Talk:Christianity Today

New editor Russell Moore
CT announced in Aug 2022 that Russell Moore is taking the Editor-in-Chief position. Former Editor-in-Chief Daniel Harrell left the magazine after only two years—can't find confirmation of his leave date (summer 2021) or reason. Timothy Dalrymple, holds the top spot at the magazine. When Harrell left, he temporarily assumed the Editor-in-Chief position as well for a year. Now that they've named Russell Moore, he retains his roles as President & CEO.

I changed the infobox, and looked up how the infobox field mapping worked for magazines in order to list both positions since they're both the top two important positions. I used editor and editor2 fields. I think that's the best solution since there isn't a "President" field but a technical wikipedia nerd may have a better solution.

I believe the opening paragraphs should mention the editorial leadership, especially since Russell D. Moore is a nationally known figure. I also plan to add a sentence there and edit for style.

The opening paragraphs are also are a little wordy and jumbled--I think the list of publications should probably be more brief and detail moved below. It also seems the Christian Century reference is not a topline kind of note and better in History below. I am not changing these for the moment, but if I have time may come back and clean up. Comments welcome.

Chris.ridgeway (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Editorial political positions
"its editorial positions tend to be politically and theologically centrist"

The above statement has no place in this particular article, to claim centrism for an evangalical right wing news periodical is no different than to claim centrism for something like alternet.org. It does a great disservice to wikipedians to suppose the authors point of veiw is central or mainstream(and with the articles original seeming necessity for apologizing for falwell pov is unmasked).


 * That maybe, but in fact it is an accurate statement of the magazine today. It is relatively centrist, well by the standards of the US. It might even be slightly liberal by the standards of Evangelical Christianity. When I see it in stores it doesn't look much different then any other news magazine. You have Bono on the cover discussing debt relief or something similar. I was hesitant to read it because it's Evangelical Christian, but what I've seen online it's mostly pretty bland. Although on occasion it does run some fairly Christian Right statements. Still it wouldn't fit as one of the Evangelical right-wing periodicals. I think to see it as such would be culturally out of whack and make the term lose all meaning. Right-wing Evangelical magazines are like "Faith for all life", Chalcedon Foundation's magazine, or Falwell's "National Liberty Journal"--T. Anthony 11:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"The magazine ran some of the first advertisements for Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority."

Does that matter?

I agree that this doesn't really matter and misrepresents the editoral stance of this publication. The Moral Majority has been frequently criticized by the editors and other contributing writers in this periodical. I believe this comment should be deleted.

Too many links!
There are far too many links here, particularly considering most of them are easily found from the main website. Clean up is certainly in order. Anagrammarian 05:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation
It doesn't look like there are any citation needed tags on the page anymore, I'm going to take down the citation tag. Please don't put it back up without showing specifically where the citations are needed. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Christian magazines
Ive been trying to establish which christian magazines are the most spread throughout the globe.

Trying to make a top 5 is allready impossible as, as far as I can see, only a few magazines offer the number of each issue.

The Watchtower clearly is number one, folowed by Awake!. I believe that Christianity Today is the third, but I have no proof of that.

Therefore I hope to get the answer here.-- Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Trump
So in all of it's years, this magazine has done not a single noteworthy action besides calling for Trump's removal? Seems quite UNDUE to pick this particular moment and add it to their history? Slywriter (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This editorial is clearly notable, since it's apparently the only major Evangelical publication to break with the pro-Trump position, as such was the subject of a New York Times news article, and puts the magazine in the center of a controversy of great importance in US history. It is not undue. NightHeron (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I find virtually all current events are given UNDUE especially US politics. Wikipedians, years from now, can sort out whether any of this is truly relevant.

Regardless, I have added content concerning Clinton and Nixon. It is quite interesting to see the evolution of their impeachment views from almost indifference with Nixon, followed by spiritual/moral condemnation of Clinton and culminating with a definitive stance against Trump. Slywriter (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the Political Viewpoints section is a good compromise there, as unfortunately religion and politics have been combining more lately. However, why is the quote from Franklin Graham relevant? He's not affiliated with this magazine, which the article is about, and Wikipedia is not a news source. --Sam (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it’s not. It’s clearly not applicable to this article. And neither is his view of his father’s voting record, nor his professed conspiracy theory about the magazine, in any way due. I’ll remove it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If the father was still alive, a quote from him may have been relevant, but the son is just another person with an opinion of the matter.

Slywriter (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 21 December 2019
In the lead, please change "plant the evangelical flag in the middle-of-the-road" to "plant the evangelical flag in the middle of the road". (1) It is bad grammar: "middle-of-the-road" is an adjective, not a noun. (2) There are no hyphens in the original source. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:349F:4B7E:EE72:C460 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done hyphens removed to match source. Koncorde (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Civic viewpoints in editorials on impeachments"
Having a section devoted to this issue is ludicrous. It makes no sense in the context of an encyclopaedia article. If the Trump editorial has put this publication in the headlines then a section called "Controversy" or similar could mention that fact. Or mention of it could just be made in passing as a significant event in the history of the magazine. But the current format does not work. It is news analysis, not encyclopaedic information.

I've been trying to think of equivalent situations to look at how they're dealt with on WP. The "King and Country Debate" section of the "Oxford Union" article looks about right to me. Liamcalling (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The King and Country debate has a sizeable article on Wikipedia. "Civic viewpoints in editorials in Christianity Today on impeachments" never will. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:395D:7D8D:B188:B1AC (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Just leaving this here for others to decide if it's worth including: Nearly 200 evangelical leaders slam Christianity Today op-ed that criticized Trump (CNN, Dec 23 2019) Funcrunch (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Best summed up as "other people have opinions about another persons opinions". It's WP:NOTNEWS unless some genuine outcome happens (i.e. going out of business). Koncorde (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's irrelevant, why did CNN make a newspiece? I wonder why, I as a Finnish person, heard about it from our national broadcaster Yle ? They mentioned Franklin Graham by name. Seems like one sentence would be due here because the evangelical debate about Trump, centered around Christianity Today's op-ed, is international news. --Pudeo (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * People have opinions about other people's opinions all the time. WP:NOTNEWS is very clear, we don't overemphasise what is currently popular just because it's popular. We wait to see if there is lasting impact and change from the events. Just reporting he-said she-said is little more than tittle tattle. Koncorde (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)