Talk:List of Christian denominations by number of members

Suggestion: Change List into Table(s)

This whole article would be a lot easier to read were it changed into a table, or series of tables. As it stands, it is very hard to compare figures between groups. Tables can be sorted automatically.

1.126.107.59 (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Catholics Are Not Christians

I'm not sure who the original editor of the list of Christian denominations but if you had of asked a Christian you would know that catholics are not nor have they ever been a part of what is considered "Christianity" by the world. Look up your history catholics are the "universal church." they seperated from the Followers of the Way in 90 AD under the leadership of Ignatius. They felt that he could lead the people better than asking Christ Jesus for guidance They started incorporating practices and items from other religions such as the rosary, (buddhism), and Mary becoming a god which is not according to the Bible. Unbeknownst to the regular pew member this was an incorporation of the worship of Isis. The picture that's supposed to be Mary and Jesus is actually a portrait of Isis and her son. Also the nuns and monks was also incorporated from buddhism.

Over time the catholics gained power and soon started persecuting and martyring Christians who were also called Followers of the Way as well as Jews. Most don't know they were there because unlike the catholics, and all of the rest who would come from the catholic church, they had no Church building." they fellowshipped in each other's houses or fields or, when the persecution became very wide spread, in fields and caves.

Over the years they became known as Backwoods Pentecostals and Jesus Only followers. Today a lot do have a building which is why people believe they are one of the newest when in fact they are the oldest, the true "Christians," according to the Bible. These are the Oneness Pentecostals also known as Apostolic or Holiness. They are ones who follow the Bible completely including how they dress and act. They are saved according to Mark 16:16&17, Acts 2 : 38, and Acts 10 : 44-48.

References

^^^ Who wrote the above "Catholics Are Not Christians" section etc.? ^^^ I don't even see an "unsigned" indicator. Misty MH (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Responses

I have talked to many Christians & have found that in my personal experience, pretty much only Fundamentalists deny that Catholics are Christians. Catholics believe themselves to be Christians. As to Christians martyring Christians, well, one only has to look at the persecution of Quakers in colonial New England to see the fallacy & absurdity of that argument & of only applying it to Catholics.

I look askance at any who claim to represent the true religion. See the sections around Matthew 7:22: Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? Please also see Matthew 7:1: Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

Theological grounds aside, it is Wikipedia policy that governs here. You are proselytizing a point-of-view. Please see WP:NPOV to understand why that applies here.

Peaceray (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Catholics are clearly Christians. They are the main branch of Christianity. Moreover, I think it is fair to include in this list all those who consider themselves Christians, for instance including Mormons or Jehowah's Witnesses, despite their not considered Christians by other Christians. --Checco (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The post that catholics are not Christians is obviously a ridiculous argument.its similar to the arguments that some make about Mormons (church of Jesus christ of latter day saints). They worship Christ and profess to be Christians. All of these should be added to the list. Lorenzodow (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Shiites aren't Muslims well we know what kind of fellas believe that and often kill them😳😳😳Don't we? Nlivataye (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Words to Watch

Now while there is nothing wrong in principle with tagging a particular claim here with a caveat, I would ask why it is not used uniformly? The SSPX claim comes from HuffPo - yellow in WP:RS/P. So perhaps there is a basis to cast doubt on it. But 'claim' is a WP:WTW and should be used carefully. Is there a legal reason or allegation to the contrary? Furthermore, if we tag one number as a "claim" then we need to likewise tag all the self-sourced numbers. That is a lot here, most denominations track and report their own membership numbers. So I contend it is not neutral to tag SSPX as "claimed" without balancing the article altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodoxy and Ukraine

The Orthodox Church of Ukraine belongs under the category "Non-universally recognized churches" because it is not accepted by most Orthodox churches. It is completely inappropriate to categorize the OCU as if it were a universally accepted Orthodox Church, when most of those churches do not accept it. Also, I suspect the claim that the OCU has 25 million members is inflated. No source is cited for that figure, and it's more than half of Ukraine's population. Nepsis2 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on my faint familiarity with the Ukraine situation, I am inclined to agree with this. Only Constantinople and the Greek side are recognizing it right now. And, there may come a day when we need to delineate autocephalous Churches that are aligned with Constantinople, and those that are aligned with Moscow. They are beginning to come apart and draw a line down the middle. Elizium23 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on 43.9% of (which?) population cited in the UOC article, and using 42,000,000 population altogether I come up with 18.44 million UOC members, or using 43.9% of only the Orthodox population, that would be 12 million members. Yes, the figure is inflated anyway you slice it. Elizium23 (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nepsis2 is right on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. --Checco (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure why you reverted my changes (1) MOS:HEADING says that links are not to be used in headings. I took them out for good reason. (2) This list is "by number of members" and so Protestantism goes below Eastern Orthodoxy, which is the second-largest church in the world. It should also probably be below Oriental Orthodoxy, a communion as large as Anglicanism. Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) In this case, links are quite useful, indeed.

(2) Protestantism has more members than any other family, except Catholicism. --Checco (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) we don't do that, no matter how you personally feel about their utility. (2) A "family" is not a denomination or a church. The Eastern Orthodox is the second-largest Church. Elizium23 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Most importantly, when you want to change a long-established version of an article, you seek consensus first. Per Wikipedia:Consensus, "in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". (1) Links are necessary in this case. I would have no problem in removing sections and replacing them with bullet points, anyway. (2) This is an article on denominations, not churches per se, and it has always been ordered by branch/family from largest to smallest. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is an article on denominations, and Protestantism is not a denomination. The ordering needs to change to conform with the stated topic of the article. If you want to change the topic, that is another discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You are very confused and you do not understand how consensus work.

I have just received the following funny message from you in my talk page:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at List of Christian denominations by number of members. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I have been an editor of Wikipedia for virtually 15 years and I have edited this article for at least eight years. "Welcome" is quite inappropriate. Please not that you boldly edited the article and those edits were not upopposed. Thus, if you continue to upload your preferred version, it is you who is actually edit warring. I came to terms with User:Nepsis2. There is no reason why there should not be a compromise also between you and me. Please leave the established version and let's discuss. Surely Protestantism is not a denomination, it is a branch of Christianity. This article is ordere first by branch, then denomination/church, and so on. --Checco (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to address this topic again with regard to the "semi-recognition" of the Orthodox Church in America versus the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The OCA is universally recognized as Orthodox, and the discussion of whether it is autocephalous or autonomous does not call that basic legitimacy into question. The dispute over the OCU is over whether it and its members can be considered Orthodox, with autocephaly being a relative background issue in this instance. --Nepsis2 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

By whom should the Orthodox Church of Ukraine be considered Orthodox? Also please provide a source for your claims. If just Moscow denies it as orthodox (not just it's autocephaly, but it's orthodoxy), that doesn't count as they are in open shchism with Constantinople as well and deny them the name of orthodox. Barumbarumba (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC

• Question 1. Should wikilinks be used in section headings in this article? (yes/no)
• Question 2. Should the sections of this article be ordered in "family" order (Protestantism second) or "denomination" order (Eastern Orthodox Church second)? Elizium23 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment: The first question is already answered in MOS:HEAD: "Section headings should...Not contain links". I have no thoughts or opinions on the second question. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• No to Q1 Agree with above MOS:HEAD controls. Move the links to the prose in the first paragraph following the heading, rewording as necessary to achieve this. As to the second question I come down narrowly on the side of the chronological or denomination order as easier to follow, however if family order is preferred in the theological realm I'll defer to that usage. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Question 1: No (I had second thoughts). Question 2: Protestantism second, for the reasons explained above. --Checco (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Chronological order makes more sense. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is not "List of Christian denominations by date of foundation", but "List of Christian denominations by number of members". I really do not understand how a list "by number of members" can be ordered differently. --Checco (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Anglicanism

Currently, Anglicanism is listed as a its own branch completely. I was wondering how come Finnish Wikipedia called Lutheranism the smallest of the five main Protestant branches when it's clearly quite complicated like it comes across from this article. Well, there they call Anglicanism one of the main branches of Protestantism. And also this Christian denominations by number of members article contradicts itself in this since at the top of the page there's a pie chart where Other Christian is just a small sliver while also claiming Anglicanism to be one of those while having 110 million followers. Yes, these are always complicated things but could this article at least be internally consistent about this? MikkoMMM (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not easy to find compromises and, sometimes, the results is inconsistency. However, Anglicanism is a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism, thus it should be listed separately as it is. --Checco (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:MikkoMMM. Most scholars consider Anabaptists, Anglicans, and Baptists to be a part of the Protestant family, though some of these Christians consider themselves to be not Protestant; if we make an exception for Anglicanism (the only Anglicans who claim they are not Protestant might be some Anglicans of Anglo-Catholic churchmanship), then an exception should be made for Anabaptists and Baptists as well (see Exhibit A and Exhibit B]). Moreover, many of the largest provinces of the Anglican Communion currently listed under the Anglicanism section are united Protestant Churches, for example, the Church of North India, the Church of South India, the Church of Pakistan, the Church of Bangladesh, etc. Thus it is not acceptable to list these under the Anglicanism section only as these denominations simultaneously hold membership in the Anglican Communion, World Communion of Reformed Churches, World Methodist Council, etc. This article's own pie chart groups in Anglicanism with the rest of Protestantism as well and the article body should reflect this. I have therefore adjusted the article in light of these facts. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, it was not until the emergence of the Oxford Movement that the Tractarians came to see Anglicanism as a via media between Catholic and Reformed Christianity; Anglicanism, which emerged out of the English Reformation, was originally seen as a via media between two forms of Protestantism—Lutheranism and Calvinism. Additionally, the British monarch who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion, has sworn to maintain "the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law". The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, according to its Constitution & Canons, is the full name of the ecclesiastical province of the Anglican Communion overseas. These are more things to think about with respect to where we will place the Anglicanism section in the article. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 22:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

References

As of today, Anglicanism is a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism. Also pamphlets from the Episcopal Church in the United States (anyone can find them in Episcopal churches around the country) state that. This is the current conensus. I would suggest to start a RfC, in case. --Checco (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC about whether this article should include Anglicanism under the Protestantism heading or as its own section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to group Anglicanism under Protestantism, looking at both the numbers (8-3) and the arguments. The arguments against centred on Anglicanism being a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism and lack of self-identification as Protestant on church websites. In response, it was pointed out that this was not the original via media of the Elizabethan Settlement. (I should point out that our own Via media article says "Anglicanism, which emerged out of the English Reformation, was originally seen as a via media between two forms of Protestantism—Lutheranism and Reformed Christianity.") Moreover, some Anglican churches (like the Church of South India) are explicitly Protestant. Anglicanism is obviously a large and diverse movement, but the appeal to historical origins is a stronger argument than the appeal to current beliefs, practices, and self-identity, since Protestantism is first and foremost a historical designation: those churches that broke from Rome. StAnselm (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Should this article should include Anglicanism under the Protestantism heading or as its own section? Anupam^Talk 17:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support grouping Anglicanism under Protestantism: The British monarch who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion, has sworn to maintain "the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law". The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, according to its Constitution & Canons, is the full name of the ecclesiastical province of the Anglican Communion overseas. Many of the largest provinces of the Anglican Communion currently listed under the Anglicanism section are united Protestant Churches, for example, the Church of North India, the Church of South India, the Church of Pakistan, the Church of Bangladesh, etc. Thus it is not acceptable to list these under the Anglicanism section only as these denominations simultaneously hold membership in the Anglican Communion, World Communion of Reformed Churches, World Methodist Council, etc. (all of which are decidedly Protestant denominations). Most scholars consider Anabaptists, Anglicans, and Baptists to be a part of the Protestant family, though some of these Christians consider themselves to be not Protestant; if we make an exception for Anglicanism (the only Anglicans who claim they are not Protestant might be a minority of Anglicans of Anglo-Catholic churchmanship), then an exception should be made for Anabaptists and Baptists as well (see Exhibit A and Exhibit B). In describing the theology of Anglicanism, Peter Robinson, presiding bishop of the United Episcopal Church of North America, writes:

Cranmer's personal journey of faith left its mark on the Church of England in the form of a Liturgy that remains to this day more closely allied to Lutheran practice, but that liturgy is couple to a doctrinal stance that is broadly, but decidedly Reformed. ... The 42 Articles of 1552 and the 39 Articles of 1563, both commit the Church of England to the fundamentals of the Reformed Faith. Both sets of Articles affirm the centrality of Scripture, and take a monergist position on Justification. Both sets of Articles affirm that the Church of England accepts the doctrine of predestination and election as a 'comfort to the faithful' but warn against over much speculation concerning that doctrine. Indeed a casual reading of the Wurttemburg Confession of 1551, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Scots Confession of 1560, and the XXXIX Articles of Religion reveal them to be cut from the same bolt of cloth.

As such, the logical conclusion is to list Anglicanism under the Protestantism section rather than as its own separate section. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support grouping Anglicanism under Protestantism. Anupam is correct. A good number of denominations, such as the Church of South India, that are part of the Anglican Communion are merged with other Protestant denominations (this wouldn't have been possible if Anglicans weren't also Protestants). Orientls (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support grouping Anglicanism under Protestantism. The Anglican Church arose out of the Protestant Reformation in England and adopted Reformational theology (the 39 Articles are still a doctrinal standard in force). I agree that just because a small group of romantics might not consider Anglicans to be Protestant doesn't mean that we should follow suit. Even some Methodists don't claim to be Protestant, but Catholic. [1] Does this mean we should move the Methodist Church into its own section? Tessaracter (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support grouping Anglicanism under Protestantism: For historical reasons having to do with the Tudor period and for the relative modernity of the High Church (Anglo-Catholic) rapprochement with Roman/pre-Reformation values. Tractarianism appeared to justify a third way for part of the 19th century, but its main thinkers merged with Rome and the fundamental tenet of Protestantism, that the claims of the Bishop of Rome to various prerogatives are baseless and ascriptural, is cleaved to in the Church of England. The idea that Anglicanism is half-Catholic half-Protestant is only half-true; any decent church claims to be "catholic", (including, for one, the Orthodox Church - more at Four Marks of the Church), but this is not a point that distinguishes Anglicanism from any other Protestant denomination, like the Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic), a similarly Reformed and Protestant denomination, in full communion with Canterbury and not with Rome. GPinkerton (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: For historical reasons, but more importantly, for the current reality, Anglicanism is a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism. Anglican churches contain both Catholic and Protestant elements. The very Anglican leaders oppose the characterisation of their churches as full-fledged Protestant. We cannot change reality, even through consensus. Protestantism is never mentioned in the websites of the Church of England (see here and the Anglican Communion (see here), let alone in most authoritative sources like this. --Checco (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

As User:GPinkerton and User:Indyguy have stated, the Anglican Church isn't the only tradition that claims to be catholic; the Lutherans and Methodists also state the same. The website of the Lutheran World Federation and the United Methodist Church both "confess one holy, catholic and apostolic church" (see Exhibit C and Exhibit D). Additionally, you are incorrect when you state that the website of the Church of England does not affirm that it is Protestant; its very website describes six marks: 1) An Ancient Church 2) A Reformed Church 3) A Comprehensive Church 4) An English Church 5) An Established Church 6) A Church Committed to Mission and Unity. Under point number two, the Church of England's website states: "At the Reformation the Western Church became divided between those who continued to accept Papal authority and the various Protestant churches that did not. The Church of England was among the churches that broke with Rome" (see Exhibit E). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Pleas do not confuse the Nicene creed with Catholicism. Of course, most Christians profess to be part of "one holy, catholic and apostolic church", but they are talking about God's church, not the current churches on Earth. Moreover, what you stated confirms my argument: Anglicanism is a via media and, as such, is not part of Protestantism, let alone Catholicism. --Checco (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed classification. Anglicanism, a spectrum of beliefs and liturgical practices, is sometimes of a Protestant character, and sometimes not. Most Anglicans self-identify as non-Protestant. It would be a disservice to them to second-guess that identification. Elizium23 (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support grouping Anglicanism under Protestantism: The elephant in the room is that the Reformation led to the splitting of the Western church into those who submit to the authority of the Pope and those who do not. Anglicans, like all Protestants, do not. Yes, the Anglicans retained much of the Western rite and practice, but so did many Lutherans. Indeed, there are Lutherans who contend that they are not Protestant, but a middle way, so should Lutherans also be separated out? Of course not. Each Protestant church "family" has theological differences with each other and so might well have qualms about being linked too closely to each other by the generic term "Protestant". Indyguy (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: So why aren't we merging Eastern with Oriental Orthodoxy? Of course not. It would be a joke for most people. No-one would support that. For similar reasons, I do not understand why we should merge Anglicanism with Protestantism. --Checco (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Protestant Churches have often merged with one another to create a united Church in areas where Protestantism is a minority religion; one such example is the Church of South India that User:Orientls cited above; the website of that denomination states: "The Church of South India is the result of the union of churches of varying traditions Anglican, Methodist, Congregational, Presbyterian, and Reformed. ... Being the largest Protestant church in India, the CSI celebrates her life with Indian culture and spirituality and she also raises her voice for the voiceless on matters of justice, peace and integrity of creation" (see Exhibit F). If Anglicanism was not Protestant, how could a Protestant Church be an ecclesiastical province of the Anglican Communion? Additionally, if Anglicanism wasn't Protestant, why would it merge with other Protestant Churches such as Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians? Anupam^Talk 15:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I make it quite simpler. That is ecumenism. By the way, most of the churches merged into united/uniting churches retain some degree of autonomy, so that they are not exactly churches per se. Even more important, those are just minor exceptions. --Checco (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the Church of England, which is the mother Church of the Anglican Communion, describes itself as Reformed/Protestant on its official website should inform this Wikipedia article. The united Protestant Churches (which unite Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans and other Protestant denominations) that are official ecclesiastical provinces of the Anglican Communion are not minor exceptions. The Church of North India, the Church of Pakistan, the Church of South India, and the Church of Bangladesh are some of the largest ecclesiastical provinces of the Anglican Communion in terms of membership. Additionally, most ecclesiastical provinces of the Anglican Communion, including the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and the Anglican Church of Canada, are autonomous so yours is a moot point. Anupam^Talk 16:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Checco here. Please check the sources for membership in the respective Wikipedia pages for each of the united churches in the Anglican communion. They cumulatively constitute 6 million of the 85 million, or 7% of all Anglicans. Wouldn't you call them a small minority? For the purpose of correcting the Oriental Orthodox figures in this article, I had recently looked for some pertinent sources. Many sources include Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians under the single head of Orthodoxy or Orthodox Christianity and elaborately describe Eastern Orthodox churches while dedicating a small paragraph to Oriental Orthodox churches. We do not follow that pattern in this article. If Oriental Orthodoxy can be listed in this article as a completely separate section, Anglicanism can be too.--Longsword9 (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note: While we are having this fair discussion, the established version of the article should stay, per previous consensus and Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia:Consensus: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article". That is why I rollbacked some changes to the previous and actually current consensual version of the article. Cheers, --Checco (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support grouping Anglicanism under Protestantism: Historically, the Anglican Church has been considered Protestant, at least since Elizabeth I, and Anglican Britain had anti-Roman Catholic laws until the late 18th/early 19th centuries. Additionally, the Anglican Church of North America describes itself as Protestant and Evangelical. When it mentions its catholicity, it does so in lowercase, as is characteristic of other Protestant denominations.[2] It's a "unique" form of Protestantism, but I think it's clearly still Protestant nonetheless. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support-Similar to other Protestants in many ways, and many Anglicans self-identify as Protestants. Display name 99 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed change. The usage of the phrase ‘via media’ in the context of Christianity, has almost exclusively been in connection to the Anglican claim of being so. This is evident from a simple Google search. Almost all search results talk about Anglicanism as a ‘via media’ between Catholicism and Protestantism and not between Lutheranism and Calvinism. As per sources, this definition of Anglican identity goes back at least to the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559. Of course, this claim has been controversial and has been contested and it still is today, as could be seen from this very discussion. If we try to settle this by arguing over how Catholic or Protestant the Anglican Church is, we may not reach a consensus. Moreover, this is a simple matter of listing and this article does not address theology. So, if we just examine authoritative third party sources, it could be seen that some of them list Anglicans under Protestants and some don't. Most importantly, whenever a reputed source lists Anglicanism under Protestantism, it is always accompanied with an explanation or foot note that it is not a universally accepted standard. This is apparently because the writers are aware that such a classification or listing is controversial and not followed by everyone. The authors also do not want to be perceived by their readers as being unaware of the extensively documented 'Anglican via-media'. This claim is also mentioned in almost all important Wikipedia articles pertaining to Anglicanism. It is particularly clarified in this article that its separate listing of Anglicans is not universal and the total figure for Protestantism includes Anglican membership. So it wouldn't hurt to maintain the page as it is; perhaps best as we wouldn't disservice the 'naive reader' or Anglicans.--Longsword9 (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If other sources include Anglicanism under Protestantism then Wikipedia should do the same. There isn't any reason why we can't also add a similar footnote for Anglicanism, as well as for Anabaptists and Baptists, some of whom do not consider themselves Protestant, though almost all scholars classify them as such. Anupam^Talk 18:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support grouping with Protestantism. I think most of the arguments in favor have already been mentioned. I think there's a lot of special pleading going on with the via media - that originally meant a via media between Rome and the more extreme versions of Protestantism, not "Catholicism" and "Protestantism". None of the more Catholic traditions that Anglicanism maintains distinguish it from the Scandinavian Lutheran churches, as far as I'm aware. Low Church Anglicanism, in fact, actually tends to go farther than Lutheranism in many ways (The nature of the Eucharist, notably). john k (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

References

Requested move 28 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

---

List of Christian denominations by number of members → List of Christian families by number of members – Since this is ordered by family and not by denomination, should we rename the article to reflect the consensus reached in the above RFC? Elizium23 (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is a list of Christian denominations by number of members, ordered by family. There is thus no reason for moving the article, whose current name is more accurate than the proposed one. I also would keep consistency with List of Christian denominations. --Checco (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Christian family" has another, more common meaning. Srnec (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Headings

Dear User:Checco, I hope you are doing well. I noticed that you performed a wholesale revert on the edits I made (which took a very long time to make). The formatting I used allows major denominations to appear in the Table of Contents, which makes it easier to navigate if I wanted to find out statistics about Methodism or Lutheranism, for example. You also removed new references that I added to the article in the edit you made. I request that you kindly allow me to restore the helpful formatting that I instated in the article. Thank you for all the effort you have put into improving this article. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 21:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to seek consensus first, especially before doing much work.

There is no consensus on Anglicanism and having heading with references included is against WP policy.

Thus, it is me that I am asking you to restore the status quo ante version. --Checco (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, but given the fact that there have been edits since the move, as well as the fact that I started an RfC about the Anglicanism issue, I will wait until that is closed before making any changes. Also, the references can easily be moved out of the headings, so that isn't the issue. The benefit of the headings is having easily navigatable sections that individuals can access via the Table of Contents of the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The section headers Anupam introduced make the article more easily navigable rather than having to scroll through the article just to find the statistics of a church. Orientls (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think so too, User:Orientls. I agree with User:Checco, though, that if references are not to be included in the headings, they should be removed from the article. I will go ahead and do that now. Additionally, we have a consensus to include the section on Anglicanism under the Protestantism heading, per the RfC above. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox membership rounded at 62 million

The Oriental Orthodox numbers were grossly inflated and the section had few good references. Hence added reliable ones and corrected numbers. No source gives a number higher than 60 million for Oriental Orthodox. Pew research center estimates 20% out of the 260 million total worldwide Orthodox population. That would be 52 million. Even if we extrapolate the total worldwide orthodox population to 300 million, the total for Oriental orthodox will not exceed 60 million. The World Council of Churches too state 60 million. Yet, rounded total to 62 million adding up the individual denominational figures.

The numbers for the two largest Oriental Orthodox bodies are as follows. Ethiopian Orthodox church: Sources estimate between 3 to 3.8 million members. Most frequent estimate is about 3.6 million. Coptic Orthodox church: Sources cite 6 to 12 million. Most frequent estimate is around 10 million.--Longsword9 (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Anglicanism, again

It is quite a pity that the RFC above resulted in grouping Anglicanism with Protestantism. One more argument against: the Catholic Church sees the the Anglican Church as a schism, not a heresy (like Protestantism), and recognises the apostolic succession of bishops. This clearly means that, also in ecclesiological terms, Anglicans are a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. And the via media argument is supported also by the leaders of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. It is really a pity. Hopefully, folks will have second thoughts. --Checco (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The Catholic Church does not see Anglicanism as a schism, an appellation that is applied to the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches; read Wikipedia's own article on Apostolicae curae, which states "Leo XIII declared that the rites expressed an intention to create a priesthood different from the sacrificing priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church and to reduce ordination to a mere ecclesiastical institution, an appointment or blessing, instead of a sacramental conferral of actual grace by the action itself." Roman Catholics do not recognize the validity of the sacraments of Anglicans and other Protestants (see Exhibit A), although they do hold that Orthodox sacraments are valid (see Exhibit B). As User:John K pointed out, the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches, such as the Church of Sweden and Church of Finland, have retained apostolic succession; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America also ordains its clergy within lines of apostolic succession. This makes the Lutheran Churches no different from Anglicanism, both of which ordain women (the Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox Church, does not). Nevertheless, with the community-wide RfC about this topic just closing a few days ago, rehashing the same arguments again doesn't seem helpful. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 16:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Article is worse-off now: Once again, I tend to agree with Checco. I still do not understand why we have to make this about editors individual perceptions on the catholic and reformed aspects of Anglicanism. Even other denominations' opinions on Anglican claims is not important should not be given undue weight in deciding this. Are all those any way within the scope of this article which is merely a list of Christian denominations in the descending order of membership? This should be decided primarily based on whether or not independent authentic scholarly sources classify Anglicans with Protestants. This was raised in the previous RFC, although not elaborately with sources. The World Christian Database is the most reputed, best researched, scholarly reference work without sectarian bias available on this matter. It is the data source used by almost all pertinent professional research bodies including the Pew Research Center and the Center for Study of Global Christianity. The World Christian Database divides global Christianity into six major traditions: Anglicans, Independents, Marginals, Orthodox, Protestants, and Roman Catholics. CSGC too follows the same 6 bloc classification. Pew Research Center, while placing Anglicans under the wider Protestant banner, does so cautiously with moderation by dividing the Protestant category into 3 separate groups: Historic Protestants, Anglicans and Independents, clearly explaining their distinguishing characteristics. Please note that Pew does not include Anglicans in the Historic Protestant group. The World Religion Project also considers Anglicanism to be a separate branch distinct from Protestants. So does the World Christian Encyclopedia as well as the Atlas of Global Christianity. Be that as it may, it should be acknowledged that there are several other sources that groups Anglicans with Protestants. However if the best available academic sources tend not to, then Wikipedia should also follow suit. For this reason, the previous version of this article listing Anglicanism as a separate branch was better and looked more neutral. It is unfortunate that the previous RFC was closed without considering these important aspects. By the way, does Wikipedia itself serve as a reliable source for Wikipedia, particularly to settle disputes? Asking this because the only source specifically quoted in the previous RFC's settlement is Wikipedia's own article on Via media, while there existed a plethora of other high quality sources that better explained it. I personally find it very unwise, indiscreet and objectionable because in this particular case the Via media article said what it said, only because the user who initiated the previous RFC, edited it as such, immediately after the RFC started. 9 out of 10 sources on 'Via Media' are significantly at variance with Wikipedia's own article on the subject and describe Anglicanism as a middle road between Catholicism and Protestantism; not between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Disappointing decision, as it left the article worse-off than it was originally.--Longsword9 (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: far worse. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Longsword9, I certainly wasn't relying on the Via media article in my close - I mentioned it in passing as a useful illustration of how the argument against inclusion of Anglicanism being a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism had been rebutted. StAnselm (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Academic literature classifies Anglicanism within Protestantism and this Wikipedia currently reflects this. Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, published in 1999, states:

Amid all this diversity, however, it is possible to define Protestantism formally as non-Roman Western Christianity and to divide most of Protestantism into four major confessions or confessional families--Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, and Free Church.

The Oxford History of Protestant Dissenting Traditions, edited by Jehu J. Hanciles and published by Oxford University Press in 2019, states:

The designation Protestant includes Lutherans and Anglicans, although some Anglicans do not like the world. Methodism arrived in Asia both from Britain and via America, but with distinct traditions. Both owed a debt to Moravian Lutheranism, as did the Protestant missionary movement generally. Evangelicals have long included many Anglicans, and by 1967 Anglican evangelicalism was defining the movement in Britain.

In describing its authors, Reading Christian Theology in the Protestant Tradition, edited by Hans Madueme & Kelly Kapic and published by Bloomsbury Publishing in 2018, states:

These authors represent a variety of Protestant traditions, including Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, and Baptist.

The Encyclopedia of Protestantism, authored by J. Gordon Melton and published by Infobase Publishing in 2005, states:

Most narrowly, it denotes a movement that began within the Roman Catholic Church in Europe in the 16h century and the churches that come directly out of it. In this narrow sense, Protestantism would include the Lutheran, Reformed or Presbyterian, and Anglican (Church of England) churches, and by extension the churches of the British Puritan movement, which sought to bring the Church of England into the Reformed/Presbyterian camp. Most recently, scholars have argued quite effectively that the churches of he radical phase of the 16th-century Reformation, the Anabaptist and Mennonite groups, also belong within this more narrow usage.

I have provided several additional arguments besides this, of why Anglicanism was chosen to be retained under the Protestantism heading of this article. I will restate these now. The British monarch who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion, has sworn to maintain "the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law". The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, according to its Constitution & Canons, is the full name of the ecclesiastical province of the Anglican Communion overseas. Many of the largest provinces of the Anglican Communion currently listed under the Anglicanism section are united Protestant Churches, for example, the Church of North India, the Church of South India, the Church of Pakistan, the Church of Bangladesh, etc. Thus it is not acceptable to list these under the Anglicanism section only as these denominations simultaneously hold membership in the Anglican Communion, World Communion of Reformed Churches, World Methodist Council, etc. (all of which are decidedly Protestant denominations). Most scholars consider Anabaptists, Anglicans, and Baptists to be a part of the Protestant family, though some of these Christians consider themselves to be not Protestant; if we make an exception for Anglicanism (the only Anglicans who claim they are not Protestant might be a minority of Anglicans of Anglo-Catholic churchmanship), then an exception should be made for Anabaptists and Baptists as well (see Exhibit C and Exhibit D). In describing the theology of Anglicanism, Peter Robinson, presiding bishop of the United Episcopal Church of North America, writes:

Cranmer's personal journey of faith left its mark on the Church of England in the form of a Liturgy that remains to this day more closely allied to Lutheran practice, but that liturgy is couple to a doctrinal stance that is broadly, but decidedly Reformed. ... The 42 Articles of 1552 and the 39 Articles of 1563, both commit the Church of England to the fundamentals of the Reformed Faith. Both sets of Articles affirm the centrality of Scripture, and take a monergist position on Justification. Both sets of Articles affirm that the Church of England accepts the doctrine of predestination and election as a 'comfort to the faithful' but warn against over much speculation concerning that doctrine. Indeed a casual reading of the Wurttemburg Confession of 1551, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Scots Confession of 1560, and the XXXIX Articles of Religion reveal them to be cut from the same bolt of cloth.

In light of these facts, the logical conclusion is to list Anglicanism under the Protestantism section. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

References

*The official name of the Anglican denomination in the United States is The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, not the "The Via Media Episcopal Church in the United States of America" or " The Reformed Catholic Episcopal Church in the United States of America" or anything else. How much more convincing do you need? To state that Anglicans are not Protestant is just romanticism. Orientls (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Pew, one of the most authoritative publications, classifies Anglicanism/Episcopalianism as a Mainline Protestant denomination (it is known as one of the seven sisters of historic Protestantism, specifically).[3] So should Wikipedia, which is not here to push Anglo-Catholic POV. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It is quite POV to confuse the American point of view (Episcopalianism as a mainline Protestant chuch) with the worldwide situation. Please remember that only a minority of Anglicans are affiliated to the United States Episcopal Church and/or with Anglican/united churches. The Church of England or the Church of Nigeria, as well as the majority of the Anglican Communion, are closer to the Catholic Church than Protestantism and are, more precisely, a via media. --Checco (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

In Britain there is literally a law that the monarch, who is governor of the Church of England, must be a protestant. john k (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox adherents rounded at 230 million

The membership of 164.1 million of the Russian Orthodox church is taken from the merely reliable WCC page which almost always quotes self reported figures. Please note that this 164.1 million includes the various autonomous churches canonically dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate, the membership of which are already listed separately under "Autonomous" and other subheadings, under Eastern Orthodoxy, in the article. This causes the membership of ROC and consequently the count for autocephalous churches to be inflated by 64.1 million. Most adherents of the ROC are in Russia; this incorrect 164.1 million is larger than the estimated Russian national population of 146.7 million as of 2020. The membership of the Russian Orthodox church as per the most reliable sources varies between 41 to 74 percent of the Russian population and is commonly approximated to 100 million. Please check the sources on religion in articles Russia and Religion in Russia as well as the new ones in this article. Hence reduced the count for ROC from 164 million to 100 million and reducted the total for autocephalous churches by 64 million.

Also approximated the total number of Eastern Orthodox Christians to 230 million which is in accordance with the most reliable sources. Pew Research Center estimates it at 80% of 260 million which is 208 million Eastern Orthodox in 2017. The World Christian database reports 286 million total Orthodox which leads an approximate 229 million (80%) for Eastern Orthodox. Other sources, including the one previously cited, commonly approximates eastern Orthodox membership at 200 million. Even if we extrapolate the total worldwide Orthodox population to an unrealistic figure of 300 million, the total for Eastern Orthodox will not exceed 240 million (80%). Additionally, the individual figures for the churches listed under Eastern Orthodoxy adds only up to 210 million and so the maximum estimate of 230 million as per the best sources should be accurate. Moreover, unlike Protestantism, there is no ambiguity as to which churches constitutes Eastern Orthodoxy. So a wide range from 225 to 300 million is neither sensible nor needed in this case.

The next point is about the Eastern Orthodox Communion. I must declare that my perceptions on this matter are not experiential, but rather based on the sources I consulted and hence I'm open to correction by other Wikipedians. Considering the present day scenario, it is factually inaccurate to say that all Eastern Orthodox churches are in full communion. How can it be true while the largest of them all the ROC, broke all ties with the jurisdictions of its symbolic head the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and later with parts of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa and the Archbishopric of Athens and All Greece (third largest), due to the Moscow-Constantinople schism (2018)? There are also other issues like some of the churches being not recognized universally. Hence made the necessary modifications and stated that the mainbody of the canonical EO churches largely remain in communion.--Longsword9 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Messianic Judaism as a form of Protestantism

Protestant groups usually accept Messianic Judaism as a form of Protestantism. Doremon764 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Protestant Eastern Christianity

Adding more churches to the denomination of Protestant Eastern Christianity. Since the denomination has a list of churches that follow the same ideology they should be taken in consideration for this list.

List of Churches

• Armenian Evangelical Church
• Assyrian Evangelical Church
• Assyrian Pentecostal Church
• Believers Eastern Church of India
• Eastern Rite Community in Germany and the Czech Republic
• Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Slovenia
• Evangelical Orthodox Church
• Kosovo Protestant Evangelical Church
• Mar Thoma Syrian Church
• P'ent'ay movement of Ethiopia and Eritrea
• Russian Evangelical Church
• Society for Eastern Rite Anglicanism
• St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India
• St. Valentine's Fellowship
• Ukrainian Lutheran Church

Doremon764 (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Atheist Christianity

It may be time to add atheist-Christianity-numbers to the list. Misty MH (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Graphic seems to imply through colors that Catholics are one thing and Protestants and Eastern Catholics are something else.

Should it not in fact display Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics in more similar colors and have Protestantism in another? 2604:2000:1480:44BF:13E:3058:154A:DEB3 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Valid changes

Someone reverted valid changes I had made so I'd like to start a discussion for that. Please voice concerns on the edits if any. If there are errors it would be great to correct otherwise the edits seem to have simply been reverted by accident, as another user had also made the similar revert but then confirmed by returning my edits. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is purely about taxonomy and numbers. As it is, the page provides a simple list of Christian denominations in descending order of membership, grouped by the respective families/branches. Those subtotals for various Roman Catholic rites, Autocephalous/Autonomous Orthodox Churches etc. which were restored after you removed, are quite meaningful and helpful for an average reader to comprehend this list. As I understand, ecumenism and the associated trans-denominational forums are not quite in-scope. Cross-denominational bodies are not denominations/branches within Christianity. Their inclusion would only blur the scope and cause unnecessary confusion. This article has been quite stable in its present form. The only real help anyone could be of, is with adding reliable sources where it is missing or by replacing self-published sources with well-researched independent ones. That of course, is a work in progress and till it's finished, the introductory alert on self-reported figures is very much necessary. Please seek explicit consensus for any major changes. Best, Longsword9 (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It's WP:OR so it's 100% not allowed. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The list has been a stable feature of Wikipedia, mostly under the current form, for 10 years or more. There is an established consensus about it. However, I am much interested in improvements, provided that they are proposed, discussed and decided in this talk page. In our case, I am OK with restructuring the "Christian denominational families" section and adding a "Cross-denominational organisations" section (please see this version of mine, including most of User:Altanner1991's edits). This said, per User:Longsword9, I am quite against removing totals, subtotals, sums and numbers in general, as the article "is purely about taxonomy and numbers", indeed. Also, it is quite essential to leave the lead as it is: it explains what is included, why and how (otherwise, with no criteria of admission, the list would be totally unreasonable, would run forever and would be disorganised at best). Finally, the introductory disclaimer ("It is inevitably partial and generally based on claims by the denominations themselves. The numbers should therefore be considered approximate and the article an ongoing work-in-progress") is all-important. --Checco (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Decimal points

Saying a denomination has 0.1 million members is still easily understandable by the average person, but going down to 0.001 million? Why not simply write out the real number, 1,000? It makes reading and comprehension far easier. This was brought up before and the only reasoning behind keeping the multiple decimal places came from a single user saying they preferred it, so thus the practice stayed. That's not reason enough. Coinmanj (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the use of decimal millions is due to Protestant denominations being restricted to ones with at least 200,000 members, while others are restricted to those with a "distinct theology". The thinking was probably that only the Protestant branch of Christianity has split into so many small groups. Perhaps we should restrict all entries to a lower limit (e.g., 100,000). I don't see why a 6,000-member non-Protestant denomination is more significant than a Protestant one with 100,000 members. Indyguy (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is quite useful to have that distinction: the list should include all the denominations with a distintictive theology, no matter their number of members, while we simply cannot have all Protestant denominations because that the list would be endless and quite difficult to keep up to date. So, yes: a 0.006-member denomination (Protestant or not) is much more significant than any local Baptist church belonging to no denomination. Not to mention non-denominational churches! Where I live, there are at least half a dozen, all with less than 100-200 members. Behind our long-held rules, there is a reasoning!

I also prefer 0.001 instead of 1,000, thus, until we do not reach consensus, please do not edit those numbers. --Checco (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Defining/moving Protestant borderline modern/historic denominations

What is defining the distinction between historic and modern protestants? I don't think anyone would dispute that Hussites, Lutherans, Reformed, Anabaptists, Anglicans, Baptists, and Quakers are historic (ignoring the Anglican debate, which I think has been settled correctly above). I can certainly see Methodists being included despite their founding in 1738, 88 years after the founding of the next "youngest" group, Quakers (1650, assuming the condemnation of George Fox by trial in Derby is considered the defining event). I'm a little more confused, however, with the inclusion of Plymouth Brethren and Adventists in this group who began in 1831 (Wilgram, Newton, and Darby hold first meeting in Plymouth) and 1845 (Albany Conference) respectively. This seems inconsistent with the fact that the New Apostolic Church is included in the modern section, when they were formed in 1863 in a schism from other Irvingists (distinct from their Presbyterian origin by 1835 when their twelve declared apostles separated to form a new church). If we classify the New Apostolic Church under the subheading of Irvingism (which is certainly their historic origin), then they clearly belong in the same category as the Plymouth Brethren and Adventists.

It would seem best to me to follow one of two options: 1) relabel and move the New Apostolic Church to a single denomination within an Irvingism subheading and put this under the historic Protestantism section, or 2) move all of the 2nd Great Awakening (Adventism, Irvingism, Plymouth Brethren, Restorationism) groups to modern Protestantism. Option 1 would be the least invasive to the article and would still allow a clean cut off between "historic" and "modern," with Pentecostalism almost certainly being modern since it came out of the 3rd Great Awakening, rather than the 1st or 2nd. Option 2 would be more invasive, but equally good in my view from a historic standpoint. This would make a clean cut off between "historic" and "modern" with the distinction being origin in the 1st Great Awakening or earlier as the classification of "historic" and later groups being "modern." Quarantine Zone (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I prefer option 1, mainly because it is less "invasive".

I still think the issue on Anglicanism was wrongly settled as it is effectly a via media, incorporating both elements of traditional Catholicism and Protestantism. I always hope that someone will be interested in re-opening the debate. --Checco (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

World Religion Database = World Christian Encyclopedia = Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

The World Religion Database, the World Christian Database and the World Christian Encyclopedia are edited by the same people who are also the directors of the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (see here). They are highly biased, their numbers are totally invented and not based on empirical research and data; they continue to heighten the number of Christians throughout the years in order to keep the same percentage of the world population that Christianity represented in 2010.--37.162.168.211 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because they are connected with Gordon-Conwell doesn't automatically mean they are biased. Do you have a reliable source that supports your contention? Indyguy (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A. Liedhegener & A. Odermatt, Religious Affiliation in Europe - an Empirical Approach. The "Swiss Metadatabase of Religious Affiliation in Europe (SMRE)", Zentrum für Religion, Wirtschaft und Politik (ZRWP), Universität Luzern, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.33430.55364, page 9: "...the World Christian Database (WCD) or the World Religion Database (WRD) which is a direct offspring of the WCD. ... In itself the latter is not an unproblematic source, because its data, gathered originally from the World Christian Encyclopedia, result mostly from country reports prepared by American missionaries. Therefore, a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity is a major, although controversial point of criticism".--37.162.168.211 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The above source actually contradicts two components of your OP above: (1) that " ... their numbers are totally invented ..." and (2) that they are " ... not based on empirical research and data ...," since the above source states that their data " ... result mostly from country reports prepared by American missionaries." How can the numbers be "... totally invented and not based on empirical data ..." and " ... result mostly from country reports prepared by American missionaries." at the same time? Furthermore, the above source does not support your contention that their motivation is "... to keep the same percentage of the world population that Christianity represented in 2010." Please try again. Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Given that the quoted research is about statistics of religions, what they imply by saying that those American missionary sources have a "systematic bias of [their] data in favor of Christianity" is precisely that their numbers are not reliable as they are exaggerated ("...systematic bias of [their] data in favor of...").--37.162.168.211 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The World Christian Encyclopedia/World Christian Database/World Religion Database is the most reliable reference work without sectarian bias, presently available on world religious population. Some of its producers may have some connections to Christian organizations, but their academic qualifications and professional expertise, makes their work credible. For example, its original compiler David B. Barrett, was a Cambridge educated aeronautical engineer, who earned his religion doctorate from the University of Columbia. That's why, leading publishers like Oxford University Press and Edinburgh University Press, took up the publication of WCE. The reason for professional research organizations like Pew Research Center, to accept the WRD/WCD as one of their base sources, is nothing else. Check how many times the WCD/WRD is referred in this 2011 Pew Report on global Christianity and the explanation of its sources in page 92. Of course, a hundred percent accurate estimation of world religion numbers is virtually impossible. So the WRD is not above criticism, but it is still as good as it gets. It is incontestably more trustworthy than Annuario Pontificio, a self-published source used without hesitation, in this article. Anyone may examine the methodology of building the WRD here. It could be seen that a great deal of professional research and application of proper scientific method, was involved in arriving at the figures.--Longsword9 (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The Luzern University source cited above and common sense disprove exactly that "the WCE/WCD/WRD is the most reliable reference work without sectarian bias, presently available on world religious population": it is a project made up by Christian missionaries, not by statisticians and demographers, and it has a strong bias in favor of Christianity. David B. Barrett himself is a Christian missionary and an Anglican priest, not a statistician or demographer. WRD's methodology article explicitly states that they don't follow official census data (which are, in any case, available only for a few countries) and that their main source is the WCE. WCE/WCD/WRD's statistics are as unreliable as those of the Joshua Project. The fact that the Pew Research Center drew from WCE/WCD/WRD's data, just adds to the questionability of Pew's own data. The Annuario Pontificio should also be removed from Wikipedia articles about demography of religions.--37.162.146.128 (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The Luzern source is only a working paper, it has not gone through peer review and not been published. We are not going to remove a source based on one minor unpublished working paper, regardless of which academic field. Jeppiz (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The Luzern paper is a source published by a highly reliable Swiss university centre for the study of religion and its demographic correlations. Besides, the Wikipedia article "World Christian Encyclopedia" itself reports criticism of the subject, citing a source which states that it "consistently gives a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets", which is exactly what I noted while examining their data, and that "concern has also been raised about possible bias because the World Christian Encyclopedia was originally developed as a Christian missionary tool".--37.163.130.240 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Once again, it has not been peer reviewed and not published apart from being a working paper. Incidentally, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source either. Jeppiz (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the source. See below.--37.163.130.240 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Look 37 IP, you keep making these bold claims like the WCE is "highly biased, their numbers are totally invented and not based on empirical research and data" but when people ask you for sources to back up those claims, the only source you provided contradicts that. And when others point out that other sources like Pew use WCE, your only counter is to say that Pew is therefore unreliable too. You may think that you know more than Pew, but here on Wikipedia we have no way of verifying your credentials. That's why your arguments are unlikely to gain any traction here unless you are able to produce high quality secondary sources that explicitly support your arguments.

That said, for the purposes of this article, why should it be a deal breaker if a source tends to focus on or even over-count Christian denominations, when the scope of this article is Christian denominations? ~Awilley (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that WCD/WRD data are used not only in this article, but also in other articles, including "Christianity by country", and in other ones via Pew Research Center's studies.--37.163.130.240 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

And another question is what source would be better. The SMRE may be better for European statistics, but what about the rest of the world? The WRE may not be as accurate as we would like, but sometimes we have to go with the best available rather than the ideal. Indyguy (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

For countries where there are no official state censuses and surveys, ARDA could be a better source than WCD/WRD.--37.163.130.240 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hsu, Becky; Reynolds, Amy; Hackett, Conrad; Gibbon, James (2008). "Estimating the Religious Composition of All Nations: An Empirical Assessment of the World Christian Database". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 47 (4): 691–692. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00435.x
• page 679: ... The main criticisms scholars have directed at the WCD concern the estimation and categorization of certain religious populations. There are questions about whether religious composition within countries is skewed by the overcounting of certain groups or variance in quality of information obtained on different religious groups. There is also concern about possible bias because the WCE was originally developed as a Christian missionary tool. Some of the country descriptions in the WCE have been characterized as having an anti-Catholic and pro-Protestant orientation (McClymond 2002:881), and Martin describes the WCE as a work "dedicated to the conversion of mankind" (1990:293). Criticisms have also been raised about projections for different religious groups and demographic trends, as the WCD provides empirical data for the population of religious groups well into the future. Doubts have been raised about the WCD's estimation and categorization of new religious groups. Steenbrink (1998) criticizes the 1982 WCE data for Indonesia, which suggest the population is only 43.2 percent Muslim and 36.4 percent "new religionist." Steenbrink maintains that those classified as "new religionists" should actually be classified as Muslim, even if stricter Islamic groups might disagree. Lewis (2004) observes that the Soka Gakkai, Rissho Kosei Kai, and Nichiren Shoshu in the Japanese Buddhist tradition are classified as new religions, whereas Pentecostals (a much more recent movement) are classified as Christian rather than a new religion. The size of Christian populations is also debated. Jenkins (2002) notes a large gap between the reported size of India's Christian population in the government census and in the WCE/WCD. While he admits that census figures omit many Scheduled Caste adherents who can lose government benefits by declaring Christian identity, he suspects the WCD overcounts Christians in India. The WCE has also been criticized for including "inadequate and confusing" categories of Christian religious groups, in particular, "Great Commission Christians," "Latent Christians," "Non-baptized believers in Christ," and "Crypto-Christians" (Anderson 2002:129). Some worry that it is difficult to distinguish Christians who keep their faith secret from Christians who practice an indigenized form of Christianity that incorporates elements of non-Christian religions. McClymond writes that estimates for the "non-baptized believers in Christ" or "non-Christian believers in Christ" in India who are Buddhist and Muslim "seem to be largely anecdotal" (2002:886). Estimates of adherents in the United States have also been challenged. Noll has questioned the designation and size of certain Christian categories, for which the WCD and WCE provide the most detail. Although he finds estimates for most Christian denominations agree with other sources, he notes that "Great Commission Christians"—a category used to describe those actively involved in Christian expansion—are estimated in the United States and Europe to be a much larger group than the number of Christians who weekly attend church (2002:451). Another cause for concern is the number of "independents," a muddled category including African-American, "community," and "Bible" churches. Changes in the data set also raise issues about categories: Anderson notes that groups previously labeled as Protestant in the first edition of the WCE in 1982 (Conservative Baptist Association of America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the Presbyterian Church in America) were relabeled Independent in the second edition published in 2001 (Anderson 2002). Some have argued that projections of religious composition for years such as 2025 and 2050 should not be included with the empirical data, as they are merely conjecture (McClymond 2002). Irvin (2005) argues against making predictions about the future of worldwide religion based on recent statistics because Christian growth in Asia and Africa will not necessarily continue along the trajectory it has in past decades. ...
• page 680: ... To address the criticisms mentioned above, we compare the religious composition estimates in the WCD to four other cross-national data sets on religious composition (two survey-based data sets and two government-sponsored data sets): the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department). In our analysis, we find support for some of the criticisms made by reviewers ... the WCD does have higher estimates of percent Christian within countries. Another important difference between the WCD and other cross-national data sets is that the WCD includes data on 18 different religious groups for each country while other data sets only estimate the size of major religions. In evaluating some of the specific critiques discussed above, we find that WCD estimates of American Christian groups are generally higher than those based on surveys and denominational statistics. ... The majority of data came from fieldwork, unpublished reports, and private communications from contributors who are a mix of clergy, academics, and others; the Christian origins of the encyclopedia explain in part its detailed information on Christian groups. ...
• page 684: ... Figure 1 shows that the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y = x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. This suggests that while the percentage Christian estimates are closely related among the data sets, the tendency is for them to be slightly higher in the WCD. ... On the other hand, the WCD likely underestimates percent Muslim in former Communist countries and countries with popular syncretistic and traditional religions.
• page 692: ... We find some evidence for the three main criticisms directed at the WCD regarding estimation, ambiguous religious categories, and bias. The WCD consistently gives a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets. ... We also found evidence of overestimation when we compared WCD data on American denominational adherence to American survey data such as ARIS, due in part to inclusion of children, and perhaps also to uncritical acceptance of estimates from religious institutions. We agree with reviewers that some of the WCD's religious categories are impossible to measure accurately, such as "Great Commission Christians," "latent Christians," and "Crypto-Christians." ...--37.163.130.240 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Recommendation: Based on the evidence presented thus far, I would suggest that (1) the WCD/WRD should not be disallowed as there has not been shown that there is a significant bias or inaccuracy in their results nor has it been shown that there is any devious motivation on the part of the authors to create a systemic bias for any reason, and (2) that either it or the ARDA or the SMRE be used by individual editors of this article at their discretion, but that it be neither necessary nor desirable that existing citations be changed from the WCD/WRD for the purposes of this article. Comments are requested below. Johnnie Bob (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• As I understand, the ARDA studies focus primarily (not exclusively) on American religion and as such may not be appropriate for this article of global scope. No one is saying that the WCD is perfect, just that it is as good as it can get, given the global coverage and underlying thorough research (see methodology here). Even this critical review of WCD, that IP 37 cited in support of his/her argument concludes by saying (p. 691), "In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups." Then it lists a few issues with WCD, that aren't prohibitory of its use, for any practical purpose. The review panel does not label the WCD as unreliable. This is demonstrated by the fact that Conrad Hackett, the principal Research Fellow of the cited 2008 WCD review was also the primary researcher for the 2011 Pew Report on global Christianity, which put WCD/WRD data to extensive use. If ARDA provides verifiable figures for Christian denominational affiliation on a global scale, I'm not opposed to its inclusion as an additional source. But WCE/WCD/WRD must not be removed.--Longsword9 (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Other Christian graphics

Doremon764 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

About Non-trinitarian Restorationism

Unitarian groups are wrongly mentioned in this section. Unitarians are part of the Radical Reformation with figures like Faustus Socinus and Ferenc David and can hardly be associated with the Restorationist movement of the 19th century. I propose them to be mentioned in a different section after "Quakers" within the "Historical Protestantism" section. - Barumbarumba (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Reformed Churches - Calvinism/Presbyterianism

I tweaked the title of this category by adding Presbyterianism. 2603:3020:BE7:A000:6C65:4CEF:E9FC:2233 (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed "Presbyterianism" as both "Reformed churches" and "Calvinism" already cover "Presbyterianism". Presbyterianism is a variety of either Reformed churches and Calvinism. If were to add "Presbyterianism", why not adding also "Congregationalism", possibly "Puritanism" and so on? --Checco (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel Members

The article currently says Calvary Chapel churches currently have 25 million members‽ There's obviously no citation for this. Just doing some quick math on my own, I see they have about 1,800 churches currently: https://calvarycca.org/history/ Most would have around 100–300 members. That would put them at 200,000–550,000 members. Even if every congregation was a megachurch like Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, that wouldn't even be 2 million. Where on earth did this number come from and how do we fix it? I know they're a decent size denomination in the US, but I'm unable to find any statistics on membership. Jumper4677 (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Tables Clipping

The first table (the one showing the various denominations splitting over time) clips on top of the "Part of a Series" table. When not logged in it still works fine but looks weird. However, when logged in it makes most of the "Part of a Series" table unusable. Not the biggest issue but annoying and doesn't look good. VeiledOcean8565 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary favoritism of a subsection in Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox Church

Have been not happy with one user over the past four years, who been obsessively odd of defending this Ukrainian Orthodox Church that used to be affiliated with Russian Orthodox Church during a ongoing Christian schism, until couple years ago, when that Ukrainian Orthodox Church cut off ties with Mother Church. Due of how their holy leader favoring invading Ukraine proper, and how this effects on their Churches in unoccupied Ukrainian soil.

I have been trying to reminding this user @Nepsis2, that Wikipedia is not a version of Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox-based biased religious blog, this user is seemly following. But clearly a secular Wikipedia website, where be providing non-biased sources from first and secondary accounts.

Now, I just wanted to make sure to be neutral, by moving another partially-recognized Orthodox Church into the right spot, as well put it's ambiguous rival at top OCA, based on how many members it has, not by holy recognition. Chad The Goatman (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I brought this up over four years ago on this very page. "The Orthodox Church of Ukraine belongs under the category 'Non-universally recognized churches' because it is not accepted by most Orthodox churches. It is completely inappropriate to categorize the OCU as if it were a universally accepted Orthodox Church, when most of those churches do not accept it. Also, I suspect the claim that the OCU has 25 million members is inflated. No source is cited for that figure, and it's more than half of Ukraine's population. Nepsis2 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)"

The OCU's lack of acceptance is not a biased statement, it is an objective fact. You misrepresent that by trying to lump the OCU in with churches that are universally recognized as Orthodox. Nepsis2 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Way too many tiny denominations listed

At this point a bunch of denominations here (eg Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church, Macedonian Greek Catholic Church) are listed as having 0.001 million = 1000 members. At this point that's literally one church building. We should impose a limit on how far we break these down, because as stands the "Eastern Catholic Churches" section is an entire page of my browser. As a starting point I propose we not list churches here with <1m members if they are listed somewhere else. For the "Eastern Catholic Churches" section, what that would look like is the following:

• Byzantine Rite – 8.7 million
  • Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church – 5.5 million
  • Melkite Greek Catholic Church – 1.6 million
  • Others - 1.65 million
• East Syriac Rite – 4.9 million
  • Syro-Malabar Church – 4.3 million
  • Others - 0.6 million
• West Syriac Rite – 4.2 million
  • Maronite Church – 3.5 million
  • Others - 0.7 million
• Others - 1.3 million

@Pbritti, what do you think?

-Sophia (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sophia wisdom: This is supposed to be a comprehensive list. It's ok if it's long, as there are a lot of denominations and subdivisions to be mentioned. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As the lede states, we already limit Protestant groups to those with at least 0.2 million members. It seems to me that it's not unreasonable to have a size limit for churches in other branches of Christianity. Failing that, we should not limit Protestant groups. Indyguy (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a cut-off point, yet not as high as 1M, nor as low as 0.2M. I would say, maybe 0.5M. The list would still be comprehensive enough. I would make exceptions for both East and West: families distinct enough that is worth mentioning regardless of size. i.e.:

Under Catholicism, Canonically irregular groups (Society of Saint Pius X – 1 million) would stay, but Sedevacantists would go, especially if they don't have numbers.

Under Anglicanism, the grouping "Continuing Anglican movement and independent churches – 0.7 million", would stay, but not the specific groups which are all below 0.5M.

Under special groups, regardless of number, groups such as Quakers or the Assyrian Church of the East should remain.

What do you all think? If not, then because of the previous consensus, if the cut-off point for Protestant groups is 0.2M, then it should be the same for Catholics, which would still reduce the list significantly.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic churches are all listed because they are a definite number and have distinct traditions, while there is a limit on Protestant denominations because there are too many of them. I would stick with the current consensus. --Checco (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why my edit was reverted?

(Here's a link to my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members&oldid=1242709666) I added two authors' names and deleted an oddly-placed phone number and a fax number, on 28 August 2024. I don't see why my edit was viewed as vandalism. Could someone please explain? 66.215.184.32 (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Denominational shares as per the World Christian Database

The mid-2024 figures according to the World Christian Database are given below.

• Christian total 2,631,941,000

This is the 2024 figure for Christians, listed under the main heading GLOBAL RELIGION, which includes both affiliated (2,508,432,000) and unaffiliated (123,508,000) Christians.

• Catholic total 1,278,009,000 (48.6% of Christian total)
• Protestant total 625,606,000 (23.8% of Christian total)
• Independent total 421,689,000 (16% of Christian total)
• "Wider" Protestant total = Protestant total + Independent total = 625,606,000 + 421,689,000 = 1,047,295,000 (39.8% of Christian total)

All Wikipedia articles, as well as most reliable sources ultimately classify Independents/Evangelicals/Modern Protestants/Non-core Protestants/Pentecostals as Protestant. Most importantly, this Wikipedia article lists Modern Protestantism under Protestantism. The sections in this article on Protestantism and Modern Protestantism makes it very clear that Independent Christianity, Nondenominational Christianity, Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and multiple other groups that might sometimes prefer to be called simply "Christian" instead of "Protestant" are within the scope of Protestantism. The pie charts in this article should be consistent with the information provided by the article. Hence, it is necessary to represent historic Protestants and Independents together as a single Protestant slice in the pie chart. @Checco:, @Anto5840: and other colleagues are welcome to comment.Longsword9 (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The cited sourced classifies protestants separately and theres clearly an overlap on how they define pentecostals and evangelicals based on the numbers given ( protestants + evangelicals + Pentecostals + independents add up to more than 2 billion based on the cited source). For clarity purposes I listed them as separate categories in the pie chart. There's also plenty of wikipedia articles and sources where mainline protestants are classified differently with evangelicals and independents since there's no clear consensus on the definition of "modern protestantism". Anto5840 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:Longsword9. There should not be a separate slice for "Evangelicalism" as it is part of Protestantism. --Checco (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anto5840: There is indeed an overlap between Pentecostals and Evangelicals. Hence their numbers should not be added to any other category. Quick facts about global Christianity provides the definition of Pentecostals and Evangelicals within the World Christian Database. The article Five Hundred Years of Protestant Christianity by the creators of the World Christian Database also provides useful information. The term "wider Protestant" is used in this article, which is used as a source in Wikipedia. In page 2 it says, "If Independent churches are considered as offshoots of Protestantism, then the “wider” Protestants’ share of global Christians is even higher. For example, Protestants and Independents together represent more than 40 percent of all Christians in 2017." Hence it is ok to add Protestant and Independent numbers. Additionally, in page 5 it says that there is significant overlap between Evangelicalism and the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement.Longsword9 (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

According to the World Christian Encyclopedia Independent Christians are defined as Christians who do not self-identify with the other major traditions: Orthodox, Protestant or Catholic. Even the World Christian Database uses the word "IF" before putting them in the wider protestant category, So it's clear that there is no consensus among Most Christians of independents being protestants. Most Independents themselves don't consider themselves protestant and wouldn't want to be identified with protestantism. Its also important to note that not all independent churches are offshoots of protestants, so categorizing them as protestants is simply ignoring their autonomy and trivializing their movement. Even the creators of the cited source deemed it fit to place them in a separate category, so the same should reflect in Wikipedia. Anto5840 (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not classify Christian traditions based on self-identification. For instance, Anglicans self-identify as a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism. In spite of that Anglicanism is listed in this page as a Protestant tradition and not as a separate tradition of its own. Regardless of how they self-identify, all Wikipedia articles categorize Independents/Modern Protestants/Non-core Protestants as Protestants. Did you read the sections on Protestantism and Modern Protestantism in this article? It has already been pointed out that this article includes Independent Christianity, Nondenominational Christianity, Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and multiple other groups that might sometimes prefer to be called simply "Christian" instead of "Protestant" within the scope of Protestantism. This should reflect in the pie chart by representing historic Protestants and Independents together as a single Protestant slice. Otherwise, the pie chart would be inconsistent with article content. Moreover, the prevailing consensus (2-1) in this discussion is not in your favour. Based on the current consensus, the long-established stable version of this article should remain, until you receive majority support from regular editors of this page.Longsword9 (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is false to claim that all wikipedia articles categorize independents as protestants. They are many wikipedia articles that classify them as independent. Other wikipedia articles go further and categorise protestants into mainline protestantism,evangelicalism and Pentecostalism. This is also standard practice in the Christian encyclopedia and other various surveys. And when citing a topic on wikipedia it is expected for the information presented to march the cited source to avoid misleading readers, and the source clearly classifies independents and protestants separately.The information on the chart should march the cited source that independents are classified separately. 41.90.188.105 (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ip 41.90.188.105/User:Anto5840: You are not supposed to deceptively edit from your ip address, without logging in, to create an illusion of support for your views. The consensus in this discussion is still (2-1). Ip address 41.90.188.105 geolocates to Nairobi, Kenya. Most of the Anto5840’s edits are related to Nairobi and Kenya. That itself is ample proof that the ip edit was made by Anto5840. Quit playing tricks. Be logged in with your original username before you edit. Do not violate Wikipedia policies by resorting to WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. In other words, you should not attempt to distort genuine consensus by abusing multiple usernames or ip addresses yourself. Nor should you persuade your comrades to support your case using multiple usernames.Longsword9 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't my edit, neither I'm I from Nairobi. However I do still believe that independents should be classified as a separate group based on the cited source and prevailing definitions since even protestants themselves can't seem to agree on what groups comprise protestants. Thank you Anto5840 (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Checco against consensus

User:Checco, despite consensus not to do so above in an RfC, has restored mention of Anglicanism to the lede of the article as distinct from Protestantism—a view that is highly controversial. User:Checco wishes to give special priority to the view of some Anglicans (chiefly Anglo-Catholics), when Anabaptists and Independent Baptists, as well as Lutherans of Evangelical Catholic churchmanship, do not embrace the label of Protestant either (see Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C). Though this is clear in the body of the article, User:Checco insists on mentioning Anglicanism in the lede, without mentioning Anabaptists, Independent Baptists, and Evangelical Catholic Lutheranism. Before User:Checco's edit, the article simply mentioned Protestantism in the lede and I have restored that. As the closer of the RfC, User:StAnselm pointed out, it is problematic to mention the theory of a via media in the lede, which is not embraced by all Anglicans themselves (see Exhibit D), and which means different things to different Anglicans (historically, the via media referred to a middle way between Lutheranism and Reformed Christianity). It is best to have a simple lede without adding controversial information therein. I have pinged User:Orientls, User:GPinkerton, User:Indyguy, User:1990'sguy, and User:Display name 99 to this conversation. Administrator User:John K, I am drawing your attention to this discussion given your involvement in the RfC; I would request that he enforce the above consensus and discourage unilateral edits by User:Checco that are controversial in nature. User:Checco, as this now has administrative attention, please stop edit warring against consensus. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 17:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

References