Talk:Christianity in China/Archive 1

Chinese religions
I'm not sure I understand the statement; "Today, the Chinese language typically divides Christians into two groups, members of Jidu jiao, (literally, Christianity) Protestantism, and members of Tianzhu jiao (literally "Lord of Heaven" religion), Catholicism (see Protestantism in China and Catholicism in China.)" This seems to read that there are three divisions - Jidu jiao, Tianhu jiao and Catholisism. Anyone care to elaboborate or clarify?


 * Why do we not name the people instead the religion, it should read Assyrian members    of "Church of the East" not European or Middle-Eastern christian. This has to stop, name the People that spread christ message by thier real name, "Assyrian" belonging to the Church of the East.

--Esarhaddon 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a free copy on Assyrian International News Agency website. http://www.aina.org/books/bftc/bftc.pdf
 * Guys I suggest for those of who have not read the book By foot to China to read it.

Also for more books on Asyrian http://www.aina.org/books.html

--Esarhaddon 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Should this be split into two articles, one featuring the history of Christianity in China, and another on Christianity in the present day? Ultimately, this should definitely be done, with the history allowed to grow separately but summarized in the "contemporary" page. ~ Dpr 02:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should Chinese house church also be the main article for information on "the Chinese underground church(es)" or should we create a different article? Dpr 05:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree.Martianlostinspace 23:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nestorianism" in China
Should "Nestorianism in China" be properly called by some other name? Information on the Assyrian Church of the East suggests that the so-called "Nestorianism" in China was not actually Nestorianism. --Dpr 03:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a fair designation as that's what Westerners identify them as. A better term might be Syriac Christianity,or Assyrian but that would be a project needing to coordinate across lots of wikipedia articles to get the terminology changed.   Minguo 14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Understatement
If you have read Brother Yun's book, the Heavenly Man, you get a very different perspective of the torture and persecution Chinese Christians endure, I feel it is highly unlikely that this is all hoax, and that it deserves some serious emphasis in this article... even if it is regarded as "claimed". I feel it is understated. Any other opinions? Please contact me. I don't want to make huge edits without opinion. Martianlostinspace 23:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Broken Links
I think that the {Asia in topic|Christianity in} at the bottm should be removed due to too many broken links being prevenlent.Wikkany Lion 06:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

'Most famous chinese missionary'
I'm not sure this section should be included: a; it's out of place within the article structure b; it's badly written c; it reads like a blatant plug for the book! Anyone?Wsbhopkin 22:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.yutopian.com/religion/
This web site talks about Christianity in China.-Agoodperson 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists of missionaries
These unweildy lists should be made into separate articles, as they are duplicated in several places and thus too difficult to maintain. As it stands, the list of Protestant missionaries in China in the Christianity in China article is a conglomeration of a (yet to be created) List of Protestant missionaries in China and the (newly created) List of China Inland Mission missionaries in China. A tidyup is required. See Talk:Hudson Taylor for related discussion. DFH 20:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The proposed list has since been created by Brian0324. Thanks. DFH 18:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Links
While the link to Islam in China may be relevant, (I know there is/was a link to this article there.) why is there link to Muslim Chinese Martial Arts? What relevance is that? Minguo 16:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the link to martial arts and have moved some other links around. I think a few more could be removed, like the link to Religion in Soviet Union.Minguo 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Estimated numbers
The lead estimates that between 40 to 65 million christians exist in china. Now, not to split hairs here, but while it is true that one study estimates 40 million and another 65 million, that by no means indicates that there are an estimated between 40 and 65 million christians in China. That statement implies that there is a single study arguing for between the two numbers with such a margin of error. Stringing two numbers together like that to make one estimate is pressing the boarders of OR. Thanatosimii 05:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus, it says estimated. Nobody can give you the exact number. Statistics is not 100% accurate. For instance, nobody can even tell what the exact U.S. population is right now. In other words, statistics is meant to give you somewhat of a "rough idea". Cheers. Heilme 05:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that's not the point. This is currently a WP:OR violation. You can't cite two numbers which are true but say that that's the range. Thanatosimii 06:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fastest Growing???
Where do you get statisitics to back up the claims that Chrisitanity is China's fastest growing religion? What about Falun Gong? Mike Young 15:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mao's influence
I just read this article and noticed there was a jump from WWII Christianity in China to present day Christianity.

Shouldn't there be an addition regarding the murder and persecution of Christians in China by the Communists? What about persecution nowadays? Maybe I just overread part of this article, but it seems that persecution was and is a horrible part of Christianity in China. If anyone has any good information about this I think he or she should add to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uriah is Boss (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I was told by someone (a non expert who had been to China) that Communists forcibly or semi-forcibly removed many Christians into the rural countryside and smaller cities in order to limit their influence when they (The Communists) first came to power, and that this measure is one of the reasons the 'House church' networks have become so widespread. Does anyone else know about this?  Minguo 16:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone set Christians up the bomb?
"This form of Christianity survived until the end of the Yuan dynasty when many Nestorians were in prominent administrative and government positions"

What happened during the Yuan dynasty!? "Until" implies that something happened which caused Christianity to disappear, or at least go underground. But nowhere in the article does it say what happened. Nor does it say anything in the article for the Yuan Dynasty. 67.168.96.230 14:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote that particular line. After the fall of the Yuan Dynasty they fell out of favor due to their association with a foreign (and now hated) dynasty.  The Ming didn't actively persecute them, but removed their privileges and definitely removed them from their administrative posts.  The church organization, separated from its homeland in Persia and Syria by Muslim states withered away.  See "A history of Christianity in Asia: Beginnings to 1500 by Samuel Hugh Moffett Minguo 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian-rite parish
What about the Assyrian-rite parish which has been discovered in 2003, cutt off from the main Assyrians for 8 centuries? - Waelsch 00:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop false claims, stop Christian fanaticism, stop with involvement of religion in politics
Christians are attempting to propagate, with this article, claims about an alleged role of Christianity in the foundation of Chinese Republic.

Sun Yat-Sen was Christian, but the Chinese republican system isn't based just on his ideology, and the early Chinese Republic was totally different from modern republics of the Chinese world.

Why don't you talk about the destructive effects of the Taiping Rebellion, a theocratical movement inspired by Christianity?

Another issue is that of the numbers. I'm an expert in Chinese history and sociology, Christians constitute a vast minority in nowadays China. Please stop Protestant propaganda about the alleged "100 million Christians". All figures that cite a number higher than 30 or 40 million are based on 1980s false claims. Academic studies are far more accurate than fanatic-oriented excerpts from Christian online magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.89.36 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think any editor has tried to insert langauge that the "Chinese republican system" is based just on Sun Yat-Sen's ideology. You seem to be reading an awful lot into some rather straight-forward statements such as how he, himself, was Christian.  You do realize that this article is about Christianity in China, don't you?  It's not an article about China generally. Hence the emphasis on, well, Christianity in China.  As for the numbers, the article properly points out that estimates vary significantly, and acknowledges that some estimates are as low as 14 million, while others are as high as 100 million.  The sources are cited.  I find it interesting that you only want to attack the high estimates as "propoganda", and seem to be ok with the lower official government numbers, even though most "experts" would say that the official number is a bit of government propoganda.  Some may say you are displaying a bit of a bias yourself.  Be that as it may, the article doesn't give a definitive number, since that would be arbitrary, and, rather, states what various estimates are.  Your self-described status as an expert doesn't really matter...unless you have some published work that can be used as source material.  --Anietor (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Foundation of Hawaii This site shown plenty of evidence of Sun's conversion, which had implications for the founding of the Republic. This article doesn't attempt to assert that Christianity directly caused the Republic, but it is fair to note its impact on the prime figure of the movement, Sun Yat Sen.


 * The Taiping movement is addressed in the article, but since the movement was not entirely Christian - just as the Republic was not an entirely Christian concept- it doesn't deserve blame for the rebellion, neither does it deserve credit for the Republic, entirely.


 * Regarding numbers "estimates have ranged from 40 million to 100 million" is how the article currently reads. There is nothing biased about including a high end estimate if it is cited, as this is.

Brian0324 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian manipulations
Christian users have deleted this phrase: ''Higher figures are based on old (1980s) false statements. ( http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-977347/Counting-Christians-in-China-a.html )'', and they're creating a POV article using POV sources (USA government) based on those 1980s false figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.11.90 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article that you link to is three years older than the cited references in the article with the higher estimates.Brian0324 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The 130 million figure is spread by fanatic bloggers. Please found the original document of the Chinese official to prove the number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.11.90 (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The numbers are estimates. If you have a source for a lower high end estimate that contradicts the cited sources, then use it in the text as a counterpoint. The personal remarks about "fanatics" do not help your case.Brian0324 (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This study explains that high numbers are based on 1980s false statistics. The recent survey by Werner Burklin disputes the alleged "official" figure (no proof to confirm officiality). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.11.90 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The first article that you cite is 3 years old. The second is already in the text. Your deletion of cited material and disparaging remarks do not help this to be a more accurate article.Brian0324 (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The figure about 130 million Christians first appeared in January 2007 cited only by blogs, with the exception of the USA Government report that is politically POV and anti-China. Chinese officials have never confirmed such claims. The 2003 study explains that in 1980s Christians were already spreding the claim about "100 million Christians in China", and that recent evangelical statistics are based on those claims. In November 2007 Werner Burklin has released a 7 years-lasted study that cites 54 million Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.11.90 (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the ABC radio story citation that has been reverted 5 times. The Burkin critique is part of the article already. Repeated deletion of sourced material is vandalism.Brian0324 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have deleted the explanation that high statistics are fakes, and you use POV sentences manipulating the sources. ABC Radio is not a serious site, and claims about the "official figure of 130 million" are spread by evangelical blogs. Please stop use Wikipedia to spread your propaganda. We need a serious sinologist.


 * Be aware of WP:Sock puppetry going on here.Brian0324 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sock? I'm not registered. Please stop your propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.82.8 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hey. First off, the tone of the second paragraph in the intro, where all of this is being discussed, is inappropriate. In particular, the sentence "beacuse they're based on old (1980s) false statements and propagated by politically-oriented North American leaders" is inappropriate because it is making claims that cannot be verified. The reference given there does not actually mention politically-oriented North American leaders, so it should be removed. Rather, the paragraph should be rewritten to mention the differences in numbers of Christians in China. Perhaps something like:

"The number of Christians in China has been debated. While the government census enumerates 4 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants, other estimates have put the number at either 40 million or as high as 54 million. These higher edits have been criticized by researchers , who attribute discrepancies to students going abroad, as well as changes in business and communication technologies.

Thoughts? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the anon IP editor is inserting inappropriate material. I think the sockpuppet suspicion is correct (see above) given the similarities between the 2.  I just reverted to the version before the additions.  Thanks to all for their vigilance here!  --Anietor (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone, please be aware of WP:3RR. If you revert three or more times in 24 hours, you can be blocked from editing. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 18:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * @Hello Annyong: Your version is good, but the fact that North American Protestant leaders have opposed the two recent studies - supporting, on the contrary, their baseless opinions - is cited in Burklin's report. The fact that there are political issues involved in the question "Christianity and China" is merely known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.82.8 (talk • contribs) 18:26, December 13, 2007


 * Where in either of the articles link there - and  - does it specifically say that "North American Protestant leaders have opposed the two studies?" &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Where Burklin says "I'm very disappointed with evangelical leaders who readily accept numbers they want to be true without going into depth" [...] "Billy Graham had some influence on me. He never tried to exaggerate his crusade numbers—the number of people who walked forward."
 * However the problem here is that those two Christian users are attempting to minimize the importance of Burklin and Liu Zhongyu's recent (October 2007) studies. They delete also the link to the 2003 study that talks about inconsistent numbers and political issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.82.8 (talk • contribs) 18:35, December 13, 2007
 * Okay, but that doesn't say "based on old (1980s) false statements and propagated by politically-oriented North American leaders." By including that, you're adding your own opinion into the page, which is WP:OR. Also, where on does it show a criticism? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've to read the excerpt. It talks about the 1980s false statistics and the contemporary exaggerate numbers based on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.82.8 (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about this: I added the link as another reference to mentioning the discrepancies. That link says nothing about false statements or politically-oriented leaders, only that there are considerable differences in the numbers. Is the paragraph above acceptable to you now? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 18:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to keep engaging that anon IP. He has been blocked (vandal, 3RR violator, likely sock puppet). Thanks to all for their vigilance. --Anietor (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. I had just put in a 3RR violation report, but I guess you beat me to it. Ah well. Let me know if you need more help. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the anonym and I think his version is the better one, with some corrections. Anietor why are you attempting to close the issue? We need to discuss. You've already created problems with the POV of the Christianity article. --Esimal (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I welcome any serious discussion to improve the article. But the anon user was engaging in vandalism, 3RR violations and possible sock puppetry, and was also posting vandalism on people's talk pages (which you may not be aware of). So I was just letting editors know that this particular anon's edits should be viewed with skepticism in light of his conduct. If there are legit discussions about how to improve the page, I'm all for it. --Anietor (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose:

The government census enumerates 4 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants. According to two parallel polls conducted in October 2007 - one held by missionary Werner Burklin, the second by Liu Zhongyu from East China Normal University in Shanghai - roughly 54 million Chinese are Christians. Of these, 39 millions are Protestants and 14 million are Catholic. Missionary Werner Burklin criticise higher numbers. A 2003 study explains they're based on 1980s false claims.

The article continues to be POV
Anietor has deleted another time Tony Lambert's study about false statistics. The paragraph continue to be POV and propaganda-oriented. Statements such as: ''The last 200 years have seen explosive growth that has by far outpaced church growth in the West. At the beginning of the 21st century, China is estimated to be the third largest Christian community on earth, with some opining that Christianity eventually might become a Sino-centric religion'' are completely POV and they must be deleted. Wikipedia should use academic studies/researches/sources, not claims of partisan websites. --Esimal (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose to remove all the sources/claims linking to non neutral websites (Christian/evangelical blogs, websites, claims, etc) and create an article based just on documented academic studies (Burklin, Liu, BBC). --Esimal (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement you cite is not in any point POV, maybe except of notion that Christianity might become a Sino-centric religion, which is still nothing offensive. But other passages are just facts, and if you don't like the truth, it is your problem, not Wikipedia's. Now there is nothing wrong in citing christian sources, and to assume that they are not neutral simply because they are christian is a nonsense. In that way we would forbid Chinese to write anything about China because we would assume that they cannot be neutral. Ammon86 (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ammom is correct. The statistics for how many Christians are in China are all over the place, and there are no solid numbers.  It is important to show the range, both high and low...not just for the sake of the numbers, but also to show just how difficult it is to nail down hard numbers.  Why Esimal keeps deleting the high estimates while keeping the official Chinese low estimates is a mystery.  The "official" numbers are widely seen as inaccurate, if not laughable.  The high numbers are sourced, and there are sources to indicate that some think they are too high.  That is balanced.  Esimal, how can you, with a straight face, argue that we should remove "non neutral websites" including Christian websites, yet have no problem with numbers coming from the Chinese government?  You consider them non neutral? Editors in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...  --Anietor (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, this article deserves to have all estimates. The main parties interested in keeping the estimates low are also responsible for a good deal of religious persecution- Christian, Falun Gong, and Islamic alike.Brian0324 (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * @Ammon86: the statement I've cited is completely POV and exaggerately enthusiastic. Such kind of claims have no place in Wikipedia. We should use scientific vocabulary and credible and accurate sources (academical studies), not propaganda websites.
 * @Anietor: I'm not keeping only the Chinese government's stats, I know they're based just on the number of official Churches members. In the version I've written, particular emphasis is given to the two parallel polls conducted two months ago by Werner Burklin and the Chinese professor. They're far more recent than the claim about 130 million Christians, and they're based on documented studies, not castles in the air. The claim of the Chinese official (probably just invented by a cheerful evangelical) is unbelievable and reported only by partisan websites.
 * @Brian: I've lived in China for about 10 years. There's freedom for every kind of religion not involving political issues. Falun Gong and some Christian Churches are not spiritual, but political propaganda. --Esimal (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow...that was like a Beijing press release! Let's remember that personal opinions and experiences mean very little here.  Sounds like the makings of an interesting blog, though.  Beyond that, however, we need to keep the info neutral, relevant and sourced.    --Anietor (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So according to you,Esimal, the higher estimate and the phraseology of Christianity becoming Sino-centric is evangelical fiction, but the government figure is trustworthy? Any country with as strict a regulation of religious expression as this should be viewed with some skepticism when they present a figure.Brian0324 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The government's figures are not trustworthy, they have political agenda. There are more Christians than official 16 million as there are more Buddhists than official 100 million. Anyway, official figures are not "false", they're just based on the numbers released by the governmental religious organizations: the Chinese Buddhist Association, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the Three-Self Church, etc.
 * However, also some North American propaganda has political agenda. North American politics and media are strongly antichinese. The claim of 130 million Christians is evangelical fiction as it has been spread by Christian/American blogs/websites since the 1980s.
 * The only documented, neutral, academic and recent studies are those of Burklin and Zhongyu. --Esimal (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not anti-Chinese POV to have a ABC radio and a US government source that claim a certain number of people in China belong to a certain religion.Brian0324 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ABC Radio is a blog-style website, and the article is written by Bob Fu of China Aid Association, a Christian association spreading American propaganda about Christianity in China. The CIA is strongly involved in US political issues. --Esimal (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The point of debate here seems to be whether or not to include what some Christian or American sources are reporting to be the high end estimate of Christians in China. It seems like bias to deny the reports in this article. A propagandist would say, "because there are 130 million Christians in China - the PRC must be falling apart". I reject the "propaganda" assessment because there is no POV attached to a statistic, here.Brian0324 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, Esimal, you are being inconsistent. You acknowledge that the Chinese goverment numbers are "not trustworthy", but you want them included.  By contrast, you argue that ABC and the CIA are biased, so their numbers should be left out.  You can't have it both ways.  All the estimates may be off (all probably are!).  But if they are sourced, they can be included.  We can include issues such as possible bias.  Also, the fact that the stats are all over the place is itself noteworthy, and reason to include both ends of the spectrum.  --Anietor (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want we can leave out also the Chinese government's figures. The problem is that they're official. On the other hand we can add statistics provided by documented recent sources, such as Burklin's and Zhongyu's studies, without degeneration into unsourced, emphatic evangelical/political propaganda. --Esimal (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anietor et. al. Wikipedia's job is to provide the viewpoints of all relevant parties, and Christian organizations, in and outside of China, are certainly relevant to this issue.  Esimal, if the statistics given by North American Christian organizations have been criticized by others as unreliable for some reason, we can include that in the article, but we can't say that they are false just because we don't like them.--Danaman5 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Danaman5: They're claims propagated since the Eighties. If you read Tony Lambert's study you can see that the "100 million Christians in China" issue was already circulating at that time. The last extremely high numbers have been released in January 2007. The fact is that they've been recently (October) denied by two different surveys held simultaneously. One of them held by a missionary, Werner Burklin, the other one by a Shanghaiist university. These studies have both shown the same numbers: roughly 54 million Christians. --Esimal (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do here is to include opposing POVs, in this context, different number estimates, and attribute them directly in the text of the article to the sources. If the National Catholic Reporter gave a specific number, than we report exactly that National Catholic Reporter gave the number. Likewise for estimates given by the Chinese government. Regarding the possibility of bias on the part of the Chinese government and Christian organisations, the fact remains that it would be difficult for them to get an accurate estimate even if they tried because of the existence of underground Christian groups.

Having said that, however, the following text that was pointed out does remain problematic:
 * The last 200 years have seen explosive growth that has by far outpaced church growth in the West. At the beginning of the 21st century, China is estimated to be the third largest Christian community on earth, with some opining that Christianity eventually might become a Sino-centric religion.

The source given for this does not say that the last 200 years have seen "explosive" growth, or even that growth spiked in the last 200 years, leaving that first sentence needing verification and in violation of using WP:Peacock terms ("explosive"). Nor does the source substantiate the claims in the next sentence that China is estimated to be the third largest Christian community on earth at the beginning of the 21st century. Also who exactly are "some" of the people that opined that Christianity might eventually become a Sino-centric religion? That's a use of WP:Weasel words. Reading the source, it seems that this was the opinion of the writer of the source, a senior writer at Asia Times who chooses to remain anonymously named "Spengler". Well who is "Spengler" and how is s/he qualified to make such an assessment? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing some perspective about attribution. I think that that is helpful.


 * I see your point about the growth needing a citation. I thought that it could be understood from the statistics as well as the history of missions that are detailed, but you make a good point. It was not my intent to inflate importance without adding substance. One question that I do have is, how is the writer for the Asia Times less qualified to be cited than Berklin, who is on a Christian news source online?Brian0324 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah we should be careful not to put in our own analysis of the statistics, because that would be WP:Original research. Unless some reliable source states it, we should leave it out.  Regarding "Spengler" - I don't know who Berklin is, nor did I make a comparison between Spengler and Berklin.  But I am apprehensive about using the Spengler/Asia Times source to substantiate that "Christianity eventually might become a Sino-centric religion".  If you read the source, it would seem like this was Spengler's own opinion.  But we have no idea who "Spengler" is, and we can't determine if he's a reliable source on the subject of Christianity in China.  He might not even have any expertise on the subject matter, why do we care what he says?  On the other hand, for a writer whose identity is public, we can determine what his credentials are and whether or not his opinions matter.  We can say, So-and-So is a sociology professor, or a theology professor, etc etc, so he probably knows what he's talking about.  But who the heck is "Spengler"?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Spengler (columnist). This is all that WP has to say about him. Is he an adequate authority on Christianity in China? I don't know. But it was attributed to be his opinion in the quote that I added.Brian0324 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know there was a WP article about him. If the article is to be believed, then it seems like he's definitely promoting a conservative Christian POV.  If we are to keep using him as a source, I definitely think we should add that it was his opinion that Christianity "eventually might become a Sino-centric religion".  I'm going to do that now.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've done a slight re-write to use a direct quote from Spengler's article, as well as mentioned that it was his opinion that Christianity would become a Sino-centric religion. I've also put a "citation needed" tag for that the growth of Christianity has spiked in China and outpaced that in the West in the last 200 years, and that it is to become the third largest Christian community in the beginning of the 21st century. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think that it is much more neutral, now. I just found a source for the growth spike and will add soon.Brian0324 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a slight re-write of the "explosive" growth sentence - hope you don't mind. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice job! I think the article is better now, although we should try and get some more sources in there. --Anietor (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contributions Hong! Now remains the problem of the 130 million. We should say that such claims are being propagated since the 1980s. If you read Tony Lambert's study you can see that the "100 million Christians in China" issue was already circulating at that time. The last extremely high numbers have been released in January 2007, but they've been recently (October) denied by two different surveys held simultaneously. One of them held by Werner Burklin, the other one by Liu Zhongyu. These studies have both shown the same numbers: roughly 54 million Christians. --Esimal (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I think the number of Christians have grown with the total population. I don't know how many Chinese there were in 1800, but I think at least 100 million. There were roughly 5 million Christians in 1949 out of a total of 400 million people. --Esimal (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you...what is the significance of the 100/130 million figure having been cited in the 1980s? It seems the point of the study you cite is that there has always been a gap between the official numbers and independent (non-Chinese government) estimates. I don't see the high number as any more of a "problem" than the lower government numbers. They are both problems to the extent that it's impossible to get an accurate count. They're both cited in the article, along with the surveys that cite to 54 million, and they all obvioiusly contradict each other. --Anietor (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. There was a population spike in the years following 1949.  Let's not try to conclude amongst ourselves that growth outpaced that in the West unless a reliable source actually states this.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we need to reference Postchristianity in some way as it relates to Christianity in Western nations? I really think that it is noteworthy. There were no Protestant Christians in China in 1806. Now there are millions. That's more than the population growth rate and it doesn't require a source if the population numbers are correct.Brian0324 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * @Anietor - Please read the excerpt where it says: Counting Christians in China is notoriously difficult, but for years Christians, particularly evangelical and charismatic Christians, have seemed willing to accept very high figures without any real proof. Already inflated estimates have sometimes been extrapolated and exaggerated ("if in 1983 there were 100 million, then now in 2000 there must be 150 million or even 200 million" and so on). --Esimal (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Right...so there's a source saying the Christian-based surveys are too high, just as almost everyone acknowledges that the government numbers are too low. Specifically what are you proposing? I guess I would agree that this needs to be particularly highlighted if we were actually including a 200 million figure based on extrapolation, but that's nowhere in the article that I can see. So when you say that there "remains a problem" with the article because of the Lambert study, how do you mean? None of the numbers in the article is held out as the "real" number. Each number can be criticized based on the other surveys/estimates. --Anietor (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We probably should not mention "Postchristianity" unless a reliable source discusses the growth of Christianity in China in that context - but provided reliable sources exist, then sure, we can put that in the article. Anyway, back to the "outpaced" issue - is the 250,000 number an official Catholic head count?  Because I doubt that existence of underground Christian groups is a modern phenonmenon.  Wasn't Christianity banned in the Qing dynasty?  The pope even dissolved the Jesuits before 1800.  How do we know that the number of Christians in 1800 wasn't actually larger?  So in the same vein, how do we really know that growth outpaced that in the West?  And what do we consider growth?  As a percentage of the total population?  Or as a head count of the Christian population?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Christian population
Might I offer a suggestion on how to handle the population issue? Stick with two reliable and contrasting estimates in the intro because well, it's the intro. Then expand upon the subject with other sources in the "Demographics/Geography" section. When in disagreement about being NPOV, it's always better to include and attribute than to exclude. Let's say Source A gives X as the estimate and Source B criticises that estimate - then mention exactly that instead of excluding Source A. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree! Include the numbers (if sourced, of course), as well as any legitimate, sourced criticisms of those numbers.  --Anietor (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what I was trying to get at above as well. All of the views, and criticisms of those views, should be included.--Danaman5 (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is very problematic and POV. I'm to use just documented sources. --Xi Zhu (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've NPOVised the introduction, highlighting the latest studies and surveys and the problem of false statistics examined by Tony Lambert. --Xi Zhu (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, what you've done is reinsert the edits by 87.8.82.8, who had been vandalizing this article and editors' talk pages. I also notice that the creation of your account, Xi Zhu,  happens to coincide with the day 87.8.82.8 was blocked.  Possible sock puppetry?  In any event, the upper range numbers should not be removed for all the reasons stated above that I don't need to type all over.  There are some surgical edits that can certainly be made to improve the article, but reimposing the massive unhelpful edits from the previous anon vandal is not constructive.  --Anietor (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Anietor, you're manipulating the events stating that the anonym was a vandal. On the contrary his edits were accurate, because critic, as they should be. Please do not continue to rollback important informations such as Lambert's study. --Xi Zhu (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Anietor are you lying? I registered yesterday, the anonym was blocked on Friday. --Xi Zhu (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The anon was a vandal, as was blocked, as you admit. --Anietor (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The anon did the same thing as you, he continued to revert the page. The difference is that your version is POV, while his version was neutral. However I've not simply rollbacked the anon's version, I've added some details. --Xi Zhu (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we all stop the revert war that's developing yet again? It started with an anon IP, who was eventually blocked for vandalizing this page and others.  Now it's starting again, with almost identical reverts.  Please discuss, IN DETAIL, what proposed changes you want to make, instead of just reverting back to the entire prior version from that anon.  Perhaps he had some valid points among the other not-so-helpful edits.  But we need to address them logically and methodically, not saying he had some points so let's include his entire version and work backwards from there!  --Anietor (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is from an article in Christianity Today from1996: "The numbers are gleaned from various sources and, in many cases, are simply educated guesses by missiologists. Estimates of the number of Christians today vary widely among experts. We've used the figures of Tony Lambert of OMF (international), which seem to occupy a middle ground.

—The Editors of Christianity Today"


 * Protestant Missionaries
 * 1807: 1
 * 1840: 20
 * 1858: 81
 * 1865: 189
 * 1874: 436
 * 1893: 1,324
 * 1906: 3,833
 * 1918: 6,395
 * 1926: 8,325
 * 1928: 4,375
 * 1930: 6,346
 * 1951: 0


 * Population of China
 * 1812: 362 million
 * 1851: 380 million
 * 1949: 450 million
 * 1980: 900 million
 * 1990: 1.1 billion
 * 1996: 1.2 billion


 * Baptized Protestants
 * 1800: 0
 * 1834: 10
 * 1853: 350
 * 1869: 5,753
 * 1876: 13,035
 * 1898: 80,000
 * 1911: 207,747
 * 1934: 500,000
 * 1980: 2 million
 * 1996: 33 million
 * (government estimate: 19 million)


 * Protestants per Chinese
 * 1850: 1 in 1 million
 * 1900: 1 in 2,000
 * 1926: 1 in 1,000
 * 1952: 1 in 1,000
 * 1996: 1 in 36


 * Roman Catholics
 * 1800: -250,000 (compared to 0 Protestants)
 * 1900: (about) 1 million
 * 1950: -3 million-or five times the number of Protestants
 * 1996: -18 million-or about half the number of Protestants
 * (government estimate: 6 million)


 * Total Christians (Protestants & Catholics) in China's population today
 * 4.3 percent or 1 in 23.


 * Source of Statistics: Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christian Missions in China (1929); Tony Lambert, OMF (INTERNATIONAL); statistics of the People's Republic of China.

Copyright © 1996 by the author or Christianity Today International/Christian History magazine. Christian History. Issue 52, Fall 1996, Vol. XV, No. 4, Page 41 Brian0324 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Brian. I think your recent edits to the article are reasonable and neutral compromises as well.  --Anietor (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

New version
I've created a new version including all the estimates in chronological order and highlighting the documented ones. I've removed all superfluous details and crusade-style claims, such as sinocentrism of future Christianity and the inaccurate fact that were Christians the first to establish public schools and hospitals (in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau the vast majority of facilities and charities are Buddhist and Taoist). The collapse of the old systems and the establishment of new ones is due to the reforms brought by communism. --Xi Zhu (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The introduction is now the only part of the article to be neutral. All the other paragraphs should be rewritten. --Xi Zhu (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking a different approach than simply reverting things that you disagree with. However, if you are going to make broad claims about bias, it will not be more neutral unless you address specifics for each of the sections that you have tagged as "POV".


 * I am going to argue that you are either unaware or willfully ignoring the fact of the history of medicine and education in China being influenced- if not wholly begun- by Christians - both foreign and native. There is abundant evidence and it will be cited and included shortly.


 * Regarding the deletion of the Sinocentric future, as well as the quote about the growth of Christianity in China, I find that your edits establish very nicely the POV of the Chinese government, which, as it is, does not meet the neutrality requirements of Wikipedia.Brian0324 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not attempting to establish the POV of the government, I know very well that Christians are more than 16 millions, but I know for sure that they're not 100 million. However, currently the only documented non-governmental surveys are that of October.
 * Regarding the Christians and Chinese customs. Practices such as the foot-binding were extirpated by communism, and in general by modernization, not by Christians. --Xi Zhu (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Another issue, Xi Zhu, is your inclusion of certain weasel words such as "accurate" to describe the surveys that you have been advocating over others that you describe as "without reliable researches and documentations". I am glad that you have at least included references to the broader range of numbers, but it is done in a very POV manner. This will have to be tweaked as well. --Anietor (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anietor, the October ones are the only recent surveys, the other ones are just claims. --Xi Zhu (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new section "Christianity, China and North American politics" in which examine the relation of Christian missions in China with the American dream of creating a Chinese Christian army with which destroy Islam. This topic is discussed in the book Jesus in Biejing. --Xi Zhu (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be aware of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:OR.Brian0324 (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The intro seems to have a lot of information that should be elsewhere...particularly detailed criticisms of the various surveys. How about creating another section to deal with the issue of how difficult it is to get hard numbers on the number of Christians, along with the more detailed criticisms? The intro can then be streamlined to indicate what the various ranges are, without getting bogged down in how they contradict each other, the "sociopolitical" reasons for some of the high numbers, etc. --Anietor (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity in China and USA politics
Can we agree that it is undue weight to add this as it currently stands? The photo is really irrelevant to the subject of the article as well.Brian0324 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Very much so. I already reverted the laughably POV, OR unsourced material.  I didn't delete the heading, just in case there is SOME relevant NPOV material that can be included....although I doubt it.--Anietor (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again...can we please DISCUSS these edits Xi Zhu, before you keep edit warring and inserting them? You are adding POV material, then self-tagging it as POV. Obviously even you seem to acknowledge that it is controversial material. Please discuss it here first. --Anietor (talk) 19: 33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can change some words, but please leave the paragraph. --Xi Zhu (talk) 19: 31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * @Anietor: You too are adding POV material. Why you've the right to cut my edits while taking yours? --Xi Zhu (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph the two missionaries continue to delete

 * Christianity in China and USA politics

Figures presenting high numbers of Christians in China are often considered political propaganda spread by the United States. Some people criticize Christian missionary activities in China as attempts to create a community of politicized converts, followers of the United States. Chinese Christians are said to be pro-American and Zionists.

Some see in the Christian missions to China a form of neocolonialism and US imperialism, that attempts to spread in Chinese culture values and worldviews of the Western world. These beliefs are shared by modern Chinese anti-American movements.

Other criticisms focus on the idea that Christian missionaries are exploiting the traditional relation between religion and revolt - characteristic of Chinese religious history - to cause a revolution against the Chinese Communist Party.

David Akiman, in his book Jesus in Beijing, examines the American Protestant dream of the creation of a Chinese "army" of Christian converts with which defeat the Muslim world by conversion.


 * End of the paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xi Zhu (talk • contribs)



One further thought to put this contribution to rest is this: the article is not Mission (Christian), where this type of thing could possibly be addressed. But I think that that article already has a lengthy criticism section that speaks about imperialism and politics. Aikman is not quoted here, either and I suspect that a majority of the above is original speculation about the intent of the author.Brian0324 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion - What's wrong with the current version
Christianity in China has developed since at least the 7th century AD. The introduction of Nestorianism, a Christian denomination, around 635 is considered by some to be the first entry of the Christian religion into China. However, recent discoveries seem to put the first diffusion of Christianity in China during the 1st century AD. Today, the Christian population in China comprises Protestants, Catholics, and a small number of Orthodox Christians.

The government census enumerates 4 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants. However, independent estimates have ranged from 40 million, to 100 million , to 130 million Christians in January 2007 (out of a total population of at least 1.3 billion people).

In October 2007 two surveys were conducted to estimate the number of Christians in China. One poll was held by Protestant missionary Werner Burklin, the other one by Liu Zhongyu from East China Normal University in Shanghai. The surveys were conducted independently and during different periods, but they reached the same results. According to these studies, there are roughly 54 million Christians in China, of which 39 million are Protestants and 14 million are Catholics.

Christianity took root in a significant way during the Qing Dynasty, and the Taiping Rebellion was arguably influenced to some degree by Christian teachings. The last 200 years have seen the growth of indigenous Chinese Christianity that has far outpaced church growth in the West. Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist of the New York Times wrote on June 25, 2006: "Although China bans foreign missionaries and sometimes harasses and imprisons Christians, especially in rural areas, Christianity is booming in China." In 1800 there were 250,000 baptized Roman Catholics, but no known Protestant believers out of an estimated 362 million Chinese. By 1949, out of an estimated population of 450 million, there were just over 500,000 baptized Protestant Christians. Anonymous internet columnist Spengler commented in 2007 that Christianity "will have become a Sino-centric religion two generations from now." Christians in China established the first clinics and hospitals, provided the first training for nurses, opened the first modern schools, worked to abolish practices such as foot binding , and the unjust treatment of maidservants, as well as launching charitable work and distributing food to the poor. They also opposed the opium trade and brought treatment to many who were addicted. Some of the early leaders of the Chinese Republic, such as Sun Yat-sen were converts to Christianity and were influenced by its teachings.

Comments
The POV sections are underlined.

The first sections (those written by Xi Zhu) are good and NPOV. Some of Anietor and Brian's edits are very POV. First of all the adding of the Protestant views on Christianity in China and higlhighting them, while deleting Werner Burklin's criticisms (added by Xi Zhu) is not a good thing.

Another issue is the continue deletion of Tony Lambert's study. It can stay in the article, please stop remove it without serious reasons.

To be neutral the article should avoid any kind of pushing,  both pro-China Christians and anti-China Christians. Xi Zhu's latest versions were neutral regarding this. I think with some vocabulary corrections they should be kept.

Regarding the paragraph about politics. I think it should be added, with some corrections. We can discuss about the content, meanwhile I re-add the latest version hidding it. The total deletion sounds like a censorship. --Esimal (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that it reads very POV right now, as if only positive things have grown out of Christianity in China. Why was the opposing POV removed? Surely the sources were at least as notable as an obscure English-language source written in 1957 (Burgess, (1957)) - that was during the height of the Cold War and the Communist Scare. Anti-communist propaganda was rampant in the West during that era. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First, the above assertions that the underlined statements are only point-of-view is hard to understand. Are they controversial? Then add sourced critique if needed. That's how this works so that we can build consensus and get a better article. I did not delete the Lambet study and I am not opposed to adding it back in, but the case is already made that the numbers are controversial. Regarding Burgess' source on footbinding. The date is irrelevant.


 * The Christianity and US politics section would be undue weight even if it were all about the book Jesus in Beijing. So undue weight of an unduly weighted subject. Xi Zhu did not appear interested in improving the article. His use of original research, and lack of sourcing, as well as adding irrelevant and highly political imagery - as well as personal attacks, vandalism, spamming, and disregard of the three-revert rule in one day should call into question the motivations behind his edits. A complete disdain for the subject and a desire to see it diminished. Now, if you consider deleting his section as censorship, then I suggest that we look at the party-line that he represents that has sought to wilfully deny the positive contributions of Christian workers in China for several centuries. It isn't taught in public schools in China. You can't even read this article in China, because it is blocked by the government. Now, in light of this tide of censorship against reporting the evidence of a growing indigenous Chinese church, there are the elements of Western media ignorance and bias, as well as much misinformation in Christian media. If there is a way to address all of this without overloading the article with clutter, then go ahead, but I did warn Xi Zhu and I think that it is a legitimate caution to be aware of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR in the process.Brian0324 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on Xi Zhu's behaviour - I wasn't paying attention to the article during all that. I'm just concerned that the intro reads a bit POV. Surely Christianity in China has not always been viewed as a positive thing by all. If Christians started the first hospitals in China and fought against footbinding (and I personally believe this to be true by the way), then of course that deserves mention. But how about the fact that they fought against vegetarianism because it was Buddhist, and that the rise of Christianity in the 1800s had much to do with colonialism in China, and that many of the Christians felt it was their duty to convert the "heathens", etc etc? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In all of my readings, I can't remeber a reference to Christian opposition of vegetarianism, per se. I'm sure there are plenty of references to Chinese converts to Christianity shedding the traditions that they had formerly associated with. It would be helpful to contrast the beliefs and practices that place Chinese Christians even today in difficult situations in their cultural context.


 * Agreed that the topic of Christianity in China and its spread coinciding with the rise of imperialism has not been sufficiently addressed. Imperialism forced China's hand to open the door to opium- and missionaries were simultaneously allowed to travel and work freely, often in direct opposition to what others were doing from their respective home countries - such as opposing the opium trade and coolie traffic. The article needs much work from all sides.Brian0324 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The best way to keep neutrality is avoiding any kind of apologetics, both Christian an non-Christian. We aren't here to justify the presence of Christians in China. --Esimal (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a little too much detailed criticism in the intro, particularly since it was almost all directed at the higher estimates. The "official" Chinese government numbers were given, then the higher estimates, followed by about a paragraph of problems with the higher numbers.  That was a bit of an undue weight problem as well, and a bit misleading.  As I mentioned in one of my edits, I don't necessarily object to the more detailed material, including Lambert's personal criticisms, being in the article, since the whole issue of the difficulty of counting Christians in China is itself worthy of discussion.  But it would probably be better in a separate section.  The intro was unwieldy, and had become a section on the potential biases of estimates proposed by Christian missionaries and organizations.  --Anietor (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * @Brian: "Now, if you consider deleting his section as censorship, then I suggest that we look at the party-line that he represents that has sought to wilfully deny the positive contributions of Christian workers in China for several centuries. It isn't taught in public schools in China. You can't even read this article in China, because it is blocked by the government." Please, keep political polemics out of the article. Your words seem to underline an intention to use Wikipedia as a vehicle of anti-Communist or anti-Chinese government (nowadays it's just nominally communist) propaganda.
 * This article must be scientific, Wikipedia must avoid apologetics: "I suggest that we look at the party-line that he represents that has sought to wilfully deny the positive contributions of Christian workers in China for several centuries", this is a Christian POV and apologetics of the role of Christians in China, propagated by works of Christian authors (apologists) of whom Wikipedia can't accept the viewpoint as neutral.
 * I think Xi Zhu has done a good work keeping out both missionary and critic pushings, and claim he uses the "Chinese Government line" looks like a personal attack. By contrast you and Anietor are creating an apologetic manifesto adding anti-scientific sources, claims, viewpoints. --Esimal (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your speculations are not helpful. I am addressing the issue that you raised about censorship. I'm just saying that Wikipedia can't be held to the same standard of revisionism and censorship that is the common fare for those deprived of it's contents in China.Brian0324 (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not even half a heaven of missionary apologetics with which propagate any kind of anti-scientific claim of the Web. --Esimal (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Esimal...you got it exactly backwards. Xi Zhu was the editor throwing in large blocks of unsourced POV text, and there were several of us trying  to get him to explain his edits, talk about them first, etc.  Instead, he chose to engage in edit wars, and vandalized at least 3 editors' home pages.  To say that Xi Zhu has done good work is quite baffling, given his behavior, which led to his being blocked from editing.  Regarding your comment that I was "creating" any type of viewpoint....I actually added very little text to the article.  If you look at my edits, I have been trying to keep out unsourced POV material that Xi Zhu refused to discuss, and I have done a lot of minor editing, grammar, format, etc.  Align yourself with Xi Zhu if you like, but don't pick up his banner too quickly, and don't engage in the same type of personal attacks and misreprentations that he was so fond of.  I have said it before and I'll say it again...there was probably quite a bit of valid material buried in his steamrolling edits, but it was hard to pick out, and if anyone tried to even tweek his edits or surgically correct something, he just did a block revert, without discussion.  I have no agenda here, and am open to discussing any issue relevant to this article.  Let's talk specifics, about improving the article, without dredging up past edit wars with blocked vandals.   --Anietor (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anietor, you deleted Tony Lambert's studies and Xi Zhu didn't add an enormous mass of material, just the intro. In its latest versions it was very neutral. --Esimal (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think the intro has too much on the numbers. I think the passage that starts with The government census enumerates... is quite enough. It gives two contrasting estimates. I suggest that the passage that starts with In October 2007 two surveys were conducted... be moved to the Demographics section. Regardless of Xi Zhu's behaviour and regardless of the credibility of the sources he used, can we agree that the intro is a bit POV, missing the negative views about Christianity in China? As far as vegetarianism is concerned, here's an article -. And I would think that sources on Christianity in China and greater Asia in the context of colonialist attitudes should not be too difficult to find - western nations thought it was their duty to convert the "heathens". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As the only real surveys, those of October should be kept in the intro. Maybe we should move to the demographics section all the various numbers not backed by reliable studies. --Esimal (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It would make sense to move some of the material to the demographics section, although the intro should mention the wide range of estimates. Detailed criticisms can be expanded inthe demopgraphics section.  Or maybe it would be helpful to have a section just on the issue of the difficulty of gathering accurate numbers of Christians in China?--Anietor (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward
I'd like to see how editors feel about these two following issues in order to move forward: If editors can agree with the above two statements, we can move forward to figure out how to solve those problems. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The intro right now has too much on the numbers. Detailed information about the numbers should be in the Demographics section.
 * 2) The intro right now is a bit POV and should somehow incorporate some negative views about Christianity in China while keeping the positive views that are already there.
 * IMHO any kind of criticism, positive or negative, will cause edit wars and new POVs. --Esimal (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:NPOV suggests that we include opposing POVs instead of eliminating them. Whether discussed in the intro or afterwards, opposing POVs need to be included.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be good to create a "Positive and negative impacts of Christianity in China" section. --Esimal (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the intro has too much on numbers and the demographics section is a better place. Opposing views are welcome for the intro, add them and I will discuss before making changes.

The impact section proposal I am unsure of, unless the whole article is re-written to flow well.Brian0324 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Esiaml and Hong for your help in keeping neutral the article. --Xi Zhu (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro proposal

 * It keeps official figures and actual surveys

Christianity in China has developed since at least the 7th century AD. The introduction of Nestorianism, a Christian denomination, around 635 is considered by some to be the first entry of the Christian religion into China. However, recent discoveries seem to put the first diffusion of Christianity in China during the 1st century AD. Today, the Christian population in China comprises Protestants, Catholics, and a small number of Orthodox Christians. The government census enumerates 4 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants, while latest surveys (independent of the Chinese government) show a number of 54 million Christians in China (4% of the total population).


 * Support - Looks good to me. But maybe clarify that the "latest studies" are independent of the Chinese government, or even mention specifically where those "latest studies" came from.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the detail. --Esimal (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - The status report is sufficient. However the trend is growth, which is notable for China and compared to other countries where Christianity is either in decline or stagnant.Brian0324 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Brian, Wikipedia can't confirm such kind of statements. We can't be sure of the number of Christians today nor in the past years. We can't state "Christianity is growing" without scientific proofs, it's not neutral. --Esimal (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony Lambert's study, that you are in favor of including, shows (as I indicated above) that whereas in 1952 only one in 1000 Chinese were Protestant, as of 1996 it had jumped to one in 36. This is during the period of the PRC, an officially atheist regime that closed the doors of all official churches for about ten years during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The quote from the NY Times is just a concise summary of Christianity in China as it is today, supported by even the most conservative figures.Brian0324 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Brian, there is (were, before the October surveys) full of clappy-clappy numbers. See the Adherents.com report. It seems in 1942 there were 1 million Protestants, and the 130 million figure is much older than I thought... It was published in 1999. --Esimal (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you agree that growth is a notable trend? Please clarify. Thanks.Brian0324 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not here to state that a religion is growing, we have just to provide numbers. Probably Buddhism has grown faster than Christianity. --Esimal (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But, if on the Religion in China page Buddhism and Taoism are described as being in a state of "major revival", then it is notable.Brian0324 (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - simple and neutral. --Xi Zhu (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 100 to 130 million Christians in PR China...PARANOID!Although the Gov's estimate was only 1%but in fact, the truliest numbers of Chinese Christian could be around 40 to less than 60 million (3%-4%) recently.

Demographics proposal

 * Shows the array of numbers both official, surveys, and claims without evident documentation

It is not exactly known how many Chinese consider themselves Christian. The Chinese government states that only 1% (14 million; 10 million Protestants and 4 million Catholics) of the population is Christian while the Chinese Embassy states that 10 Million (0.75%) are Christian. However, claims have ranged from 20 million, to "between 60 and 80 million" , to 100 million , to 130 million alleged for the first time in 1999. The most of these figures were just claims, not backed by studies.

In response to these claims a series of surveys have been conducted in 2007. A recent Chinese poll held in April revealed by the BBC showed that approximately 40 million Christians live in China. In October 2007 two polls were conducted, one by Protestant missionary Werner Burklin, the other one by Liu Zhongyu from East China Normal University in Shanghai. The surveys were conducted independently and during different periods, but they reached the same results. According to these studies, in China there are roughly 54 million Christians, of which 39 million Protestants and 14 million Catholics. Burklin criticizes both higher numbers as inconsistent, and North American evangelical leaders who spread them.

A 2003 study by Tony Lambert examines the problems of false statistics. It says that high numbers of Christians in China are not backed by reliable and documented evidence, and they started to be spread in 1980s because of sociopolitical issues.

A relatively large proportion of Christians are concentrated in Hebei province, in particular Catholics. Hebei is also home to the town of Donglu, site of an alleged Marian apparition and pilgrimage center.


 * Support - Yes, this is where the details of the population numbers should go. The intro should be kept short on the numbers.
 * Support --Xi Zhu (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Effects of Christianity in China

 * Persecution of Buddhists, Taiping Rebellion & destruction of temples, colonialism; positivities

Christianity took root in a significant way during the Qing Dynasty, when was founded the movement of Taiping Christianity. It was said to have several million adherents, of which the vast majority were peasants. They founded a theocratic kingdom opposing the Qing rule. At their height they controlled over one-fourth of China. Taiping Christians undertook the so called Taiping Rebellion, that caused the death of between 20 and 30 million people. In addition, as a result of social disorders caused by the rebellion, an estimated other 60 million Chinese died in the following periods.

Taiping Christians persecuted followers of other religions (Buddhism, Taoism and folkloric practices). The Taiping leader, Hong Xiuquan, declared himself "slayer of demons", send by the Christian God to "eradicate demons and demon worship". Organized into a military society, Taiping Christians destroyed temples, monasteries and religious iconography in southern China.

Christian authors wrote that Christians in China established the first clinics and hospitals, provided the first training for nurses, opened the first schools, worked to abolish practices such as foot binding , and the unjust treatment of maidservants, as well as launching charitable work and distributing food to the poor. They are also said to have opposed the opium trade and to have brought treatment to many who were addicted. Some of the early leaders of the Chinese Republic, such as Sun Yat-sen were converts to Christianity and were influenced by its teachings.

A 2004 study by Eric Robert discusses the opposition that Christian missionaries have traditionally held toward vegetarianism as a strategy to counter the influence of Buddhism, and as part of their effort to convert Chinese "Heathens" (as Buddhists and Taoists were called by missionaries) to Christianity.

[...]


 * Comment - "Taiping Christianity"? watch out for neologisms (WP:NEO). Christianity doesn't deserve the blame for their destructiveness, nor do they deserve all of the credit for being peasant/communist reformers ahead of their time.Brian0324 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Brian, Taiping Christianity is used by many studies as a label for the Taiping doctrine. Taipings had a huge impact on China, and we must talk about the effects. --Esimal (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Taiping Christians" is not an common, accurate, or neutral descriptor of this movement. Brian0324 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Christian authors wrote"? Either it is a verifiable fact, or it is a disputable controversy. Pick one.Brian0324 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be neutral, we can't cite Christian authors' texts as divine revelations. --Esimal (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is going to be cited as a fact, then it needs no qualifier. That's just protocol, not bias.Brian0324 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Regarding missionaries and vegetarianism: first, this isn't Mission (Christian), and the fact that they used the term "heathen" as a biblical term for the nations that do not believe in God doesn't warrant mention here because it did not imply the demeaning epithet that is inferred above.Brian0324 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Xi Zhu (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The proposed additions are, as written, misleading in several respects. Saying "they" founded a theocratic kingdom is overbroad, or vague at best.  The discussions of "Taiping Christians", "Christian authors", etc are rather sloppy overgeneralizations, and modifying the positive material by attributing it to "Christian authors" while stating other points as unquestioned fact brings it into the realm of undue weight and POV.  --Anietor (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who founded the theocratic kingdom if not Taipings? Authors writing about Christianity were missionaries, not imams. --Esimal (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support on the condition that sources used for this are reliable, and some of the wording is cleaned up (like "a theocratic kingdom"). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity in China and USA politics (?)

 * Theories exposed by Xi Zhu (?)

consensus
Made some edits that should reflect some of the concerns above for neutrality regarding the emphasis of the quote on growth. Not attempting to circumvent the ongoing discussion, here, but I was not intending to make a major departure from how the article read.Brian0324 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Clinics and hospitals
I made a recent minor edit to the article where it stated "the first clinics and hospitals" and changed it to "the first modern clinics and hospitals." This is because China actually had an established pre-modern system of pharmacology, free health clinics, retirement homes, and hospitals before Protestant missionaries and others arrived with more modern standards (well, "modern" in the 19th century sense). Refer to page 172 of Jacques Gernet's Daily Life in China on the Eve of the Mongol Invasion, 1250–1276 (1962), as well as page 167 of Patricia Ebrey, James Palais, and Anne Walthall's East Asia: A Social, Cultural, and Political History (2006).-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive
This talk page is very long and needs to archived at some point. If there are unresolved issues, please address them, otherwise it would be a good time during this lull to do some housekeeping here if no one objects. Thanks.Brian0324 (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)