widely regarded as being the final "death nail" (sic) in the secularization hypothesis — the idea that modernity inevitably causes secularization —" sourced to Voas & Chavez (2016), "Is the United States a Counterexample to the Secularization Thesis?" The article abstract quite clearly states the exact opposite of what is written in the lead (the authors contend this is empirically false due to a decades-long decline in religiosity in the US). You can gain access to the complete article by logging into the Wikipedia Library and clicking here. I would suggest removing this distortion from the lede. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , shows that you added this change a few days ago in this edit.  Could you fix this, please? --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the intent of that sentence was to mention how the US was known as an exception to the secularization thesis. But I will remove it since it seems to distract form the next point, that the US has become more religious than at the time of its founding. Secularization thesis has and is still being debated by scholars since secularization is not universally agreed upon to be a decline in religion per se. I don't think such controversial theories belong in the lead as it clutters. The lead is supposed to just summarize the article. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I think it's a good idea to delete peer-reviewed articles showing a decline in religiosity among the younger cohort. I notice that in general there is a tendency to downplay the empirical data in the lede.-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 05:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will add the peer reviewed study which states the same by the same authors so as to not depend on a op-ed piece only. Other sources in the lead like source 22-25 have quotes on how decline in religiosity is not a universal decline of religion. Mostly affiliation is declining, not beliefs or practices per se - as most "nones" are "somes". Mark Chaves paper that was removed was from March 2016. Chaves updated his review of American religion in 2017:

 * "The vast majority of people — approximately 80 percent — describe themselves as both spiritual and religious. Still, a small but growing minority of Americans describe themselves as spiritual but not religious, as figure 3.4 shows. In 1998, 9 percent of Americans described themselves as at least moderately spiritual but not more than slightly religious. That number rose to 16 percent in the 2010s." (Chaves, Mark (2017). American Religion: Contemporary Trends. Princeton, NJ; London: Princeton University Press. pp. 38–39. ISBN 9780691177564.)

 * Lisa Pearce and Claire Gilliland in "Religion in America". University of California Press. 2020 take a nuanced approach to this and note the same:

 * "Scholars sometimes refer to people who report no religious affiliation as the religious "Nones" (Not to be confused with religious N-U-N-S!), but we will refer to them as the "religiously unaffiliated." We use that term to be as precise as possible because having no institutional affiliation does not necessarily mean a person has no religious beliefs or practices." (p.7)

 * Its a bit complicated. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 * It's not that complicated, really. In the source you deleted Chaves talks about diffuse spirituality which does not have the same social networking/bonds/binding upon which organized religion (churching/monastic life/etc.) is based. (cf. etymology). It sounds like the proselytizers of the new "someistic"/"noneistic" faith may be confusing personal spirituality with religion (which is social). --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 08:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus among sociologists that theistic beliefs or religious behavior is declining. The idea is mainly predominately among the press and public: not in the academic literature. Notable sociologists such as Byron R. Johnson and Ryan Burge dispute the idea that American religiosity is declining. And, yes. The article is entitled "religion in the United States". But other country's articles mention theism, et al. as well. The article's looking at a topic bigger than the word "religion" implies. Not sure if there's a better way to label these sorts of articles, though. KlayCax (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to start a new section about other matters now that that the distorted source has been fixed, feel free.-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hawaii...
...is not on the North American continent and Native Hawaiians are not and never have been considered Native American (because... we're not!). かなか (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

no state religion
Who wrote that? shows that the following was added to the lead today.

The United States was the first country in recorded history to not have a state religion.

Given the Zhou dynasty and the Mongol Empire, this seems a pretty dubious claim or at least one in need of so much qualification that it does not belong in the lead. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism
The article claims that Unitarian Universalists have a shared creed. The article says, "The shared creed includes beliefs in inherent dignity, a common search for truth, respect for beliefs of others, compassion, and social action." That is fairly accurate except for the word "creed." The Wikipedia article on "creed" says a creed is "also known as a confession of faith, a symbol, or a statement of faith..." While Unitarian Universalists have a statement of principals, they are clear that it is not a confession of faith that requires theological agreement. 2603:7080:6941:9A00:80AE:E16C:1A8F:A624 (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Laws created from Christian Bible.
“The constitution was made by a religious people for a religious people.” - John Adams (roughly what was said) and the rights we are guaranteed, are based on our God (Christian) given rights. 72.250.158.89 (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Changes to lede in the past month
In the past month there appears to have been some drastic changes to the lede of this article. This is how the last paragraph of the lede read as recently as September 18:

''There have been variant explanations for this rapid secularization, including the loss trust and belief in numerous institutions such as the labor market, the economy, government and politics, marriage, the media, along with churches among younger cohorts,[25] September 11 attacks,[26] the rise of the religious right in the 1980s,[27] and sexual abuse scandals, particularly those within the Southern Baptist Convention[28] and Catholic Church.[29] During the late 20th century, the United States was an outlier among other highly developed countries, having a high level of religiosity and wealth, although this has lessened significantly since.[14][26][15] 21-29% of Americans describe themselves as not being affiliated with a religion,[8][30][11] a spectrum ranging from forms of spirituality that deviate from organized religious structures to materialistic forms of hard atheism.[31][32][33][34][35] Secular people in the United States, such as atheist and agnostics, have a distinctive belief system that can be traced for at least hundreds of years. They sometimes create religion-like institutions and communities, create rituals, and debate aspects of their shared beliefs. For these reasons, they are surprisingly religion-like despite often being opposed to religion.[36] ''

Now, this paragraph, and many of the sources that were included therein, has been replaced with a paragraph that expresses skepticism that the US is becoming less religious:

The religiosity of the country has grown greatly over time;[12] it was far more irreligious at the American Founding than in the present day.[21] Throughout its history, religious involvement among American citizens has gradually grown since 1776 from 17% of the US population to 62% in 2000.[21] According to religious studies professors at Baylor University, perceptions of religious decline are a popular misconception.[22] They state that surveys showing so suffer from methodological deficiencies, that Americans are becoming more religious, religion is thriving, and that Atheists and Agnostics make up a small and stable percentage of the population.[23][24][25] However, Americans have increasingly identified themselves as "nones" — a substantial majority of which believe in a God — for reasons debated among sociologists.[26][25][27][28][29]

This is a pretty drastic change in tone for which I can't seem to find any discussion or consensus building on the talk page prior to the change.

Skepticism is all well and good, but to have it subsume the entirety of the lede is to give it undue weight, especially when the basis for that skepticism seems entirely based on one group of religious studies professors at Baylor University. How can you mention the skepticism without mentioning arguments in favor of, or providing sources for, the supposed "popular misconception" that it's purporting to refute? The only justification for this that I can find on the talk page is one user discrediting it because the "idea is mainly predominantly among the press," but Wikipedia policy states that news organizations can be considered reliable sources.

In short, it seems like some person(s) have decided to take ownership of this article over the past month and drastically change the lede in order to support their preferred narrative. The last paragraph of the lede, as currently written, does not appear to strike a neutral point of view. Instead, it places an emphasis on the skepticism over the supposed "popular misconception" by not only downplaying the latter but completely removing it and any related sources that are not a refutation.TempDog123 (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a problem. Thank you for taking the time to add your analysis. I've gone ahead and tagged three of the problems in the first two sentences of the entry.  See the next section, too, for some specifics. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 10:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Recalculating statistics and the Radiance Foundation (third footnote of the lede)
As I mentioned in an edit summary, the practice of regrouping statistics in ways not reported in a source is unacceptable. The opening graph of the source cited shows that 46% of Americans consider religion very important to their lives. If we cite the source, we should remain faithful to its presentation, not reinterpret the numbers by adding together those who consider it very important to those who report it has a fair-to-middlin importance...  My restoration of the presentation given in the article itself rather than a recalculation was quietly reverted in this edit with no edit summary.

It is also worth observing that in this rewriting of the lede, a Deseret News article was added reporting the results of an online survey conducted on behalf of Skylight, "an initiative of the Radiance foundation". The article states: Skylight’s mission is to use technology to help young people embrace God-centered spiritual habits. Like the Deseret News, it’s part of Deseret Management Corporation. I do not believe this is a sufficiently impartial source to be used in the article. I also believe that targeted online surveys are generally to be taken with a couple pillars of salt. Other thoughts? Note: this second paragraph is copied from Talk:United States where it was also added.-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 06:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone has replaced the Radiance Foundation survey now. (Thank you.) Unfortunately, I can only see the title page of the .pdf added to replace it, but that may be a technical issue on my side. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 16:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I split the gallup numbers since that is the way was before such changes. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Televangelism
According to the lede of the en.wp article on Televangelism, "Televangelism began as a uniquely American phenomenon, resulting from a largely deregulated media where access to television networks and cable TV is open to virtually anyone who can afford it". If this is true a section of this page should summarize that entry. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 17:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit - source
Just commenting on the Gallup source that was added in this edit. The Gallup source is not about general religion, but about specific Christian entities. Even the "Americans' Belief in Five Spiritual Entities, by Demographic Subgroup" section only shows Protestants, Catholics, and None. Where are the rest? No Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Also the source says "Gallup periodically measures Americans’ belief in God with different question wordings, producing slightly different results." If such is the case, which numbers are right? Indeed, Gallup admits they certainly do get very different numbers on the question of God alone, depending on how it is asked, as seen here, so which one is the right one? The source also says "In the current poll, about half of Americans, 51%, believe in all five spiritual entities, while 11% do not believe in any of them."

The nones are an incoherent group and we should be careful in making claims about them. The best sources for them are WP:secondary sources like academic researchers who look at multiple studies to come up with more comprehensive numbers. We should be careful with primary sources like raw survey data. In the Gallup source, numbers for the people who do not affiliate with a religion are different than for the numbers of people who seldom or never attend religious services - so both numbers on the 5 entities differ - which means that none's and those who never attend services are not the same people. Which one is the right number?

Clearer sources are needed to make claims on the heterogeneous groups like the "nones". Academic secondary sources help in ironing out such discrepancies from surveys, so those are preferred.  Ramos1990 (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2023 (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
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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. 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)

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.

Change in religious identification, 1950–2020
Percentage of Americans by religious identification (1950 – 2020)

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. Dialmayo 18:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Metaphysically unaffiliated are separate from atheists and agnostics
Wikipedia 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)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Religion in the United States


text:
Atwater

Atwater may refer to:

Places

 * Atwater, California, a city in Merced County, California
 * Atwater Village, Los Angeles, a neighborhood of the city of Los Angeles in Los Angeles County, California
 * Atwater, Georgia
 * Atwater, Illinois
 * Atwater, Minnesota
 * Atwater Township, Portage County, Ohio
 * Atwater (CDP), Ohio, a census-designated place in the township
 * Atwater, Saskatchewan, a village in Saskatchewan, Canada
 * Atwater, Wisconsin

People with the surname

 * Ann Atwater (1935–2016), American civil rights activist
 * Barry Atwater (1918–1978), American actor
 * Caleb Atwater (1778–1867), American politician, historian, and early archaeologist
 * Dorence Atwater (1845–1910), American civil war soldier known for keeping the "Atwater List" of Union fatalities
 * Edwin Atwater (1808–1874), municipal alderman in Montreal for the district of Saint-Antoine
 * Harry Atwater (born 1960), professor of physics at California Institute of Technology
 * Helen W. Atwater (1876–1947), American author, home economist and editor
 * Isaac Atwater (1818–1906), American jurist
 * Jeff Atwater (born 1958), American politician
 * Jeremiah Atwater (1773–1858), American educator, minister, and President of Middlebury College
 * John Atwater (died 1499), Irish politician
 * Lee Atwater (1951–1991), American Republican political strategist
 * Mary Meigs Atwater (1878-1956), American handweaver, author, founder of the Shuttle-craft Guild
 * Reuben Atwater (1768–1831), American politician
 * Richard M. Atwater (1844–1922), American chemist
 * Richard and Florence Atwater (1892–1948; 1899–1979), authors of the children's book Mr. Popper's Penguins
 * Steve Atwater (born 1966), former Denver Broncos and New York Jets Free Safety
 * Tanya Atwater (born 1942), professor of geological sciences at the University of California, Santa Barbara who specializes in plate tectonics
 * Tony Atwater, president of Indiana University of Pennsylvania
 * Wilbur Olin Atwater (1844–1907), American developer of the respiration calorimeter
 * William Atwater (curator) (born 1945), Director of the U.S. Army Ordnance Museum in Maryland

Other

 * Atwater (Montreal Metro), a station on the Green Line of the Montreal Metro
 * Atwater Avenue, a street in Montreal
 * Atwater Library of the Mechanics' Institute of Montreal, an independent library in Montreal operated by the Mechanics' Institute of Montreal
 * Atwater Market, a public market in Montreal
 * Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, a United States Supreme Court case
 * United States Penitentiary, Atwater, a prison near Atwater, California
 * The Atwater system for calculating the energy content of food (named after Wilbur Olin Atwater)

title: Atwater


text:
Without You I'm Nothing

Without You I'm Nothing may refer to:

Film and television

 * Without You I'm Nothing (film), a 1990 film by Sandra Bernhard
 * Without You I'm Nothing, an upcoming film written by and starring Robin Bain
 * "Without You I'm Nothing", an episode of the TV series Ferris Bueller

Music and theatre

 * Without You I'm Nothing (Placebo album), 1998
 * "Without You I'm Nothing" (song), the title track
 * Without You I'm Nothing (Sandra Bernhard album), 1987
 * "Without You I'm Nothing", a song by Eric Saade from Saade Vol. 2
 * "Without You, I'm Nothing", a song from the 1956 musical Mr Wonderful

title: Without You I'm Nothing


text:
Talk:Wheelchair rugby

Untitled
Wheelchair rugby already exists, and this seems no different. Is it? - DavidWBrooks 15:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tried to clean the mess that this article was up a bit. However, I think it needs some attention by somebody who actually knows about that sport. --Doco 15:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i am James cullis

I know something about this sport, and I'll try to clean this page up. I'm new to Wikipedia, however, so please feel free to let me know if I go awry. Eron 20:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this page has a lot of content quoted directly from quadrugby.com: http://www.quadrugby.com/qr-brief.htm --209.108.217.226 21:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from http://www.paralympics.com/paralympic_sports/wheelchair_rugby.htm

"About Wheelchair Rugby - A relatively new sport which debuted in (the Paralympics held at) Sydney, but one which has got a lot of support worldwide over the last few years. - Also known as Quad Rugby it is played using a volleyball, on a standard basketball court, by 4 players per team (a squad of 12). Players are graded according to level of disability from 0.5 (approximately equal to a C5 tetraplegic) to 3.5 (least impaired) and the team fielded must total 8.0 points or less - similar idea to wheelchair basketball. The teams are not gender specific."

It would seem sesible to put this Paralympic sport above the power version.

It looks like Wheelchair rugby is more closely related to Murder Ball/Murderball than Rugby, right? -- DLeonard 07:14, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

You could be right. Perhaps in should go in the 'ball sports' category.GordyB 11:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed "Team United States are the current world champions" from the "history" section as the same information is repeated down the page. (sorry if this is in the wrong place, I'm not very familiar with wikipedia.) Titanium geek (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Category
I've returned this to Category:Rugby as it is neither a form of rugby union nor rugby league but related to both. Similar in my view to say Underwater rugby or Touch rugby.GordyB 14:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC) if you ever played it you would never put it in the category with "touch" rugby there is nothing gentil about it it is full contact chair to chair.
 * I don't doubt it but the Category:Rugby has got nothing to do with how rough a sport is.GordyB 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review
The article has not one citation, the only one there is (in the "recent results" section) is not in the good format ( or other ). You should check out WP:CITE. I'm obliged to quick fail the article. Thank you for your work so far. -Yamanbaiia 17:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I figured it might get hung up on the references. I'm a bit unclear on what requires in-line citations. The GA criteria state "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;" I'm not sure that there is any of that in the article. (Not that in-line citations wouldn't improve the article, but I'd like to know where to start.)
 * I'd also like to get an idea of how it stacks up against the other GA criteria. If there are other fatal flaws that need to be fixed, I'd like to get them sorted out before I put it up again. Thanks. - EronTalk 17:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Murderball poster.jpg
Image:Murderball poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Quadriplegic??
From the opening paragraphs:

 * All wheelchair rugby players are quadriplegic, with a disability affecting both upper and lower limbs.

This does not jive with even the pictures in the article which show players actively using their arms. Somehow, this does not seem to jive. --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Quadriplegia means paralysis or disability affecting all four limbs. It does not mean that persons cannot use their upper limbs at all. There is a broad range of disability covered by the term; Christopher Reeve was a quadriplegic; so are Sam Sullivan and Mark Zupan.
 * To be eligible to play, wheelchair rugby players must have a loss of function in their arms. Almost all of them have some loss of hand function; many others have limited use of forearm muscles, biceps, triceps, etc. - EronTalk 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that i'm doubting you, but i'd like to get a citation. 123.243.242.57 (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism
"Wheelchair rugby is a noob sport for athletes with a disability."

In what whay is that encyclopaedic? Lingotic (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I reverted it Roger (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not rugby
This page should make it clear that this sport only borrowed the word Rugby and is in fact nothing like the game of Rugby and shares not common roots 86.42.66.208 (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Until a reliable source is cited for either of the statements my preference is to let the older, more stable/unchallenged statement stand. Roger (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble with your addition is that it creates a contradiction: "The rules include elements of wheelchair basketball, ice hockey, handball and Rugby. It is a contact sport and physical contact between wheelchairs is an integral part of the game. It has little in common with Rugby football except for the name." can't both be true.
 * Why can't both be true, Gaelic football has elements of basketball (bouncing the ball),soccer (kicking) and rugby (tackles) but has little little in common with any of them 86.42.103.105 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Country list and map disagree
The map and the list of counries are not the same. This discrepancy needs to be fixed. Roger (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, updated map has been uploaded to the Commons. EronTalk 21:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wheelchair rugby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131005025252/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/top_sports/murderball/ to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/top_sports/murderball/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Wheelchair rugby. 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 tag to http://www.iwasf.com/iwasf/index.cfm/about-iwas/history/history-of-wheelchair-rugby/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424065940/http://www.iwrf.com/history.htm to http://www.iwrf.com/history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825150847/http://www.iwrf.com/rules.htm to http://www.iwrf.com/rules.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114092047/http://www.iwrf.com/classification.htm to http://www.iwrf.com/classification.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424065940/http://www.iwrf.com/history.htm to http://www.iwrf.com/history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060307055507/http://www.paralympic.org/release/Summer_Sports/Wheelchair_Rugby/About_the_sport/ to http://www.paralympic.org/release/Summer_Sports/Wheelchair_Rugby/About_the_sport

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

At least four limbs
"players need to have disabilities that include at least some loss of function in at least four limbs"

Is this right..? At least four limbs? Am I missing something here, or do people generally not have only four? 139.222.148.164 (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a typo, the official rules say three. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Goals v Tries
Our article currently speaks only of Goals, with no mention of Tries, and our article Try (rugby) (to whose Talk Page I have now added a similar section) currently makes no mention of wheelchair rugby. But the Channel 4 commentary on the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games (currently taking place in 2021 due to the Covid19 pandemic) almost always speaks of tries, and when a player scores a caption (presumably from some official paralympic broadcaster) often or usually appears showing his (or very rarely her) name and the word "tries" followed by the number of times he or she has scored in the match, thus seemingly indicating that 'tries' is now some sort of official terminology, at least in British English (for all I know, it could be Goals, Points, Scores, or Touchdowns, in various other varieties of English). I think both articles need to be amended to say something about this, though quite likely I won't be doing so myself anytime soon (if at all) per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO, so other perhaps more interested editors should feel free to try to fix the matter themselves. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've now added similar sentences to both articles, which may well be adequate. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wheelchair rugby


text:
Larry T. Justus

Larry Thomas Justus (30 April 1932 – 20 October 2002) was a Republican member of the North Carolina House of Representatives from Hendersonville, North Carolina, United States; he served nine consecutive terms.

Justus was born in Hendersonville and educated at Dana High School. After graduating from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, he served in the United States Air Force, where he reached the rank of lieutenant colonel.

He was first appointed to the State Assembly in 1985 to fill the 50th District seat vacated by Charles Hughes' resignation. He served nine terms and was seeking re-election for a tenth (to the newly established 117th District) when he died in late October 2002. Because his name remained on the ballot and he received a majority of votes cast, the local Republican party named his widow, Carolyn K. Justus, to fill his seat.

The western campus of the North Carolina Justice Academy was named the Larry T. Justus Western Justice Academy in his honor in 2004.

title: Larry T. Justus


text:
User talk:Scurra

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 15:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Scurra