Jump to content

Talk:Christians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Christian (word))

Orphaned references in Christian

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Christian's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Global Christianity":

  • From Christianity: ANALYSIS (19 December 2011). "Global Christianity". Pewforum.org. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
  • From Christianity by country: ANALYSIS (2011-12-19). "Global Christianity". Pewforum.org. Retrieved 2012-08-17.
  • From Christendom: Global Christianity

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Christianos

[edit]

What I see here is no support for the Latin ending "ianos" to mean or denote "adhering to". Just like the American dictionaries that have added to its meaning and so has Wikipedia. Even the source Wikipedia referred to [17]in the text doesn't support anything beyond, ownership. Citation need should come after "adhering to"


QUOTE: "The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one",[16] with an adjectival ending borrowed from Latin to denote adhering to, or even belonging to, as in slave ownership.[17]" END OF QUOTE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian#Etymology


The suffix "-ianos" has nothing to do with the verb "following". The Greek suffix is used to denote "possession" such as slaves. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Greek-2004/f/name-suffixes.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.251.250.206 (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I've also noticed that in two separate places in the article, the first place says that the word Christian does not mean belonging to you, and yet the section immediately afterwards states that it could even mean slave ownership. But I believe it does mean, belonging to, as Herodian belonged to the party of Harrod, and caesareans belong to the party of Caesar. Ai777 (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, belonging to, not belonging to you, that was a typo Ai777 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very valid statement. It should be added immediately to prevent misinformation. Sincerest (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be edited for proper English.

[edit]

These are two errors I found in just reading the introduction...

"Today, about a 37% of all Christians live in the Americas,..." should read "Today, about 37% of all Christians live in the Americas,..."

"While 280 million Christian lives as minority." should read "While 280 million Christians live as a minority."

Please have someone edit this document so that it does not read like a child wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolauson (talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Thanks for pointing it out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: "There are diverse interpretations of Christianity which sometimes conflict ...', please insert, as the first word, the word 'While' for proper grammar/readability. And, the words 'at least' in same sentence are unnecessary / superfluous / 'judgemental' / etc., in this 'P.C.' world we now live in. Derfball (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Derfball:  Done, thank you. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wp:NOETHNICGALLERIES

[edit]

Sandstein's close of the recent RfC on composite images in infoboxes applied not just to ethnic groups but also in general to "large group[s] of people" in "articles about other than ethnic groups, such as nationalities". In that spirit I have removed the (very cumbersome) composite image and replaced it with one single, iconic image. Note that File:Infobox Collage of Famous Christians.jpg contained 63 images, and contains what I find to be rather problematic images such as that of Tim Tebow and Lionel Messi. And one wonders what Da Vinci is doing in there. Who is Marrissa Mayer in Christianity? Luke Evans? (I understand he's best known as an actor, then as a gay man, and then as a well-dressed man--his article doesn't even mention him as a Christian.) I think this collage was made with the best of intentions (I did find a Mormon in there, for instance), but there is no way one can have such imagery and not have quibbles such as this one, which is exactly why the RfC closed the way it did. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:Not a bad choice, it does have some well-known christians in it (if disciples are christians, that is). I´m ok with it, but there´s actually an ongoing discussion about how that RFC should apply to articles beyond "ethnic" at [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks--I was trying to do the best I could on the fly. Yes, I am looking at that discussion; I have no doubt there will be much more fallout from the RfC. Thanks for the link. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph "Christians have made a myriad contributions in a broad and diverse range of fields,," should be removed

[edit]

It does not add any factual content what so ever. THe citations are to highly unreliable sources and subjective. The list contains western artists and business men, people from a christian, or in some rata cases Jewish background. That western, christian, persons may prefer western, christian artist och business people is quite obvious. Main reason for deletion is that is not relevant to the subject of defining "christian".. Abergdahl (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)--Abergdahl (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a copy of this paragraph from the lead section, and removed another paragraph that was just about American award winners, for a start. – Fayenatic London 23:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The paragraph reads like "bragging rights". How does an individual's faith have anything to do with their secular achievements? This sets a precedent for a vast number of subjects. Do we now add the same for a million other subjects? It needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.211.33 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scumm like this was added to this and many other articles throughout Wikipedia by the source manipulator and finally totally banned user Jobas.--5.94.36.144 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2017

[edit]

In Hebrew terms chapter, please change נוּצְרי to נוֹצְרִי ; please change יְהוּדִים מָשִׁיחַיים to יְהוּדִים מְשִׁיחִיִּים . reason: this is the correct punctuation 46.117.156.221 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nihlus 17:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 017

[edit]


In the second paragraph, it is stated that Christians are united in that they see a unique significance in Jesus. Please change this to say that "Christians are united in that they recognize Jesus as God". Reason: Academically speaking, phrasing it this way fails to convey the importance that Jesus has on Christianity as though He is viewed as just another preacher. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrOmega117 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: The wording is sourced from book very narrowly and cautiously. You can only change that by getting reliable Independent source that support your change, and even after that if there's consensus to that.  — Ammarpad (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018

[edit]

PLEASE CHANGE

The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26,[24] after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28,[25] where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."[26]

Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome.[27] The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames.[28] However Peter's apparent endorsement of the term led to its being preferred over "Nazarenes" and the term Christianoi from 1 Peter becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards.[29]

The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to "the tribe of Christians, so named from him;"[30] Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; and Tacitus, writing near the end of the 1st century. In the Annals he relates that "by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians"[31] and identifies Christians as Nero's scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome.[32]

TO

The first recorded use of the term Christian is in Codex Alexandrinus written in the 5th century or later.

BECAUSE, 

the existing text is not factual, and apart from that we do not know how far apart in doctrine the early Chrestians following Jesus Chresto, are compared to Nicean Christians who follow Jesus Christ and doctored "e" for "i" in the documents we have, probably in the 4th century when they were vandalising other faiths institutions and destroying all Pagan and other Christian related documents.

eg the Greek Magical Papyri 400CE - the author is definitely not Nicean orthodox in regard to the trinity. "Excellent rite for driving out daimons: Formula to be spoken over his head: Place olive branches before him,and stand behind him and say: “Hail, God of Abraham; hail, God of Isaac; hail, God of Jacob; Jesus Chrestos, the Holy Spirit, the Son of the Father, who is above the Seven, who is within the Seven........."

Anyway, it is simply not true to say a word was used when it was not. All documents relating to Christianity up until Codex Alexandrinus use the term Chrestians.

The next section with the heading "Nazarenes", also sits uncomfortably.

Cheers. 106.69.211.33 (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are multiple sources in that section, so we can't just take your word that they are all wrong. You would also need to establish a consensus to make this substantive a change to this section. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I had noticed the existing references 24, 25 and 26, simply go to a generic english translation of the passages. They do not reference any evidence. Can we please be provided with proper references to the earliest examples, to support the existing text in this entry. The existing entry does not even say what ancient documents are being referred to(probably because of ignorance or simply that there are none until Codex Alexandrinus and it conflicts with the editors beliefs). 27 and 28 reference Wuest who may make mention of the issue, but I do not have access to his book. He may not as a lot of Christian researchers automatically translate to "Christians"

This page has references, should I simply copy them over. http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/chrestians%20christians.htm I have also verified through various christian scholars who mention it when they display the original Greek, where it becomes obvious. I did not bother saving links at the time, but could obviously go looking again.

Here is a link to a photo of codex Vaticanus Acts 11:26 - The page is currently throwing an error for me. http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%2003/GA03_085a.jpg pdf with links to photos is here http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_03/Vaticanus-Scripture-Index.pdf Cheers.

I have now created an account to deal with this. There is a current Wikipedia entry that touches on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Christians_and_Chrestians Real life is calling, so I will check back tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Mess (talk • contribs) 04:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC) More Wikipedia links - Surely this is enough to get the change or at least the existing text removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_3035 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution_in_the_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(Revelation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_in_Judaism references the following page. https://sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_early_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Messiah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Mess (talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We cannot accept a personal webpage with one person's original research as a source for changes. Please also see the core content policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expecting the forum I linked to, to be used as a reference. It has links to Original artefacts stored around the world. How can there be a better source than the actual physical item? I asked if I should simply copy the sources here. Since my previous email I have also compiled direct links to the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.

The other links I posted previously are to Wikipedia entries. Why are their references not OK?

How does the existing entry that contains no reference meet Wikipedia's standard?

Sorry, it is very confusing. Wikipedia(Identifying reliable sources) makes no mention that physical facts are not acceptable. Please explain how actual original texts etc, are not good enough to be used on Wikipedia. Major Mess (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What appears to be a part of the problem, aside from any individual Christian scholar's bias and psychosis, is that the finds of originals is so rare, found over a large geographic area, and over a long period of time. No individual working on a single artefact would have access to all originals at the same time so as to have noticed the issue. I have only been interested in the originals, but have just started looking for published material on the subject.

Here is a reference from an 1880 publication. (Amazingly he was also aware that the true origin of the Chi Rho symbol was from Chrestos - Page 34). Chrestos: a religious epithet; its import and influence (1880) - James Barr Mitchell. "But the fact remains that during the first four centuries of our era it was the common practice of the Christians to write the name of their Master Chrest or Chreist, and to style themselves Chreistiani". https://archive.org/details/chrestosareligi00mitcgoog Note: the "ei" spelling is only at the very end of the period, and appears to be a part of a transition in the spelling/word change. Justin Martyr complaining that their name does not mean they are boasting that they could never end up in legal court, makes a lot more sense as "Good" rather than "Christ".

All of this lying by omission is a part of the reason our history in this period is in such a mess. Obviously the most damage was done after the creation of modern Nicean Christianity in 325CE, its following legal persecution of other earlier Christians and Pagans from 336CE, and the associated destruction of all "offensive" texts etc. Major Mess (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case it was missed above, here is the link to Codex Sinaiticus. This is our oldest original bible. You can see the original page with the later change clearly visible. The eta(like our H) has been scratched off to make an iota, leaving a gap. The Greek is presented on the right showing the correct "Chrestian". The english translation interprets it to "Christian". http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=51&chapter=11&lid=en&side=r&verse=26&zoomSlider=0#51-11-19-3 Major Mess (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please read the Core Content Policies, especially the policy on Original research. This represents a synthesis of published material which is still considered original thought under our guidelines. We cannot accept original research and Wikipedia is not a publishing forum for original research. You may be interested in taking this to one of the many alternative outlets that does support publishing of original thought. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Major Mess:, conclusions drawn from primary source documents are, by definition, original research. I have remove the most recent repetition of your request because the only new content to the request was comments that indicate a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and content guidelines. See your talk page for more information. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit: The article needs to be cleansed

[edit]

It is full of randomly sourced, superficial and POV junk added by the (finally) banned user Jobas.

For instance, this phrase in the lede is extremely generic:

"Christians have significantly influenced and contributed to human progress in many fields including philanthropy, philosophy,[11] ethics, literature,[12] business and economics,[13][14] fine arts and architecture,[15] music,[16] theatre and medicine,[17] as well as science and technology,[18][19][20] both historically and in modern times."

Some of its sources do not cite the page and some of them are not about Christianity. This is actually an abuse of sources, bending them to what the user wants them to say. This was the usual editing style of user Jobas, who manipulated the sources reporting what they actually do not say.

Moreover, the entire list of statistics from the Pew Research Center is outdated, POV (since the PRC is an American think-tank and has links with Christian organizations), and therefore should be removed.--5.94.36.144 (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Spintendo      12:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changes:
 Partly done: The Pew forum figures, being relatively recent and not finding better ones, I have left. I have removed the NPOV material added by the blocked user in the lead and in the "Notable individuals" section. It is a mix of material sourced to non-reliable sources, material that fails verification, and material that is significantly not about the Christianity of the contributors. E.g., noting that most Nobel laureates are Christians (and only then in the very broadest sense) is very nearly identical to noting that most Nobel laureates are from Western Europe and North America. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is supported with good academic publishers such as Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press. While you claim WP:PEACOCK, many articles such as Jews, Italians, Arabs, Greeks use the same language and expressions. Instead of reverting you could change the wording.--desmay (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was supported by new and reliable sources, such as Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, University of Minnesota Press, Marquette University Press, and Duke University Press, along with works published by respected academics such as Andrew Steane, William S. Kroger, and Jeffrey Brown. Also, I don't think the wording violates WP:PEACOCK, since the sources themselves use words such as "significantly," "influenced," and "contributed." For example, one of the cited sources, Faithful to Science: The Role of Science in Religion published by Oxford University Press, states "...the Christian contribution to science has been uniformly at the top level, but it has reached that level and it has been sufficiently strong overall ..." Another source, The Cambridge History of Christianity published by Cambridge University Press, states that "...Many of the scientists who contributed to these developments were Christians..." These are some examples of the sources in that edit -- reliable, independent, high-quality academic sources -- that use wording like that. Instead of reverting, I think User:Pepperbeast should discuss the sources or at least change the wording if he really thinks it violates PEACOCK -- though looking at the sources, the policy clearly isn't violated. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn: Your rectification was reverted without consensus. And apparently we are in front of a case of WP:MEATPUPPETRY and/or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY.--2.37.22.52 (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is such nonsense now, isn't it?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That Christan individuals have contributed to various fields should be non-controversial; however, whether that constitutes "progress" is highly POV and also an improper synthesis of the sources. "Progress" is a speculative concept in any case, and any statements linking religious identity to any example of "progress" shouldn't be stated in Wikpedia's voice. The recently added paragraph listing various fields was also unduly weighted by being placed in the lead section. I've replaced it with a more concise and neutrally-worded paragraph that was already in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Church of the East

[edit]

I removed the Assyrian Church of the East from the Orthodoxy sector in the infobox since there are no grounds to claim they are Orthodox. Given they represent less than 0.1% of Christians worldwide, they're not statistically significant enough to affect the present stats. Leefeniaures audiendi audiat 19:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an historical reference to the term "Christian"

[edit]

-The following can be added to the section that cites examples of early uses of the term "Christian"

Term “Christian” in Ancient America

The use of the term “Christian” is found in The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ and is used approximately 72-73 B.C. The term Christian is used by enemies of the Christians. The Christians in Ancient America were those that believed, to the point of death (Alma 14:8; 3 Nephi 1:9, 13-14), that the Son of God was destined to come, fulfilling ancient Biblical and Book of Mormon prophecies of the coming of the Messiah. Those that believed these prophecies of and teachings about Christ’s first advent were called Christians in the record preserved in the Book of Mormon.

Brendennc23 (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The Book of Mormon is not a reliable source. PepperBeast (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not about the term

[edit]

A large portion of this article is not about the concept Christian, but about the term. This material needs to be removed (some possibly moved to the See also section). Editor2020 (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 November 2018

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, as there is a clear consensus to have this topic at the plural title; however, there is a lack of consensus as to the fate of the resulting redirect, "Christian", with some editors specifically supporting the move but opposing the proposed retargeting, preferring that the redirect either continue pointing to the subject to be moved, or that it be disambiguated entirely. bd2412 T 15:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian → Christians –The title Christian should redirect to Christianity as a frequently used adjective in compound terms such as Christian theology, Christian minister, Christian ethics, etc. Plural titles are specifically allowed for groups of people, and in this case would avoid both the noun/adjective ambiguity and the need for piped links. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC) (updated) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it might be better to leave them linking to the disambig page, since many of them are wrong. The first one I checked has "In Christian theology", which would be better off linking to Christianity. If you just let them point to the disambig page, each one may eventually get tagged for disambiguation and fixed. This is obviously not a job that a closer can take on, nor any individual, yet it's a job that probably needs to done, whichever way this RM closes. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I oppose pointing Christian to Christianity because updating existing links to Christian would be quite impossible. Pointing it to the disambiguation page is a possible option though would create a lot of work for dab fixing. Either way, links need to be fixed. feminist (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per WP:SINGULAR JC7V (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why only the good stuff?

[edit]

Parts of the article frankly appear to be written to burnish the image of Christianity. Why are the "noted contrbutions" of Christians to arts, literature, and science mentioned prominently, along with the number of Christian Nobel Prize winners, yet there's no mention of the Crusades or the Inquisition, for example? There must be loads of published material about Christians' roles in such notable events. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf Agreed. Seems rather unnecessary to include this specific info in the lead paragraph. Either remove this mention of 'noted contributions' entirely from the top or rewrite it so that it reflects more wholly the impact of Christianity on world affairs. Even in that case though, I think there's too many factors at play to really distill it down to 'Christians have contributed X'. Compare with the article for Muslims which provides a more succinct lead paragraph, although that article could use some work as well. --Paul the Carrot (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This article is not a good place for discussing the impact of Christianity at large (I suggest Role of Christianity in civilization), and the impact of particular Christians is surely too vast a topic to even begin. The present text is one-sided, and is not needed in this article. I have removed it. Daask (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2018

[edit]

Please take out Xian (abbreviation)" redirects here. For other uses...

because there are no other abbreviations on that page and Xian redirects to Xi'an from where Christians can be found via hatnote Bullenbeisser (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Bradv🍁 16:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short description should be people not person

[edit]

per title Bullenbeisser (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [2] by Editor2020. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

also plese dab to the Christians Bullenbeisser (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That page now redirects to Christian.[3] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xian (abbreviation) at RfD

[edit]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 7#Xian (abbreviation) as to the proper target for this term, which currently redirects here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

[edit]

I would add Hebrew and Aramaic to the Sacred languages as Hebrew and Aramaic were used to write the Old Testament of the Bible 71.241.220.39 (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically a source identifying those languages as sacred. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 22:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2020

[edit]

Please review the name of this edit 217.209.128.243 (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you're referring to. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

[edit]

The title is fauly edited the name is incorrectly worded. 217.209.128.243 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what you want done. PepperBeast (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It must be a redirect page to Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANONYMOUS USER2003 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Christianity is a different article on a related subject. PepperBeast (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

""Liturgical Christian"" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "Liturgical Christian". The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#"Liturgical Christian" until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most persecuted?

[edit]

In the last line of the introduction, it is stated that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world. The sources given for this statement talk about religious persecution of Christians but don't say that they are the most persecuted religious group in the world by any quantitative or well-defined parameters. Some of these sources are also not completely unbiased. If this statement is true, it should require quality studies that find it to be so. Otherwise it should not be included on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mplsneuro (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Founder

[edit]

This article says that the founder of Christianity is Jesus Christ. This is obviously from a Christian perspective. Thank you, User:WikiJanitorPerson | ☎️/🍌 23:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- OED defines founder as "a person who establishes an institution or settlement." - while Jesus did not start a religion he called Christianity, the original Christianity was based on his teachings, so he can be considered the founder - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia executives, I have noticed that this article is a bit outdated in terms of the "countries with the most Christian population" and so I request being able to edit so that the numbers are more updated, I'll also try to have links to the sources, I'll also try to be unbiased while editing the numbers. Much regards, Basilis L. Halophtes Basilis L. Halophtes (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange picture

[edit]

I would prefer to see a more appealing, or interpretable picture as the "front" picture of the article. Say a church, or Christian gathering or a monumental cross would be more representative. The problem I see is that when hovering on a hyperlink to the article in another article, the picture as it stands is incomprehensible - at the least making Christianity appear to be a relic. 49.181.59.100 (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Kristne" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kristne and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Kristne until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I don't get it, why are there (once again) two articles about the same thing?

[edit]

This and Christianity. It's like having an article called "Socialists", or idk, "citizens of the People's Republic of China", or "Wal-Mart employees". Seriously Mike F (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to you elsewhere. Same answer here. -Roxy the dog 13:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't use the word "answer", but okay. Someone else pointed out the point of having the Mormons article, but I certainly still think that this here article would better be subsumed under Christianity.You know, socialists have kind of their own culture, too, and so do carpenters (I assume), yet those fit nicely in one article. And if they didn't, because Info would get too long, we would make a more specific article perhaps titled "Socialist culture" (perhaps there os a similar thing right now, don't know, besides the point), to make sure we have neatly distinguishable topics and all that. Less repeat information, less confusion and time spent for both readers and editors, what am I saying, these arguments must have been made on Wikipedia thousands of times already. Of course, this article is by now probably way too long and chances for it to be integrated into the other one are probably slim. But I am noticing this and other kinds of content bloat everywhere on Wikipedia and I guess I just wanted to comment upon it Mike F (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, this here article even defines "Christians" as the "people who follow or adhere to Christianity" (and rightly so), which takes me back to my original point that these are two articles about the same thing, that is, two articles who should logically cover the same contents, at best from slightly different perspectives, thus making one of the two simply unnecessary.

But let's say that I am wrong or that my argument isn't relevant for the practical organization of wikipedia for some reason. Let's indeed look at the anyways much more important question what the existence of this article means in practical terms. Well, one can certainly see how people have made an effort only to include information in this here article that in some sense or other seems to more directly pertain to Christians "as people". But then, when you look over to Christianity, you will notice how those same headings are covered in that article as well. And that is a good thing, because they belong there, and not having them there would make that article incomplete as an overview article, and put things out of context. Which, in turn, are offenses that this here article could be accused of. It is also not the case that this is a longer, more specialized elaboration containing info on a more specific subject matter that would be too long for the overview article - we already have articles like Christian culture for that purpose, and they are obviously much better suited and more clearly named. This is, instead, trying to be an unnecessary second overview article when we already have a better one. Oh, there certainly is info included here that isn't found under Christianity (and vice versa more obviously so), but that isn't a good thing at all, it's just confusing to the reader as well as to the editor, and therefore makes wikipedia harder to use.

(Sorry for my constantly bad formatting btw, I don't really have the time to type from a PC right now and I have no clue how to format on wikipedia from my phone)

Edit: Naturally, there have been merger discussions already, but a very long time ago. To be found in the archives now Mike F (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about anybody else, but I am not persuaded. - Roxy the dog 10:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

[edit]

Please remove flags from infoboxes per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. 112.204.197.139 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See my comments to you on your same request on Talk:Muslims. This is a relatively long standing status quo that matches other articles of its type, so I'd ask that a consensus is developed before that change is made. I'll note that MOS:INFOBOXFLAG specifies that in "human geographic articles" consensus will dictate the use of flags. Bestagon ⬡ 19:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)"[reply]
See my response also at 8#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_5_June_2023. This is a straightforward edit request supported by MOS. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox

[edit]

The infobox should look like this to reflect the fact that these are 2 very different denominations and simply sharing the name “Orthdoox” does not make them the same category:

Christians
After the miraculous catch of fish, Christ invokes his disciples to become "fishers of men" (Matthew 4:19) by Raphael
Total population
c. 2.4 billion
(31.1% of the global population)Increase
(Worldwide, 2020 est.)[1][2][3][4]
Founder
Jesus Christ, according to sacred tradition[5]
Regions with significant populations
United States246,790,000[4]
Brazil175,770,000[4]
Mexico107,780,000[4]
Russia105,220,000[4]
Philippines86,790,000[4]
Nigeria80,510,000[4]
China67,070,000[4]
DR Congo63,150,000[4]
India62,000,000[6][7]
Germany58,240,000[4]
Ethiopia52,580,000[4]
Italy51,550,000[4]
United Kingdom45,030,000[4]
Religions
Christianity
Scriptures
Bible (Old and New Testament)
Languages
  • Predominant spoken languages:[8]
Sacred languages:

Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ "Religion Information Data Explorer | GRF". www.globalreligiousfutures.org. Retrieved 2022-10-13.
  2. ^ Johnson, Todd M.; Grim, Brian J., eds. (2020). "All Religions (global totals)". World Religion Database. Leiden, Boston: BRILL, Boston University.
  3. ^ "Christianity 2015: Religious Diversity and Personal Contact" (PDF). gordonconwell.edu. January 2015. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 May 2017. Retrieved 29 May 2015.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Analysis (19 December 2011). "Global Christianity" (PDF). Pewforum.org. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
  5. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2014). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. HarperOne. ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6.
  6. ^ Melton, J. Gordon (2005). Encyclopedia of Protestantism. Infobase Publishing. pp. 284–285. ISBN 978-0-8160-6983-5. Today, the Christian community in India includes approximately 62 million people, about 6 percent of the population. Of these, 14 million are Roman Catholic and 3 million are Orthodox.
  7. ^ Melton, J. Gordon; Baumann, Martin (2010). Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, 2nd Edition [6 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. pp. 1399, 1401–1403. ISBN 978-1-59884-204-3. Protestants 21,100,000 Independents 18,200,000 Roman Catholics 21,700,000 (2010)
  8. ^ Johnson, Todd M.; Grim, Brian J. (2013). The World's Religions in Figures: An Introduction to International Religious Demography (PDF). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 10. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 October 2013. Retrieved 24 November 2015.
  9. ^ A history of ancient Greek by Maria Chritē, Maria Arapopoulou, Centre for the Greek Language (Thessalonikē, Greece) pg 436 ISBN 0-521-83307-8
  10. ^ Wilken, Robert Louis (27 November 2012). The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-300-11884-1.

Undefined ref

[edit]

@Chengqingy: please provide a citation for the ref you named "pew research", which has no definition. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing the title to "Christian"?

[edit]

I don't know how long the title has been "Christians", but the pronunciation given and the audio file both say "Christian". It is highly anomalous for an article's title to be needlessly in the plural. Polar Apposite (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2024

[edit]

Hey, please update the population of the Philippine Christians to 98,240,844 I am being paid by the Philippine Iglesia Ni Cristo Association to push to update the page. Please update the Philippine population of christians to 98,240,844 thanks ZhongwenYouLiYen2837474 (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Thank you for disclosing that you are being paid to edit. Please see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure if you haven't already. Jamedeus (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chirestan

[edit]

What I see here is no support for the Latin ending "ianos" to mean or denote "adhering to". Just like the American dictionaries that have added to its meaning and so has Wikipedia. Even the source Wikipedia referred to [17]in the text doesn't support anything beyond, ownership. Citation need should come after "adhering to" 37.111.210.156 (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was in Greek, not Latin. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christians&oldid=1249251369"