Talk:Protestantism in China

POV

The descriptions of Chinese terms sounds suspiciously like Point Of View, though I don't know enough to be sure. Also, this article subject seems redundant; I think it should be merged into and redirected to Christianity in China --DDerby 22:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A separate article is necessary because of the scope of the topic and the distinct histories of the two major denominations of Christianity in China 70.57.137.163 22:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) [Dpr]

Perhaps. How about this:

Chinese language typically divides Christians into two groups, members of Jidu jiao, (literally, Christianity) Protestantism, and members of Tianzhu jiao (literally, Tianzhu religion), Catholicism.

That is inconsistent - if you are going to translate literally, translate what Tianzhu means, and explain better the nuances of what Jidu jiao means. --DDerby 22:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I was able to improve. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Dpr 19:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Instantnood, thanks for keepoing a keen eye. Today, though, without actually looking at the page history, I added the Religion in PRC category...the article incorporates both religion in China and religion in PRC scope, so I think both are appropriate. Dpr 19:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

False figure: 110 million

This study explains that high numbers are based on 1980s false statistics. The recent survey by Werner Burklin disputes the alleged "official" figure (no proof to confirm officiality). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.11.90 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007 POV

Same problems of the article Christianity in China. An old figure (January 2007), recently denied by documented surveys, is used as the only source. --Esimal (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've NPOVised the introduction, highlighting the latest studies and surveys and the problem of false statistics examined by Tony Lambert. --Xi Zhu (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

see:Talk:Christianity in China for my response to the last edits to this article. There is an additional problem in retaining the graphic that I created, in that it is not neutral or representative of all of the claims that both Xi Zhu and I are asserting.Brian0324 (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added POV tags, this article has the same problems highlightened here. --Xi Zhu (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources and citations

Needs to use more of the sources from further reading, and use appropriate citations with pages. Few cites for its assertions; too much reliance on dated sources and primary quotes. Too POV.Parkwells (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)