Talk:Christians/Archive 3

Etymology

The etymology of a concept or a term is typically dealt with first, on the grounds that it articulates the usage of the term, e.g. 'Christian', within the text. Mephistophelian (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And it happens to be completely meaningless. In the context of the article it does nothing to inform the reader of the prime importance of the term...i.e. what is a Christian. What a Hebrew thinks of the term or the Arabic is completely meaningless...nice to know, but meaningless. That is why I moved it to the bottom of the page. I still feel strongly about it being there.

What do you think the value is to readers having it at the beginning?--^StormRider 00:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Etymologies aren't meaningless, and are only intended to detail the history of a term. Strictly, Hebrew and Arabic terminology shouldn't fall under the etymology of the word 'Christian,' which ought to cover only related or derivative terms, not comparative ones. Mephistophelian (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the "other languages" sections to the end under "usage". HokieRNB 04:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I re-positioned the sentence concerning other European languages, which leads on from the mention of the Greek origins of the term. Mephistophelian (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mere Christianity

The introduction to Mere Christianity may be a useful source here. --Nerd42 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian behavior

Is it appropriate for an encyclopedia article to have open-ended questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.110.155 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Christianity is a diverse religion with no central authority or figure defining it. It is divided into various lineages and denominations, referred to as churces, each with its own organisational structure and level of centralisation. Due to its decentralized nature, there is some disagreement over what actually constitutes a Christian.

85.220.16.234 (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening par.

(Okay Xenu.)

The intro is much too wordy, and trespasses on content properly covered by Christianity. A "Christian" is either the noun for a follower of Christianity, or an adjective referring to the same religion. There--clear and concise. We don't need to re-hash what "Christianity" means--that's why there's that other article.

Oh yeah, and we also need some sort of disambiguation for (to name just two) Christian (name) (not to be confused with Christian name) and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). (Could be a separate page.) Update: Done.

On "Christian" as an honorific ("that's not very Christian of you"), since it is mainly Christians and cultural Christians who speak this way, I see it as a subset of normal adjectival meaning. Unless recent examples of non-Christians speaking this way can be found, this usage should probably be relegated to somewhere lower on the page. --Dawud 118.165.204.208 (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

On 'The term "Christian" is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like.' The source should be reviewed and line removed, as this is not an objective statement and was written by a Catholic theologian. Contextually, the line also refers to why Christians began associating themselves with the term 'Christian' when it had pejorative connotations. --Furankusu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furankusu (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It really should not imply that acceptance of the canonical gospels is required. Wiki shouldn't become party to promoting one sect over another or to excluding groups like the gnotics who are rightly called christians but did/do not accept the canonical gospels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.161.39 (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ReligiousTolerance

Do you guys think the source, ReligiousTolerance, is reliable? 96.52.227.71 says it's not, but I'm not really sure. So could I get some comments on this, please? Endofskull (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

religioustolerance.org

I don't believe this group qualifies as a Reliable Source. A few paragraphs in the article are quotes or paraphrases of their site, so these should be removed.

They don't qualify, because none of the five authors composing the group has any academic or professional qualification in religious studies or another relevant discipline.

Here's their self-description:

• The coordinator and main author, Bruce Robinson, is a retired Electronics Engineer and an Agnostic. He was born in 1936 and graduated in 1959 from the University of Toronto with a BaSc degree in Engineering Physics. He worked as an Instrument development and computer science professional, both in supervisory and technical capacities for 38 years at a large multi-national chemical/textile fibers company. A significant part of his work was to write technical manuals. He has been a volunteer technical staff person for the National Model Railroad Association, and a vice coordinator for a local distress (suicide prevention) agency.
• The office manager is a retired Registered Nurse and an Atheist, who has worked in a variety of fields: executive director of a shelter for abused women, head nurse in a hospital, and field worker for the Government of Ontario working in a disability support program.
• One of our researchers is a Christian with a PhD in urban planning, and worked as a post-doctoral fellow at the Sustainable Development Research Institute in Vancouver, BC, Canada. She is now a professor at the Ryerson University.
• Another researcher is a Zen Buddhist, was a IT system manager, and is now a post-production sound editor.
• Our other researcher is a waitress, currently unemployed, and a Wiccan.

None of us has any formal education in theology.

Here's the relevant WP policy on self-published sources:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Religioustolerance.org falls squarely into the category of a self-published source. Don't get me wrong, it's not a terrible website. But it's basically equivalent to a group blog, and therefore is not a suitable source for Wikipedia. There are religious studies departments at thousands of universities. We don't need to rely on a group of well-meaning but self-taught amateurs. In fact, we're not allowed to. ChrisB 96.52.227.71 (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to wait on this for a couple more days, and if there's no comment, I'll cut this material. ChrisB 96.52.227.71 (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What's this "We don't need to rely on a group of well-meaning but self-taught amateurs" ! As far as the academic religious experts of that day (and this) were concerned, Jesus and the apostles were exactly that.

Jesus had no academic or professional qualifications, He was by no means an "established expert", but whether you like it or not, His word recorded in the Bible is still the final authoritative source on all matters relating to Christianity.

According to Jesus, it is impossible for academics, theologians and religious experts to understand the gospel message. (Matthew 11:25)(Also Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:20-29)

So all that's left is "amateur" Christians, who have put His teaching into practice, and have thereby discovered that His gospel proves to be true. Darkman101 (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the rules of Wikipedia are unrelated to the preachings of the Gospels. Let's say everything you've said is unarguably true: have the rules of Wikipedia changed? No. Because they aren't established from the Bible. So whether you agree or not is irrelevant: Wikipedia wants reliable sources, and by the criteria established the website under discussion is not one of them. It doesn't matter if the Gospel says academics cannot know the Gospel message, they aren't trying to. GManNickG (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Darkman wasn't interested in defending religioustolerance.org (they are not exactly pro-Gospel or anything); this feels like an excuse to identify an unrelated critical statement with criticism of Jesus. I dislike it when people draw dichotomies that are unnecessary such as this odd one here between asking for reliability and following Jesus. As to the rule, I think the Bible has a similar one to WP:RS and WP:V: "Test everything; hold on to the good." ^{1 Th 5:21} It is possibly in reference to evaluating someone who claims to be a prophet, but I see no reason one could not apply it to others who claim to be reliable. If we are to have articles that are encyclopedic and undeniably sourced, it is critically important to count the cost and be prepared to do the hard work of finding solid, reliable sources and neutrally relaying what they have to say ("do not add or take away" indeed). There is no reason a Christian worldview must be unnecessarily opposed to having reliable, verifiable articles that neutrally present what the sources say. I will get off my WP soapbox now, let's get back to improving the article.

-- Joren (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic, I am in agreement that they should not be used as a source. I encountered a Religious Tolerance reference on another article that I removed for similar reasons some time ago. However, we need to find good sources we can use. I'll see what I can do, but my Google-fu is weak today and I will not be at a library for a bit.

-- Joren (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, this has been left here long enough and I don't see any new comments on the matter, so I'll take the plunge and remove it. The last time I removed this source from this article, someone else kept restoring it but wouldn't comment as to why (at least, that I can remember/see in the history logs). Eventually I just rewrote it to avoid plagiarism and left it here because I ran out of energy and really didn't feel like an edit war. Anyway, I am removing it, and the burden of proof will be on the person wishing to restore it.

-- Joren (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-trinitarians

The article contained this statement about non-trinitarians:

This small group is generally not considered Christians by any of the three major branches of Christianity.

The problem with this is that it's not really true, and if it were true it would need substantiation.

Regarding its truth, let's look the Roman Catholic case, cos it' generally easier to pin down what they believe than with the other branches, which consist of many different churches.

Three important non-Tritarian groups are Arians (historically), Mormons, and Unitarians, all of which have regarded themselves as Christian (though many Unitarian Universalists no longer do). Historically, the Roman Catholics regarded Arians as heretics, that is, wrong-thinking Christians, not as non-Christians. They accept some Unitarian groups as (heretical) Christians, but reject Mormon claims to be Christians.

So, the claim fails.

CBurd 96.52.227.71 (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(The comment below is not mine.)

Early usage =

The `early usage' page is completely inaccurate, the term `christian' only appears in those versus as an English translation of the ancient words actually used. The term `christian' wasn't coined until sometime between 1250 and 1300 AD. It is an appropriate translation in those versus, but misleading to say that they're examples of early usage of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.176.88 (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this isn't true. The 4th century Vulgate uses the word, and I believe earlier Greek versions did too. For example, Acts 11:26:

et annum totum conversati sunt in ecclesia et docuerunt turbam multam ita ut cognominarentur primum Antiochiae discipuli Christiani.

"And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

ChrisB 96.52.227.71 (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the issue at hand. While it is true that the English translation of the word was not around during the New Testament times, the term itself clearly originated as it was stated in the article. Therefore, by simply removing the word "Christian" from the opening sentence of the paragraph, it remains unqualifiedly true. (I made up that word.) HokieRNB 01:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition

"is a person who adheres to Christianity," Not one "christian" does that so the description is terrible. It should be changed.--Somepers99 (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? The term 'Christian' is used as a person who adheres to Christianity. DarkLightA (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Central to the Christian faith is love". Although love is clearly something of great importance to being a Christian, this statement tends to contradict the article about Christianity. Instead I would suggest that the gospel is central to being a Christian. The article on the Gospel supports this with its reference to 1 Corinthians 15, where the apostle Paul states that the death and resurrection of Jesus is of first importance. So, the death and resurrection of Jesus is top importance, whereas in the earlier chapters of the same letter when he indicates that love is the greatest, he means love is the greatest virtue (greater than faith and hope). So I would suggest the first paragraph perhaps be changed to be

"... based on the life, death, resurrection and teachings of Jesus...", unless life includes death and resurrection, which it normally doesn't. Then in the second paragraph I would've thought should say

"Central to the Christian faith is the gospel." Later reference could also be a statement that love is important for Christians.

(Colmckdub (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmckdub (talk • contribs) 06:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Baylor University Study - Incorrect Percentages

The following line cannot be correct: "The majority (62.9 percent) of Americans not affiliated with a religious tradition believe in God or some higher power."

Firstly this section starts off by saying that 33% are "Evangelical Protestants by affiliation" now as a catholic I know that about another 30% are catholics so how can the above statement about 62.9% being unaffiliated be correct??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.238.19 (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The way the phrase is written, it is actually talking about 62.9% of non-affiliated Americans, not 62.9% of all Americans. However, thanks for bringing this up anyway, because after clicking through to the source to investigate the statistic, I realized it looks like the statistics were just copied and pasted in their entirety. That's a problem, because that's plagiarism and (depending on whether/not Baylor studies are considered public domain) potentially a copyright violation as well... not good. I'll have to see what we can do to address this...

-- Joren (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to de-plagiarize it as best I could. I tried to avoid simply moving some words around, because that would still be plagiarism, so I rewrote it from scratch where I could and put quote marks around the stuff that needed to be quoted. If someone else in their sound judgement thinks it's better to just delete the section and start over, I have no problem with that :) Honestly, I'm not really sure why we have so much demographics in what is supposed to be a global article on what a Christian is. Seems like it'd be better to have such localized demographic breakdowns in Christianity in the United States, in my opinion. But for now, the section has been rewritten, and feel free to do so again if needed.

-- Joren (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of 'Christian' in other senses from lede

The following section was removed from the lede on the explanation that it was 'not appropriate':

The term "Christian" is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like."(ref)

In my view, this is important information for the lede, as the word 'Christian' is used frequently in the sense of a virtue unrelated to actually having Christian belief. Perhaps as frequently as it is used to refer to people who follow Christian doctrine. I would therefore expect it to be placed in the lede of this article.

I would be interested to hear the viewpoint of the user who removed it.--Korruski^Talk 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism examples in lede

I removed the 'example' Nontrinitarians addition to the lede, which said, This includes Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and others. - see this edit.

I removed it because there is no mention of either Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists anywhere else in the article (except link); as the first section should be a summary of the rest, therefore, this addition did not seem appropriate. Additionally, it was unreferenced.

(Note to the anon user who added it: a wikilink is not a reference; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:V)

 Chzz  ►  15:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur... my main concern is that it places undue emphasis to single out one denomination as an example of non-trinitarianism. Also, it is far from being discriminatory; to the contrary, we do not currently list individual examples of Protestantism or Orthodoxy either. Rather than lifting a single example above the rest, the list of Trinitarians seeks to describe the majority of the entire movement (yes, it leaves out some nondenominational groups). Asking us to list the Jehovah's WItnesses is like asking us to list Methodists, or Presbyterians, since not doing so when there's a link to JWs would be discriminatory. JWs do not have a lock on nontrinitarianism (see LDS, Christadelphians, Arianism, Oneness Pentecostal, Universalism...) that's gonna take up a lot of lede space to list them all, just as it would to list all Protestant denoms, Orthodox national churches, Catholic rites, independent groups... etc. There is no broad-based "ism" that covers nontrinitarianism that I'm aware of... other than, well, nontrinitarianism. Thankfully, nontrinitarianism is a wikilink, which means the reader can click it and see a comprehensive description of what it is, including denominations/groupings that fall in this category.

I also left a reply on User talk:JeffreyW75 explaining why his edits were reverted, including the example of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

-- Joren (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes good sense to me; thanks for the comprehensive explanation, and for taking the trouble to explain to the editor. See also User talk:12.71.173.5. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonconcur. You are making this article about Christians to be too exclusive of minority groups, and offensive to some that don't believe in the beliefs you state Christians believe in. It's easy to find articles that say this and that about Christian beliefs, much more difficult to find ones that are accurate about the diversity of beliefs--you are just citing mainstream, and excluding minority groups--discriminatory (maybe not intentional, but still discriminatory in effect). This article should be more open, less discriminatory against non-mainstream beliefs. The person above that suggested changing the lede to a short and sweet opening is correct--just say a Christian is a believer in Christianity or something like that. As soon as you start adding beliefs, you betray the objectiveness of the article--it starts being skewed toward particular groups, and against other groups of Christians. Just like you listed a denomination for trinitarians--Roman Catholics--clearly a denomination, yet you reject placing JW's and CS's as non-trinitiarians, even though they are denominations also. Both have links to the other wikipeida articles--why list examples of one, but not the other? Because the article is skewed and discriminatory, not objectively worded. A sensitive subject like religious should be written about by people sensitive to the nuances of religious beliefs, and more open and objective. Right now, it sounds like it was written by someone from mainstream religion that rejects the other groups, but is forced to give a few soundbites here and there. I say redo the entire lede and keep it short and sweet. Don't go into all the various types of beliefs--leave that to the article on Christianity. There you should be free to go into all the diverse beliefs of Christianity. Let this article just state that a Christian is a person that believes in Christianity, and be more accepting of diversity of beliefs. There are many groups that reject minority groups as "Christians" because they think they are cults or too different from their views. This is the same action that happens over and over again in society--people exclude the minorities because they are different. Wikipedia should be different--open and accepting of diversity. If you insist on adding beliefs that some groups subscribe to, you should change the article to be more specific and detailed, as well as balanced. And not skewed. But I say delete most of this stuff, and keep it short and sweet. I'll get off my soapbox now . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.173.5 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This specific discussion was about one edit, and whether or not it should be removed. If you have a specific suggestion for adding or amending any other content, please propose it in a new section, and we can see if there is consensus. Chzz  ►  00:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, Chzzzz, it's already been proposed above. Contrary to the narrow view, this is all related. It is interesting that you encourage discussion, but said above that you agreed with the opposing side before this side of the discussion even had a chance to voice it's side. That's not a good way to foster discussion. You should give both sides a chance to discuss this before jumping on one side's reasoning--keep an open mind and an open discussion, not appear to be biased in the discussion. Not what I expect from wikipedia, disappointing. Also, note the discussion above did discuss this topic, and not one person has given a reasoned discussion back from the other side. Lots of short, quick, apparently biased statements, but nothing that goes to the substance of the issue here--this article is not objective, and is presenting a narrow view of Christians and Christianity. The content being discussed in this section is part of the problem. It is offensive to some Christians, and skewed toward others. Wikipedia should not be so biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.173.5 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To repeat, Roman Catholicism is a denomination, and it is listed as an example of trinitarian viewpoints. It isn't necessary in the lede, should be removed. But since you have it here, you should give equal emphasis to the nontrinitarian view by giving examples such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, or others. By not doing that, you are revealing your bias, and the article is not balanced. Why give specific examples in the article of one side, but not the other? If the reason is that Roman Catholicism is mentioned in the content below, well, that is fine and great, but the article is incomplete and always will be while there are Christians alive. In other words, that argument doesn't hold water because the article will evolve--Jehovah's Witnesses could easily be added into the content--for example, a section on discriminated-against Christians, or controversial Christians. But in reality, the entire introduction is cumbersome, awkward, redundant, non-objective, poorly written, etc. It should be short and sweet, to the point. But if you insist on giving examples in the intro about trinitarians, then the article must be balanced to include examples of nontrinitarians. Examples don't have to be JW's and CS's, although it would be odd not to include them. It could be some other group that is well known, or could be a "non-denominational" group that holds all kinds of ideas, including nontrinitarian views, like Bill Gothard or something (just using him as an example, not saying his group holds those views, but I imagine at least some do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.173.5 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for explaining that. you seem to be misunderstanding the way Wikipedia works; there is no central authority for editorial decisions - I have just as much right to my opinion as you do. We're all just Wikipedia editors.

Anyone can edit - and it is encouraged, to make bold changes.

If any other editors disagree with a change, they can remove it.

And when people disagree, we all talk about it, and try to reach some agreement.

If we can't reach a consensus, then there are other options - asking other (yes, normal wikipedians) to help mediate.

So - in the event of a disagreement, such as we have here, it is necessary to stick to a clear, specific point.

At the start of this section, I said what the issue was - and people have responded.

It is easy to get side-tracked, and start discussing other concerns regarding the article, or indeed, about bias throughout Wikipedia - but, we need to stick to the issue at hand.

That issue is, that - with the rest of the article as it is - the 'example' Nontrinitarians should not be in the lede.

I stated that it should not, and why - and my reason is absolutely nothing to do with any bias, or anything else - it is, simply because the fact is unreferenced. It isn't verifiable. And, because there should not be information in the lede section if the same information is not elaborated upon within the body.

That is the only thing we're discussing in this section.

If you want to rewrite the entire lede, or even the entire article - that's absolutely fine; go for it.

If you think your idea needs discussion, then by all means, begin a discussion - in a new section - being specific; ie "I think X should change to Y for A, B and C reasons."

I hope that helps clarify. Thanks for taking the time to respond, and thanks for reading this. Best,  Chzz  ►  12:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see a balanced approach was finally taken here, and the examples removed of Trinitarians (Roman Catholic, etc.) and the few that were advocating for keeping those and deleting the few examples of Non Trinitarians were overruled. It is less discriminatory now against non-trinitarians. JeffreyW75 (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffreyW75 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Eurocentric image of Jesus

I think its totally appropriate that this article has a "Depiction of Jesus, from whom Christians derive their name as they believe He is the Son of God and the Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Hebrew Bible."

However, the image by Bernhard Plockhorst - Good Shephard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bernhard_Plockhorst_-_Good_Shephard.jpg) is an incredibly Eurocentric, Victorian, silly image of said Messiah. Would somebody A) smarter than me and B) with more editing privileges please find a more mid-eastern, or Jewish looking, or reverent, or abstracted image of this Jesus fellow. I currently can't find a worse image of Jesus on Wikipedia, so pretty much replacing it with any other available image would be a big improvement.

I personally find the images on Wikipedia hugely helpful, and hugely influential in helping people make sense out of the world :) Thanks to everyone making any sincere contributions to any section of Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superninjaspy (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the opening statement. I think it is totally inappropriate to have a "depiction of Jesus". For starters, no such image exists, all we have are artists musings, and most of them are so far from any possibility of what a first century Jewish person would have looked like, they should probably never have been created. More to the point, however, is that this article is not about the historical person of Jesus, but rather about the term "Christian". I have removed it, and I hope it stays gone forever. I would vote to delete the image for the sake of art itself, but I doubt that I would find support for that move. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reversed the edit removing the photo all together. I think it is important that we have an image in this article. Moreover, it is not for us to decide whether an image of Jesus is artistically pleasing or not. Throughout the centuries, different artists have rendered Jesus in many different ways. It seems as if the "Good Shepherd" image is already used on the Christianity article. The mosaic inserted by User:Superninjaspy is already used in the article on Jesus. As a result, I have supplanted the image with a popular image of "The Head of Christ." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there is an issue regarding fair use for Sallman's painting. As a result I am inserting another image that is not used in any of the other Christian-related articles. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree with the opening statement. This article is about Christians (followers of Christ), not strictly about Christ Himself. We are discussing which image of Christ to use, but instead we might use an image of a Christian (whatever that may look like!) or an acceptable symbol or icon, e.g. a cross. This will be much more representative of a large part of Christianity. Some regard any depiction of Christ inappropriate. Please have a look at the related thread "Edit request from Xhart, 3 June 2011"[1] below. Thermofan (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the users that state that the artistic depiction of a Eurocentric Christ is in appropriate for this article. It could be placed along side of the text or body of the article and properly labeled (something like who the artist is and what it represents). But putting it at the top of the article like it is now just seems sort of biased and narrow-minded. Time for this article to expand beyond the narrow European/American view of Christianity and adopt a more pluralistic view, realizing that Christianity takes many forms and many views these days. I think that this site has sort of been taken over by people who haven't had much experience in what various types of Christians really believe (or at least claim to believe), or understand the full scope of diversity in modern Christianity. JeffreyW75 (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

UK in top 20

Surely the UK should be up there too? Looking now in my other tab of Religion in the United Kingdom, wikipedia lists the UK having 42,079,000 Christians. That's more than Ukraine and Ukraine is up there. I don't want to add it in case there's a reason the UK isn't up there, so if anyone knows that there isn't a reason then please add that. Reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_Kingdom#Religions_in_United_Kingdom.2C_2001 Zolstijers. —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

 Done - The main article is Christianity by country, which itself relies on the individual articles for each country, such as the UK one you mentioned above. Updates in local articles tend to take a while to "trickle up" to Christianity by country, which then has to be used to update the list here... sadly, the process is not automatic. In the future, please feel free to be bold and edit yourself! The worst thing that could happen is someone would undo your edit and explain why; no shame in that, it's just part of bold, revert, discuss. Thanks for bringing this to attention here.

-- Joren (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Although generally when I just edit without asking I just start an edit war. Zolstijers —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

Slight change to lead paragraph to reflect common usage

Since another editor differed in opinion, I'll start a section on the changes I was working on for the lead paragraph.

The wording before was:

A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. "Christian" derives from the Greek word Christ, a translation of the Hebrew term Messiah.

which I changed to:

"Christian" is a label typically adopted to describe a person who adheres to some variant of Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. The word "Christian" derives from the Greek word Christ, a translation of the Hebrew term Messiah.

My reasoning is this. Although the original wording was in many ways accurate, it does not reflect common usage. Many identify as "Christian" or are called "Christian" despite having little to no religious belief or activity. As such, it merely becomes a label rather than an identity. For example, we hear terms like "The US is a Christian nation", yet we see many things that are clearly antithetical to the teachings found in the New Testament being played out in society. I could easily go on and on with examples, but in this editor's opinion, the newer wording is more honest about the way the word is used. It is one thing to quickly adopt or throw a label at someone, and quite another to actually change one's life and 'adhere to the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth' (paraphrasing the article).

Additionally, although it is not related to the above change, I added slightly to a sentence in the second paragraph.

Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity ("tri-unity"), a description of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which retains the monotheistic belief of Christianity's Abrahamic heritage through an ineffable confluence.

This change was made to underscore that Christians honor the belief in Judaism of one God. Thank you. I welcome any feedback. -- Avanu (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This smacks of original research. You could make the same case for "American" - people identify as American and yet don't have any true understanding of the principles of what it means to be American. Or "Muslim". Or any such label. The point is, the article should reflect an accurate representation of what a Christian is - according to reliable sources. If you find that the preponderance of sources suggest that the word "Christian" refers more commonly to the label than the set of beliefs, by all means feel free to add that to the lead. By the way, it's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRD. Ἀλήθεια 18:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, bad example with "American". American just means you live or lived in America. There are no 'principles' involved. Muslim would be exactly the same argument as in this article, and would probably benefit from the same changes. The point in the change is not changing what Christian is, it is making it clear how it is used. Clearly the point I was making is being overlooked. I'll give an example.

• "Paul followed the teachings of Christ and lived according to his ways."
• "Paul is a Christian."
• "John causes fights, gets drunk, and cusses almost every person he meets, and John calls himself a Christian."

One sentence is a detailed account of the person's actions. The second sentence uses a label, and may or may not reflect the person's actions. -- Avanu (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the clause "which retains the monotheistic belief of Christianity's Abrahamic heritage through an ineffable confluence" from the second paragraph. It sounds like original research and the concept of "ineffable confluence" is not explained. The phrase links to the article on "ineffable" which does not elucidate it at all. This article does not make reference to the term again after its initial usage. To me the clause seems to reflect a particular take on christian theology and unclearly expresses a POV that could be woven somewhere into the body of the article if it were properly cited. Lvprice (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Xhart, 3 June 2011

Hello! My request is simple. Is there at all find a way for the Christian profile picture to change as it is viewed via Facebook?

I understand that this is more on the Facebook end of things, but perhaps there is a way to trigger something on Facebook. I was considering the possibility of an image such as the icthus fish or even the cross. My reasoning is simple: no one knows what Jesus looks like, but he likely didn't look like a pansy white guy with feathered hair and an inexplicable golden aura that follows him wherever he goes (save maybe for the transfiguration and sans "pansy white guy with feathered hair.")

If there is a way to reorder the images so that Facebook picks it up or something, that would be great. I just think the fish or cross would be more universal for Christians worldwide.

Thanks! Xhart (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. GaneshBhakt (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a significant issue to many people I have contacted on facebook. With the (possible) exception of Roman Catholics, many Christians shy away from depictions of Christ altogether. I agree: a simple cross as the first image would be better, with the Christ-paintings lower down. Please have a look at the thread, Eurocentric image of Jesus, above. Thermofan (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Facebook formats and such should be a driving force for changing a Wikipedia article. If it is that big of a deal to Facebook users, then they can petition Facebook and its managers to fix it on that end. With that said, in regard to the Wikipedia article, I don't think the current image is good for the page to show a diverse view and constituency of Christianity. I'd say it would be better to have no picture on it, since it is so difficult to find one symbol/picture that really encompasses the diverse views of Christianity. Catholics say one thing, Baptists another, Mormons another, etc, etc. The current picture could be moved to the body just as a reference to an artistic European view of Christ, with that annotated properly under the picture. JeffreyW75 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, except that the image is already placed in the body of the article rather than the lead. I'm removing it. - – Fayenatic (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to reword from absolute to generalist opening sentence.

The opening sentence identifies Christianity as "... an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion." This seems quite POV and exclusive of many faith groups who would self-identify as Christian though not within an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion. This has been touched on above, and I'm not looking to rework the whole article, but I would propose a fair and neutral wording from

"A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament."

to

"A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a generally Abrahamic and monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament.

I also wonder if in this sentence, 'gospels' should not be capitalized (i.e. the Gospels). I don't believe this treatment is commonly included for the letters. See (Gigot, F. (1909). Gospel and Gospels. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved September 26, 2011 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm)I'm going to be bold and capitalize 'gospels' but I welcome discussion on the proposal to add 'generally' in the lead. Oh yeah, in the source I used for capitalizing 'gospels' it may be noticed that the headings of the article do not capitalize 'Gospels' but that seems to be a style form as none of the other title words are capitalized, throughout the main article 'Gospels' is capitalized. --Canadiandy talk 02:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How is the description not a neutral and accurate description of Christianity? Read WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. -- Avanu (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, Avanu. Have you been editing here long? To answer your question, without the qualifier, 'generally' a number of faiths (Arians (historically), Mormons, Unitarians...) who self-identify as Christian are excluded which is at best unfair, but more likely POV.--Canadiandy talk 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Having capitalized 'Gospels' I see that the adjective 'Canonical' is capitalized, but I think it is meant to be lower case. Does anyone have justification for capitalizing 'canonical'?--Canadiandy talk 15:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You're just wrong, Canadiandy1. To quote Wikipedia:

On Arianism: The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father.

On Unitarianism: Unitarians adhere to strict monotheism, and maintain that Jesus was a great man and a prophet of God, perhaps even a supernatural being, but not God himself.

Being a Mormon yourself, you ought to know that Mormons aka Latter-day Saints, don't really believe in polytheism. The problem I often see with you Andy, is that you often want to get an argument started about a very very well-settled issue. Its tiresome and unwelcome and unhelpful. The preponderance of sources agree with the statement: "Christianity is an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament."

Just because you want a lot of weird exceptions doesn't change what the sources say. Again, how is the current wording not a Neutral Point of View on this subject, and how is the treatment of the material undue? -- Avanu (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, your personal and religious condescensions are not helpful. You are doing your credibility as an editor a real disservice. To answer your condescending accusation that "...being a Mormon...[I] ought to know Latter-day Saints don't really believe in polytheism" I include this explanation from fairmormon.org.

There really is not a single word that adequately captures LDS thought on the nature of God. Pertinent key technical terminology includes the following:

Monotheism (belief that there is only one God)

Tritheism (understanding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct Gods)

Polytheism (worship of, or belief in, more than one God)

Henotheism (worship of one God without denying the existence of other Gods; also called Monolatry)

Trinitarianism (belief that God consists of three Persons in one substance)

Social Trinitarianism (belief that the oneness of the three Persons is not one of substance but is social in nature [e.g., unity of thought, etc.])

Modalism (belief that there is only one God that does not exist as three separate Persons but rather manifests itself in three different "modes" [i.e., as Father, Son, or Holy Ghost])

...Trinitarians are not Monotheists by definition (just ask a Jew or Muslim).

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in substance, and believe in deification/theosis (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), has been used to paint Mormons as polytheists. When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship versus acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. In the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, however, or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

Instead of using a single-word label, one must actually articulate the belief (using fully-developed sentences or paragraphs). The single-word label that will adequately describe the full breadth of LDS thought on the nature of God has yet to be coined.

See http://fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Polytheism

While you can simplify your argument by declaring Mormons are not polytheistic, that does not make them necessarily monotheistic. These labels confuse the issue. My point is that the article seems to read in such a manner that if one does not believe in Jesus Christ as the only God in the universe that they are not Christian. This type of an exclusionary defining of what it means to be a Christian is likely erroneous and insensitive to many out there. I do not refute the fact that Christians throughout the world are predominantly monotheistic, that is why I would simply add the word 'generally.' I would be happy with 'predominantly' or some other variation of it. I just thought I'd bring it up here for discussion. Given your approach and tone towards my initial post, though, it looks best that I step away from this one as I don't want to see another ongoing personal argument here.--Canadiandy talk 19:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey all. Most of you will not be aware there seems to be some bad blood between Avanu and I. I fear this thing might turn into another back and forth so I'm going to step out and let the "senior" editors take this one where they will. My only request is that the general community here select one or two trusted neutral editors to make the call on what to do with this one. In summation, it might be seen as insensitive to leave the article reading, in essence, that if one is not monotheistic one is not Christian. This seems to be an absolute which is exclusive. I proposed adding 'generally' (though 'predominantly' might reflect the numbers better) as a way of respecting those who might self-identify as being 'Christian' while not falling within this framework.

-"And that, Headmaster, is all I have to tell you." (Fifth Business, Robertson Davies)--Canadiandy talk 05:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

All too often, these arguments in Wikipedia fall into how a person personally believes something. However, our policies and guidelines ask for us to follow what our reliable sources say and what is a neutral take on the subject matter, along with what is due or undue. Andy, you might personally think Mormonism is polytheistic or henotheistic or some other variant, but that does not mean the sources agree with you. Nor does it mean your personal interpretation of those sources is the right interpretation. You seem to be focused on whether we are being "sensitive" to people who believe differently, and while common courtesy is a reasonable thing, it is not the primary goal of an encyclopedia to 'tread lightly'. So, in keeping with my original question, how is the description currently not a neutral and accurate description of Christianity? -- Avanu (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We can dialogue at our talk pages. I'll leave this one alone.--Canadiandy talk 06:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, your statements above are rude and not helpful here. I agree the wording should be changed. Certain people from what is called "mainstream" Christianity seem to have drafted parts of this article and their opinions seem to have skewed the content toward their beliefs, while leaving out other groups. I believe adding "generally" would be more inclusive of other beliefs outside of "mainstream" christianity, and it should be changed. Wikipedia isn't here to offend, nor is it here to exclude. If you want a "mainstream" christianity that excludes others that don't agree with your views, then I suggest you move your content over to religious site that allows you to exclude those that don't believe the way you do. But on Wikipedia, we should strive to be as inclusive as possible, as unbiased as possible, in things such as this. Just because Wikipedia is open and broad, doesn't mean in your personal life, church, Facebook listing, you have to be that way. But Wikipedia is not denominational, and shouldn't favor a segment of christianity, even if it is a large segment. Time for change. JeffreyW75 (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article on "Christianity" must exclude all things that are ipso facto not Christian. So, for instance, Christianity is a religion that believes Jesus is the Christ (or Messiah). Any religion that denies the Messiahship of Jesus, is by definition, not Christian. Christianity is an Abrahamic religion, in that it is derived from the family of religions that find their heritage in Abraham (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). If you say "generally Abrahamic", then it opens the door for other religions that should be excluded from consideration in this article. One of the core tenets of these three Abrahamic religions, and particularly what sets them apart from other religious systems, is the very fact that they are monotheistic. If you say "generally monotheistic" you are now talking about something other than Christianity. In order to be informative, the article must be factual. Trying to redefine Christianity as something that it is not just to be sensitive to people who don't know what Christianity is isn't helpful at all. If I am offended by the statements that Jesus makes about him being the Messiah, I can't just change the definition of Christianity so I don't feel excluded. Sorry. HokieRNB 00:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

ARIS - Trinity College study of religious demographics

This study shows a 10% decline in Christians since 1990 in the USA. Alatari (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Pew research is similar with 78.4% of 225m million adults for about 177 million Christians. The table of demographics was only off by about 65m people... Alatari (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Adherents.com is out of date

'This Christian geography and statistics web page is copyright © 2000 by Adherents.com. Please address send comments, questions, etc. to webmaster@adherents.com. Webpage created 10 August 1999. Last updated 24 January 2000. '

It hasn't been updated since 2000 and the data is from 1990 studies. It is now unreliable compared to Pew study of 2009 and ARIS study from Trinity College of 2008. Alatari (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 December 2011

Change ...

"Central to the Christian faith is the gospel, the teaching that humans have hope for salvation through the message and works of Jesus, and particularly his atoning death on the cross."

To ...

"Central to the Christian faith is the gospel, the teaching that humans have hope for salvation through the acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior, and by His atoning death on the cross."

Reason: Christianity does not teach that Christians have hope for salvation through "works", but only through acceptance of Jesus and the sacrifice He made by His death on the cross.

Adrianvm (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a central difference between Protestants and Catholics. How about a wording that is inclusive of all sects? --Alatari (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason given (Christianity does not teach ... salvation through "works") does not support the edit requested (removing the reference to the works of Jesus). As I understand it, the theological objection to 'works' is in reference to works by someone other than Christ; I know of no sect that objects to associating the work of Christ with salvation. If one wanted to be really pedantic, one could object to the insertion of 'accepting' because the implied subject is the human who is accepting, hence one could construe 'accepting' to be a human work rather than a devine work. I would suggest a much simpler change:

from "... the message and works of Jesus, and particularly his atoning death ..."

to "... the message and work of Jesus, particularly his atoning death ..."

Although the existing wording clearly associates indicates that it is Jesus who performs the works mentioned, by using the singular 'work' and eliminating the conjunction (and), the reader is less likely to erroneously conclude that the 'works' are performed by someone other than Christ. YBG (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: That seems a reasonable compromise to avoid possible misunderstanding but retain inclusivity. I've made "work" singular. On reflection, should I have waited for consensus? If so, please revert my edit. Dbfirs 07:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I also suggested that the conjunction 'and' so that "... of Jesus, and particularly ..." reads instead "... of Jesus, particularly ...". I'm not particularly fussed one way or the other -- the original was plenty clear to me and I don't believe it carried the implication stated above. However, if Adrianvm agrees the new text is clearer, there would be no need for an elaborate consensus. YBG (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Please re-read the sentence in context. I added a comma.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  07:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

There is no written pronunciation, and the thing isn't in brackets. It looks bad, but I'm not familiar with the notation, could someone address this please? Finbob83 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Threeness or Triune

"Trinity" is from Latin TRINITAS, which simply means "threeness", the quality of being three. Not "tri-unity". Frjwoolley (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

While the above is a true statement, it could not be said that the entire historic doctrine of the trinity is better summed up with the word "threeness". "Triune" is a much better word as a syllable for the concept. Ἀλήθεια 10:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

But the positioning of "tri-unity" in the article, in quotes and parentheses after the word "trinity", makes it look like it's a translation of "trinity". The article goes on to explain, briefly, what "trinity" is, and the link to the article "Trinity" is there if anyone is interested. So I think "tri-unity" here is misleading. (Theologically correct, etymologically wrong.) Frjwoolley (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What about the following, with deleted and inserted text:

Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity ("tri-unity"), a description of one God as existing in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This includes the vast majority of churches in Christianity, although a minority are Non-trinitarians.

In place of the parenthetical which has been objected to, I've added 'one' and 'three' in the appropriate places. YBG (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2014

5/21/14 from Robert Roy Cooper

Christianity is a Jewish sect established after the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, a Greek word for messiah. It is Biblically based in the continuation of the Old Hebrew Testament and has established the New Testament as the complete word of God embracing both as a singular whole. Its viewpoints are the contents of the Holy Bible, old and new testaments, that Judaism and Christianity are two sides of the same coin, the difference being that of "Who" the messiah is, Jesus being the Christian acceptance, the coins edge.

68.92.36.213 (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. I have also removed your e-mail address, which should never be added to any Wikipedia pages. - Arjayay (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Japanese term

The modern Japanese term given (Kuristo-kyo-to キリスト教徒) is romanized incorrectly. The correct romanization starts with Ki instead of Ku. Also the hyphen in kyoto should be removed and the o in kyo should be given a macron to match wikipedia style for romanization of Japanese terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.99.91.30 (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done, using the characters provided by Google translate, keeping one hyphen before kyoto as implied above: Kirisuto-kyōto. – Fayenatic London 16:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)