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

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The table "Mainline vs. Evangelical" seems to be Original research. If some justifying sources can't be found soon, I'll be removing it. Editor2020 ( talk) 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I think a lot of churches in the ACNA, for example, would strongly object to being called evangelical. Also, Methodism is a glaring omission from the summaries of major denominations, considering it's the second largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. after Baptists. I disagree that the section on Black churches was off-topic, though. Angr ( talk) 16:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Another issue with the table is that the numbers for the Methodists are off, as there are over 9 million members. ( Morane12 ( talk) 21:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)) reply

The term 'mainline Protestant' is widely used, even if some editors have not yet familiarized themselves with its prevalent usage. MaynardClark ( talk) 12:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Is it appropriate for this page to be in Category:Anti-Catholicism in the United States? They are not the same thing, of course, though there would be overlap. Not all anti-Catholics are Protestant, and not all Protestants are anti-Catholic. St Anselm ( talk) 05:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Not appropriate. Protestants may have theological differences with Catholics, but that doesn't make them Anti-Catholic (they generally have no "hostility towards Catholicism" and do not engage in "ending religious services and seizure of church lands"). Indeed, several Protestant groups are in dialogue with the Catholic Church. See Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue and Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, for example. -- 101.119.15.2 ( talk) 08:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I think that goes without saying. But I've been asked to discuss the matter [1] by an editor who doesn't believe theological opposition to Catholicism exists in real life. Long live concern trolling, but if Protestantism isn't opposed to Catholicism, I will eat my hat. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 05:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I've known a lot of Protestants, and I wouldn't describe any of them as anti-catholic. You're misunderstanding the use of categories Kendrick. While a see-also may be appropriate here, a subset relationship is not.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 06:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Protestants may have theological differences with Catholics, but that doesn't make them Anti-Catholic (they generally have no "hostility towards Catholicism" and do not engage in "ending religious services and seizure of church lands"). Indeed, several Protestant groups are in dialogue with the Catholic Church. See Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue and Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, for example. Consensus is quite clearly against your proposed categorisation. And allegations of concern trolling breach WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. -- 101.119.15.2 ( talk) 08:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Restorationism, and in particular denominations that are part of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement and the Latter Day Saint movement in the United States are not considered Protestant, any more than the Eastern Orthodox Church is. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 17:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

The introduction contains this paragraph

According of Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman, a review of American Nobel prizes winners awarded between 1901 and 1972, 72% of American Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified from Protestant background.[1] Overall, 84.2% of all the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans in Chemistry,[1] 60% in Medicine,[1] and 58.6% in Physics[1] between 1901 and 1972 were won by Protestants.

which, while interesting, does not really seem important enough to include in the introduction. The same could be said of the paragraph that follows:

Some of the first colleges and universities in America, including Harvard,[2] Yale,[3] Princeton,[4] Columbia,[5] Dartmouth, Williams, Bowdoin, Middlebury, and Amherst, all were founded by the Protestant, as were later Carleton, Duke,[6] Oberlin, Beloit, Pomona, Rollins and Colorado College.

These could maybe be placed into a section related to the influence of protestantism on education or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.70.55.1 ( talk) 11:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Protestantism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415042516/http://www.bwanet.org:80/default.aspx?pid=437 to http://www.bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid=437

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I have added an "Unbalanced Section" template to the Mainline vs. evangelical section because I believe that the material presented from the Evangelical viewpoint far outweighs the material presented from the Mainline viewpoint. The section begins with

Theologically conservative critics accuse the mainline churches of "the substitution of leftist social action for Christian evangelizing, and the disappearance of biblical theology," and maintain that "All the Mainline churches have become essentially the same church: their histories, their theologies, and even much of their practice lost to a uniform vision of social progress."

and there is no counter-balancing view from the Mainline viewpoint at all. Then, in the Evangelicalism subsection, there is this extremely long bombardment of "they believe"/"they charge" etc. with no counterbalance; added bold for emphasis:

Evangelicals held the view that the modernist and liberal parties in the Protestant churches had surrendered their heritage as evangelicals by accommodating the views and values of the world. At the same time, they criticized their fellow fundamentalists for their separatism and their rejection of the Social Gospel as it had been developed by Protestant activists of the previous century. They charged the modernists with having lost their identity as evangelicals and the fundamentalists with having lost the Christ-like heart of evangelicalism. They argued that the Gospel needed to be reasserted to distinguish it from the innovations of the liberals and the fundamentalists. They sought allies in denominational churches and liturgical traditions, disregarding views of eschatology and other "non-essentials," and joined also with Trinitarian varieties of Pentecostalism. They believed that in doing so, they were simply re-acquainting Protestantism with its own recent tradition.

This kind of lopsidedness is not present in the Mainline subsection. The total lopsidedness of treatment here, in my view, causes Wikipedia to, editorially, favor the Evangelical viewpoint over the Mainline one in this section. Unless someone comes up with a better idea, I favor just getting rid of the endless "they they they they" section. It also has no citation, so it probably deserves deletion on that grounds alone. BirdValiant ( talk) 01:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply