Talk:Christianity in China/Archive 2

Looking for C.S. Song
I'm looking for an article on Chinese theologian C.S. Song, but I can't find one and I don't see his name in this article. Is he hiding in WikiSpace, or is he MIA from the site? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

POV
The article puts high emphasis on sensationalistic views of American evangelicals. It should be based on academic studies. --Xi Zhu (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah really. There are some worrying neutrality issues going on here, but nothing that can't be fixed easily. ʄ! •¿talk?  06:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could one of you please be more specific? I am really committed to making this article read from a neutral point of view. See Talk:Christianity in China/Archive - this article is being improved and getting better citations where needed. If you are going to put a Neutrality tag on the article, though it would be good to bring up a discussion, here so that we can attempt to build a consensus on more neutral language. However, this talk page is not a place to debate the subject itself. Thanks.Brian0324 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @Fennessy: months ago, a friend wrote neutral paragraphs to make this article non-POV. We should recover them. --Xi Zhu (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian0324, you don't define the subject. Xi Zhu has perfectly legitimate concerns, as this article cites extremist sources(Spengler is not a valid source, and neither is an ultra-conservative internet forum like the the free republic!) and completely avoids any negative aspects of the subject. I see alot of edits have been made to the article but you would be better off fixing the references that are in a really bad way. ʄ! •¿talk?  20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way why is the intro so short now? You should am to make it a few paragraphs longer as per WP:LEAD. ʄ! •¿talk?  20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Spengler is a notable source. Which negative aspects are ignored? You are right, there is much work to be done fixing the references. I shortened the intro to be more concise. It was getting into history and demographics and I thought that a "Development" section would be a good overview since the subject is so large.Brian0324 (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Trend of growth
Fennessy has removed the quote by Spengler (columnist) which speaks about the growth of the church. It doesn't take someone like Spengler to figure out that with the current rate of growth, more of the world's Christians will be living in China. There will be more Buddhists and Taoists there as well. I think that Spengler is merely summarizing the trend and his notability makes the quote relevant to the article. "Some have high hopes" sounds pretty vague and POV in comparison. "High hopes" that Christianity will become a majority religion in China? Spengler isn't saying that.Brian0324 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He says it because he hopes it. I'm sure it would be fairly easy to find a citation from an academic source which says something similar, albeit not in such a hyperbolic manner. I just don't think an anonymous internet columnist cuts it to make such a lofty claim. ʄ! •¿talk?  21:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an attributed opinion of a notable source. You are making a judgment about his statement itself.Brian0324 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG, of particular note, "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources". <tt><font color="#2E8B57">ʄ! •<font color="#CD0000">¿talk? </tt> 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are the criteria for WP:REDFLAG Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
 * growth is the trend that is verified by other sources in the article


 * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
 * none of the above apply


 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
 * if dramatic growth is not the trend, then sources that indicate otherwise should be easy to findBrian0324 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course there is growth, no one is disputing that. However to say that Christianity will be a sino-centric religion in a few generations time(or words to that effect) is laughable exaggeration, and needs a much better source. <tt><font color="#2E8B57">ʄ! •<font color="#CD0000">¿talk? </tt> 22:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you're disputing the content of the quote, not the verifiability. Do the math - it's not unreasonable to say that the main area of global Christian growth has been in China since the 1970s.Brian0324 (talk) 22:06., 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Spengler quote is now better reflective of his opinion "speculates" instead of "commented".Brian0324 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I modified it slightly to not sound so definite as it is after all just an opinion from an anonymous person. Other than that is there any way the Missionary Expansion (1807-1900) section can be broken into two or something? I want to add a section about Hong Xiuquan & the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace in the middle, but want to do it in a logical way. After that the neutrality issues will have been addressed and the tag can be removed. Its just a major omission like that that holds this otherwise decent article back. <tt><font color="#2E8B57">ʄ! •<font color="#CD0000">¿talk? </tt> 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I added some material from Taiping Rebellion and a relevant photo. I would hesitate to add much more about Hong Xiuquan just because of undue weight, mostly. I am curious if you think that this is a fair treatment of this episode within the subject of "Christianity in China"?Brian0324 (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of this article
I added to the intro of the Christianity in China portal more details about Hong Xiuquan's beliefs, and also more details about the Boxer Rebellion. Firstly I think the details about Hong Xiuquan are diminished because it looks bad.

Second of all, why is it mentioned nowhere here or in Christianity in China article that China was forced to admit foreign missionaries into China? This is discussed in Protestant missions in China 1807-1953. I mean if it's a matter of providing sources I can give you several. And I think it's an important point. User:Brian0324, I don't see what you are getting at by restating that "the Boxer rebellion was also directed at native Chinese Christians as well as all things foreign - so that is why it read "a reaction in part against Christianity"". The foreign version was surely the catalyst for the violence as the only native Chinese Christians at the time would have been Nestorian —an extreme minority that could have been lumped together with the foreign brand of the faith. I see a tag has since been added & I think it is relevant. <tt><font color="#2E8B57">ʄ! •<font color="#CD0000">¿talk? </tt> 05:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This portal only reflects what is at the article, fight over it there. -- Secisek (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fennessy, and I re-add the tag removed by Brian0324. Secisek: the portal does not reflect the article. Texts are different, and both severely POV. --Xi Zhu (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a summary of what is there. FIx it there and it will be fixed here. I am not taking anybody's side on this, I am just helping maintain the portal. -- Secisek (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the problem is here and needs to be discussed here—the Christianity in China article has more than enough problems of its own. Whats more no one is "fighting" over it. All I did was add a few half sentences and it got reverted for no good reason, leading to suspicions of major POV in regard to this subject as a whole. <tt><font color="#2E8B57">ʄ! •<font color="#CD0000">¿talk? </tt> 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I said what this is supposed to be - I have not check lately to see that it is so. I will again update the mirror to relect changes that may have taken place to the article. It will be futile to carry this discussion on in two places. Argue it there, the problem is with the article, not the portal. I have moved this here where everyone may particpate. -- Secisek (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To finally address one of the above concerns, the native Christians who were killed during the Boxer Rebellion (see China Martyrs of 1900)were Protestant and Catholic. Nestorianism has been gone for a long time.Brian0324 (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Jonathan Goforth?
After reading this topic completely, I was taken aback by the fact that there is no mention of Jonathan Goforth, the legendary missionary to China after Hudson Taylor. His work there is highly documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OldTimeRadioAddict (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jonathan Goforth and the Manchurian revival deserve mention, here. He is on the Portal:Christianity in China as a topic link.Brian0324 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done!Brian0324 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Fulcrum" :

Can you really call it a minority?
There are more Christians in China than there are in the United States, obviously due to the amount of people, but could a better suited name be found than minority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.10 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A "growing minority"--74.13.125.87 (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Christianity in China navigation box?
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Christianity in China work group and respond there with any input in what should be included in a box to help easily connect the most important articles related to this subject. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Shang Di
The word Shang Di consists of two characters: Shang, which means "high", "above"; "Di", which is translated as "Emperor", and by implication "Sovereign".

The literal translation of "Shang Di" is thus "Emperor above (in high place, meaning the supernal Heaven)".

The same can be found in "Bao Di", or "Jade (Bao, meaning jewel, which is here specified as jade) Emperor (Di)".

Previously in this article, "Shang Di" has been translated as "Sovereign King Above". The Chinese word for "king" is "wang", not "Di".

Therefore, the translation of "Shang Di" in this article has been edited.

--Archestrategos (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Massacre
I looked at the reference and no where does the writer praise the Muslims for killing the Tibetans. The author praises God for allowing His message to move forward and actually calls the violence "awful bloodshed and cruelty". I removed the sentence. Daniel14vt (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Credibility test
This article claims that there are almost 70 million Christians in China but does not give geographical break up of where they live (underground or overground). There are plenty of weasel words (like house church for instance). It is wise to delete this article outright and start afresh.Spade and Shovel (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Spade and Shovel, I am not one of the editors here, but I see that I might have the help for one of issues You raised. Does the house church really look like weasel word for You? I do remember from reading it somewhere that it is actually definitive term, so You can look up the meaning of the word combination in earnest here: chinese house church and test the credibility of the term. Anyway if people meet up in secret up in homes would you come up with different way how to describe it? R<font color="lightseagreen">e o + 23:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting 70 million Christians pray secretly in private congregations in each others' homes? I have read the links you provided before. Doesn't make it alright. China allows freedom of religion, if registered. This 70 million statistic is fictional.Spade and Shovel (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * mmm! I am not! Well it looks as if you take me for the speaker of that article :D, but I am just reader as you are. My concern was - your concern with the term house church. That is not weasel word in such a connotation.
 * Furthermore we can both agree or disagree and it is not connected to the terminology to which I was pointing. That mean I did not suggest a thing! At least not yesterday. I did not, for I did not know enough about the whole thing. Just commenting on part of your remark - factuality of part of it.


 * But as matter of fact, now I had looked upon the subject you are wondering (and again I repeat: I am not contributor to that article so I do not know it so well).
 * geographical break up: They say there that most Christians are in Henan and Hebei. And I do not see that the article would be one sided. 70 000 000 christians - It do not say it as flat fact (Where?). The paragrafs bellow are copied from the text - they dispute known suggestions and make it clear, that any numbers are unclear (aren't they?) but the ones reported are as bellow (underlined by me):


 *  The current number of Christians in China is disputed . The most recent official census enumerated 4 million Roman Catholics and 10 million ‎Protestants. However, independent estimates have ranged from 40 million to 130 million Christians. According to China Aid Association, State Administration for Religious Affairs Director Ye Xiaowen reported to audiences at Beijing University and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences that the number of Christians in China had risen to 130 million by the end of 2006, including 20 million Catholics.[34][35] This has been officially denied by the Foreign Ministry. [36] According to a survey done by China Partner and East China Normal University in Shanghai, there are now 39 to 41 million Protestant Christians in China.[citation needed] These include Christians in registered and unregistered churches. All other numbers previously mentioned were rough estimates that never have been substantiated. The survey was done with 7,400 individuals in 2007-08 by China Partner in all 31 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions. Another survey done with 4,500 individuals by East China Normal University in Shanghai reveals up to 40 million.[citation needed] Other studies have suggested that there are roughly 54 million Christians in China, of which 39 million are Protestants and 14 million are Roman Catholics; these are seen as the most common and reliable figures.[37][38][39][40 ] 
 *  It is not known exactly how many Chinese consider themselves Christian . Estimates of Christians in China are difficult to obtain because of the numbers of Christians unwilling to reveal their beliefs, the hostility of the national government towards some Christian sects, and difficulties in obtaining accurate statistics on house churches. It seems clear that the numbers are growing rapidly[43] 
 *  It is not known exactly how many Chinese consider themselves Christian . Estimates of Christians in China are difficult to obtain because of the numbers of Christians unwilling to reveal their beliefs, the hostility of the national government towards some Christian sects, and difficulties in obtaining accurate statistics on house churches. It seems clear that the numbers are growing rapidly[43] 


 * And one more remark from my side.. You do have some knowledge about the matter? So that is way you are so doubtfull? I do have one experience. And that is, I lived in comunist country.
 * We had the freedom of religion the same way comunist China has. As a result - if you have this kind of false freedom, of course it is better to go in hiding. Of course we had here underground priests and undeground church and undeground Universities, - people just meeting in house flats. Because the official churches were mostly puppets of regime, trying to wash you your brain. I do not know what phylosophical background you are. But just imagine, that what you firmly believe is true - someone is telling you what you may and what you may not believe, what you may and what you may not celebrate, to whom you may speak and you have to condemn and you must follow - completelly without regard on your reasoning and your conscience. You can not read what you want. (For example Bibles having text rewritten - those you can read freely) If you do not, the regime will punish you by some unrelated way, by some false accusation - not related to religion. In China they try to manipulate the registered christians that they have to support actions of the state and nation and so on if they do not, they are jailed. Free muslims are often falsely accused of being terrorists (aren't they?) and jailed and Falung gong as religious movement is terible story of false accusation - jailed and tortured.
 * You may say they have freedom of religion, but... It is the same freedom of religion we had. The freedom of religion being written on paper only. That's my opinion. (not in the article)
 * You may (or may not) be right about the number of christians being not true - I do not know (it looks too much for someone like us. But it depends on how it is formulated in article, they do not say it as flat fact). - But I am not surprised that most Chinese christians are hiding and they are difficult to count. All christians in the long history tended to go in hiding if in persecution. From the begining. Just as in Bible. Weren't they ? --R<font color="lightseagreen">e o + 20:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP is a known troll, pov pusher and indef blocked sockmaster; see Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas/Archive--Sodabottle (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem
Following on an OTRS complaint of copyright infringement in another article by a contributor who greatly expanded this article, it has been discovered that this article has been edited to include a liberal copy of at least one print source:. See pages 187 and following. These are the edits in question.

While the article has evolved since then, it still contains extensive content from those edits which will need to be removed or rewritten. Some of the content has been removed or replaced with material that was in the article prior to these edits. One entire section has been blanked. This section should be rewritten from scratch. The article has been listed at the copyright problems board to permit interested contributors an opportunity to determine how to best salvage the situation. It will be visited by an administrator after about a week. At that time, if no rewrite has been proposed, the section may be deleted or stubbed.

This is unfortunate, but our policies do not permit us to host content that has been previously published elsewhere unless we are able to verify that this content is public domain or compatibly licensed. This contributor has copied from multiple books, and there is no evidence at all that he did so with authorization. If this evidence is supplied, of course, the content can and will be restored. Given that in the first case the author protested, this may be unlikely.

See the contributor copyright investigation for more information and additional articles that are or may be affected. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * you blanked more than the copyvio. Some non copyvio material was removed in your mass blanking.(that material was not in Phillip J's original edit which you showed here)Tatadou (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The section blanked may include salvageable material, but any interested contributor will need to carefully evaluate the material in that section to ensure that it wasn't written by Phillip J. Any proposed rewrite that includes content by Phillip J isn't likely to be accepted. Likewise, any content that is derived from material placed by Phillip J is likely to constitute a problem. So far, no rewrite has been proposed. There is a chance that the entire blanked section will simply be removed when the listing closes.


 * In terms of the content that was replaced, Copyright cleanup policy is generally that, where content cannot be cleanly excised, we revert to the non-infringing version of the page. Rather than reverting the entire article, one section was reverted. As with the blanked section, any content that wasn't written by Phillip J or derived from his edits can be restored, although interested contributors are likely to need to rewrite substantially to make sense of it, since Phillip J's text was the base. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

missionary works

 * London: HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. MDCCLXXX. THE SPRING LECTURE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ENGLAND FOR 1880. DELIVERED IN THE COLLEGE, GUILFORD STREET, LONDON. Original from Harvard University Digitized Oct 14, 2008




 * New York THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, AGENTS 60 FIFTH AVENUE 1902 All rights reserved COPYRIGHT, 1902, BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. Set up and electrotyped October, 1902. Original from the University of California Digitized Nov 20, 2007


 * SHANGHAI Messrs. KELLY & WALSH. Ld. 1905 Original from Harvard University Digitized Jun 27, 2008




 * LODON CHAPMAN & HALL, LTD. 1906 Original from the University of California Digitized Nov 21, 2007




 * London : MACMILLAN AND Co. 1880. [The Right of Translation is reserved.] Original from Harvard University Digitized Oct 14, 2008


 * London : MACMILLAN AND Co. 1878. [The Right of Translation is reserved.] Original from the University of California Digitized May 6, 2010


 * VICTORIA, HONGKONG : DE SOUZA & CO. 1875. Original from the New York Public Library Digitized Apr 2, 2008


 * London MACMILLAN AND CO. 1878 [The Right of Translation and Reproduction is Reserved] Original from Oxford University Digitized Jul 7, 2006


 * Entered, according to ACt of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, by HARPER & BROTHERS. In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New York. NEW YORK : HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE. 1876 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Oct 14, 2008


 * HONGKONG : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED FOR THE PROPRIETOR BY SORONHA & SONS. GOVERNMENT PRINTERS. SHANGHAI, A. H. DE CARBALHO; LONDON, W. ALLAN & CO.; PARIS, C. BORRANI. MDCCCLXVIII Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Oct 18, 2007


 * WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS EDINBURGH AND LONDON MDCCCLIX Original from the New York Public Library Digitized Oct 30, 2007


 * ALSO SOLD BY KELLY AND WALSH ; BREWER AND CO. ; MR. E. EVANS, SHANGHAI, AND BY P. S. KING AND SON, 2 GREAT SMITH ST. WESTMINSTER, LONDON, S. W. 1901 Original from the University of California Digitized Oct 17, 2007


 * ALSO SOLD BY KELLY AND WALSH ; BREWER AND CO. ; MR. E. EVANS, SHANGHAI, AND BY P. S. KING AND SON, 2 GREAT SMITH ST. WESTMINSTER, LONDON, S. W. Original from Harvard University Digitized Nov 7, 2005


 * ALSO SOLD BY KELLY AND WALSH ; BREWER AND CO. ; MR. E. EVANS, SHANGHAI, AND BY P. S. KING AND SON, 2 GREAT SMITH ST. WESTMINSTER, LONDON, S. W. Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Oct 10, 2006


 * Oxford AT THE CLARENDON PRESS M.DCCC.LXXVI London MACMILLAN AND CO. PUBLISHERS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF Oxford Original from Oxford University Digitized May 11, 2007


 * Issue 40 of [China, a collection of pamphlets Original from Pennsylvania State University Digitized Sep 15, 2009


 * LONDON : MORGAN AND SCOTT, 12, PATERNOSTER BUILDINGS, E.C. Original from the New York Public Library Digitized Aug 15, 2006

565

THE SEVENTY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS OF THE Presbyterian Church in the United States of America Presented to the General Assembly, May 1911 NEW YORK : PRESBYTERIAN BUILDING, 156 FIFTH AVENUE 1911Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Dec 11, 2008

Original from Harvard University Digitized Aug 20, 2007

PRIVATELY PRINTED FOR THE CLASS IRVING PRESS NEW YORK 1911 Original from Princeton University Digitized Apr 29, 2010

PRIVATELY PRINTED FOR THE CLASS IRVING PRESS NEW YORK 1911 Original from Harvard University Digitized May 12, 2008

One Hundred Ninth Annual Report OF THE BOARD OF HOME MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Presented to the General Assembly, at Atlantic City, New Jersey, May 18th, 1911 Presbyterian Building : No. 156 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 1911 Original from the University of Wisconsin - Madison Digitized Jan 13, 2009

Published by The American Presbyterian Mission Press 18 Peking Road, Shanghai, China. Original from Harvard University Digitized Aug 20, 2007

Published by The American Presbyterian Mission Press 18 Peking Road, Shanghai, China. Original from Harvard University Digitized Aug 20, 2007

Tatadou (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information by user who writes primarily on Chinese Christian cults such as Eastern Lightning
Users "Changeful" and "Theophilus", highly possibly sockpuppets of one same man, have been trying to delete sourced information on Eastern Lightning and other sects, especially sources linking their origin to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's Shouters or Local Church movements. Given that they primarily work on these topics, clearly with favour towards these sects, their tricky edits should be carefully watched. --82.60.22.235 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

History of edits made by anonymous users exhibiting pro-government bias

 * A cursory examination of the recent history of this article reveals the strong presence of anonymous users whose edits display two strong tendencies:


 * 1) the mitigation or wholesale removal of any information suggesting the growth of Christianity in China, especially as it pertains to groups that are outside the sphere of government sanction. Here is one such example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=611292528&oldid=611291393


 * 2) the continual suggestion that the house church movement in China is exclusively the domain of aberrant Christian groups such as the "Eastern Lightning" cult rather than a holistic phenomenon that involves both orthodox and sectarian participants from the full spectrum of Christians in China. Along with these edits is a suppression of any references to the house church movement that could be perceived as positive.


 * I do not agree with these kinds of edits, especially since they are repeatedly carried out by anonymous users who seem to display no interest in revising their material in the face of legitimate critique by long-standing contributors and who revert the edits to their own material carried out by others with feckless explanations like "Revert sourced material that was removed or changed". I ask that this community join me afresh in protecting the objectivity of these articles from anonymous users whose pattern of edits display, to me, a strong stench of political bias. This is simply not the place for pro or anti-government propaganda. Abishai 300 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The user "Theophilus" and I are not related in any way.

The edits being made by the anonymous user appear to be a systematic attempt to suppress information on the growth and extent of Christianity in China. He has gone to several different articles removing language that illustrates the growth and extent Chinese Christianity and Christianity among the Chinese in diaspora. He has also tried--repeatedly--to make edits conflating the breadth of Chinese Protestant Christianity (and of "house churches" in particular) with obscure religious groups currently categorized by the Chinese government as "evil cults." He has stated of these groups that "their crazy dogmas come from the Bible" as justification for his conflation.

Instead of using this page as a relay station for the Chinese government's most current list of tiny, disapproved religious groups, the article, particularly the introduction, should give a general overview of the history and scope of Christianity in China. Such an article must include an unbiased treatment of the history and proliferation of Protestant "house churches" whose members constitute the lion's share of Chinese Christianity. The text that the anonymous user persists in inserting is unrelated to the article's subject and is far too specific and obscure to be included in the article introduction. It also misuses citations and quotations to try to further an agenda. For this reason, I am replacing his biased insertion with new text (with references) in line with the purpose of the article to provide relevant information as an overview of Christianity in China. Changeful (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Reality and reliable sources aren't government bias
Sources written by Western Christian missionaries about Christianity in China are totally unreliable and misrepresent the religious situation there. This article and other ones are predominantly written using this type of sources. Reliable sources about the topic, written by respectable scholars and not by missionaries, can be found and should be used. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle of Christian missionary propaganda. --79.10.148.72 (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This type of edit is unacceptable. Please modify the wording of the text if you think it's POV, but don't delete sources comprehensive of quotations.--79.10.148.72 (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Your insertions are too convoluted to be salvaged. Take a sentence like "What is defined as 'Protestantism' in China also includes a variety of cults based on the Bible teachings..." Why is Protestantism in quotes? Protestantism as "defined" by whom? Who "defines" Protestantism in China? Cults as defined by whom? What Bible teachings? The edit that you consider "unacceptable" is actually much more informative than the Chinese government propaganda you keep inserting, and is much more appropriate and applicable to the text of this article--particularly for the introduction. Why does the passage in your citation have so many deletions? What does it actually say? And why does it need to be reproduced here anyway? Changeful (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Protestantism", is, as all constructed words, a definition, that is a mean used to de-scribe a section of reality in this case a religious movement. It is in quotation marks because what Westerners intend for "Protestantism" is very different for what Jidujiao xinjiao means in Chinese, and Western Protestantism is very different from what Chinese Christians labeled Jidujiao xinjiao are.
 * Jidujiao xinjiao in Chinese defines both the "normal" Protestantism of the TSP Church and the variety of sects that have formed outside of it, in what Western Christians have named the "house churches", another definition that doesn't exists as a reality in China.
 * As for the quote: just look for it in Google Books, the parts omitted are lists of unrelated movements such as Falun Gong. It needs to be reproduced because an ostensive way of reporting a source permits to read what it actually say.
 * Also, stop using the pretext of anonymity to attack edits. The use of an account doesn't mean that what the user writes is truth.--79.10.148.72 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My two-cents: The introduction is not the place to make what, to me, amounts to a quasi-philosophical or cultural point about the word "Protestantism." You are welcome to treat any cultural discrepancies related to the use of this word elsewhere in the article with good, scholarly sources (ie: not online reviews of books), but I agree with Changeful that it does not belong in the introduction which should act as a general survey of the article's content. It is generally understood what Protestantism means; it is not complicated.


 * Also, the concern about anonymity is utterly warranted in this case. You attack Changeful and Theophilus for their history of edits but you yourself are concealing your own history behind a constantly changing IP address. You have absolutely no ground here to criticize in my mind. Wikipedia, of course, welcomes the participation of "IP users" but when these users behave intransigently by refusing to receive legitimate critique, and even engage in attacks on respected contributors, I feel this is to the detriment of the community as a whole. Again, this is just my two cents. Abishai 300 (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice that the new version edited by the "respected user" Changeful is full of Christian bias: David Aikman, Patrick Johnstone, and other American Christian missionaries and journalists (!) aren't reliable. These personalities have constructed, over the years, an image of Christianity in China that is present only in their minds. Even the "house churches", which name has a different meaning in Chinese, are a conceptual construction of these imaginative Christian missionaries.--79.10.148.72 (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why has the "respected user" removed this source discussing what "house churches" actually could be? I think that here I'm not the one with an agenda of distortion of reality. All the sourced contributions that were made to the article and have been deleted without reason should be re-established.--79.10.148.72 (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The more you argue, the more your own bias shows. Now it seems that, in addition to being politically motivated, you are racist as well. Do you object to the citation of scholarly Western writers? Provide some quality material from respected Chinese writers then.


 * To wit: The problem with the aforementioned source (although I would argue that, as an online book review, it is not a strong one to begin with - why not cite the book being reviewed?), as I see it, is that you are trying to use this source to make a point that it does not make. For instance, Dr. Doyle concludes:


 * "To answer the question posed in the title above, it would seem that a great many house churches are both doctrinally sound and politically harmless, though many others are definitely theologically unorthodox and, perhaps, potentially politically dangerous, especially if the government fails to open up greater space for civil society generally, and independent Protestants specifically."


 * So then how do you derive from this article that all house churches are unorthodox and therefore cultic? If that is somehow Lian Xi's point (and it isn't) why not reference him directly? If you want to cast incredulity on the house church movement, which, by the way, is much broader and more diverse than the few select groups that you seem to be hellbent on mentioning in a number of articles, and which is a fact that even your own source makes clear, make the point in the appropriate section of this article with appropriate references. Abishai 300 (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My edits aren't biased or politically motivated, or racist towards my own race, please be rational. Most of the authors cited, especially Aikman, aren't reliable: they are a group of, predominantly, American Christian writers that have given a picture of Chinese Christianity that isn't real; actually, they are the politically motivated ones, since they belong to the American Evangelical milieu that is stricly intertwined with US politics. And, I have written nowhere that all house churches are affiliated to the cultic milieu of Chinese Christianity: what my revision said is that most of the cultic sects are developments of the "house churches" (bad translation, as it was highlighted in my revision of the article) movement, that is precisely what the review says. Besides, in the current revision the cults aren't cited at all, while this aspect of the Chinese Christian milieu is surely worth of description.--79.17.79.245 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem here is your blatant agenda to delegitimize the entire scope of "house church" Christianity in China (which includes the major part of Christianity in China) with these obscure religious movements currently targeted by the Chinese government. If you want to write about Eastern Lightning (accurately), then, by all means, go to the Eastern Lightning page and make a contribution (an accurate one). But don't delete the entire China house church page and redirect it to your edited introduction to Christianity in China trying to suggest that "house churches" in China (those Christian meetings outside of the state-controlled TSPM) can be defined as meetings of groups currently targeted by the Chinese government as "evil cults." That is absurd. Changeful (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no real proof that the "house church" movement constitutes a majority of Christianity in China: it has been described as such by a bunch of American Christian writers, with a political agenda against China, totally detached from the Chinese reality.--79.17.79.245 (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * On your user page you describe yourself as engaged in a (Christian) "holy warfare" here. How can you be neutral in describing reality for what it actually is? --79.17.79.245 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am a Christian, which, to me, seems strangely appropriate, since the subject at hand is "Christianity in China." Abishai 300 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

+ POV tag 06/2014: removal of all information about the cultic nature of some of the "house churches" or "underground churches"

 * And you accuse me of having an agenda, when you make clear on your own page that you are here to act as a "fierce warrior for God's interests, fighting not by myself, but along side my all my Christian brethren for the truth of the Gospel". That's the absurdity.
 * However, I am going to tag the article for its biased POV. It is not right and is therefore unacceptable that information about the cultic aspects of the "house church" movement has been deleted, and that the issue is no longer treated in the article. --79.17.79.245 (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, regarding sourcing, the following ones are the two sources that have been deliberately deleted by Christian users:
 * Dr. G. Wright Doyle (2010). How Dangerous are Chinese House Churches. A review of "Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China", a book of Lian Xi. Yale University Press, 2010. ISBN 978.0-300-12339-5.
 * Robert Murray Thomas. Religion in Schools: Controversies Around the World. Praeger, 2006. ISBN 0275990613. p. 99, quote: «Protestantism expanded rapidly in China within the confines of the TSPM. But that movement accounted for only a portion of Chinese Protestants. Another portion was composed of believers outside the official body, members of sects not acceptable to the government—sects referred to as "house churches", because their covert meetings were usually held in members' homes. [...] The Shouters was one such groups [...] Over the last half of the twentieth century, a variety of Christian evangelical groups sprang up in China, much to the distress of the government. [...] illegal cults, which included not only the Shouters, but also Eastern Lightning, the Society of Disciples, [...] the Full Scope Church, the Spirit Sect, the New Testament Church, [...] the Lord God Sect, the Established King Church [...] and more. The Local Church is the official title of the group that became known as the Shouters because of the members' practice of stamping their feet and repeatedly yelling "O Lord Jesus" during religious services.»

This one is the revision that has given a non-neutral leaning to the article.--79.17.79.245 (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Addressing the locking of this article and propagandism and censorship here and in related articles
To my fellow editors,

I am Abishai 300, the principle contributor for the current version of The Shouters article. I'd like to briefly bring to your attention a vexing issue concerning this and related articles. In brief, there has been a pattern of what appears to be pro-Chinese government propaganda and, more crucially, politically-motivated censorship in this article and related articles in the last few months. I first mentioned the matter on this talk page a few weeks ago but I would like to emphasize that the campaign is being carried out very aggressively in a number of related articles such as:


 * China house church
 * Chinese Australian
 * Christianity in Russia
 * Eastern Lightning
 * House church
 * Local churches (affiliation)
 * Protestantism by country
 * Protestantism in China
 * Zalmoxianism

The edits and reversions are carried out by an anonymous user (or users) with a dynamic IP address. If you examine them and the "edit wars" they have provoked, I believe that you will notice several strong tendencies:


 * They censor any information that could be interpreted as a criticism of the Chinese government, such as its suppression of unsanctioned religious groups by extreme elements of the CCP. This is even sometimes done without any explanation.
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=611290427&oldid=611288330 Example 1]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=600915432&oldid=600264224 Example 2]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protestantism_in_China&diff=600908490&oldid=600907991 Example 3] (from Protestantism in China)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_house_church&diff=601048013&oldid=593846125 Example 4] (from China house church)


 * They downplay or suppress altogether any information suggesting the growth or prominence of Christianity in China, especially as it pertains to groups that meet outside of government sanctioned religious organizations such as the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association and Three-Self Patriotic Movement. This is carried out by dismissing wholesale statistics from reputable sources and/or replacing them with unrealistically low figures from government sources.
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=611292528&oldid=611291393 Example 1]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=600915432&oldid=600264224 Example 2]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protestantism_in_China&diff=600908490&oldid=600907991 Example 3] (from Protestantism in China)


 * They continually equate the "House church" movement in China to Chinese cultic groups such as Eastern Lightning when, in reality, the house churches are precisely the groups that suffer as a result of the violent and subversive activities of such cultic groups. Along with this, there is the stalwart refusal to recognize the fact that there are literally millions of people meeting outside of TSPM that are universally acknowledged to be orthodox Christians even by TSPM officials such as former chairman  Bishop Ting.
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=611676513&oldid=611640023 Example 1]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=612674000&oldid=612571164 Example 2]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_house_church&diff=611287475&oldid=606015312 Example 3] (from China house church)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_church&diff=612878557&oldid=612808967 Example 4] (from House church)

Bishop Ting has said that it is a TSPM responsibility to unite all Protestant Christians in China, including members of the house churches and that it is not proper to say that house churches are illegal.

Furthermore, Fu Xianwei, the current chairman of TSPM has been inclusive of the house churches, stating that they would be allowed to join TSPM after meeting certain qualifications. He also offers explanations for the house/underground church phenomenon, such as Christians choosing to meet in a nearby house church rather than a TSPM congregation simply because of convenience. On one occasion, He has even offered to assist the house churches in obtaining Bibles.

How then can we say, as Plukch and the IP users before him insist on suggesting, that Eastern Lightning, Mentuhui,  Beili Wang, etc. equate to the house churches? Or that house churches should be classified apart from  orthodox Christianity? To do this is not only factually incorrect. It is a gross distortion of the truth that has real-world implications in a country where people are persecuted and imprisoned based on their faith.

Rest assured that the examples provided above are merely a sampling of this widespread campaign. Attempts to address these edits and reversions are met with complete intransigence by the writer(s). For instance, not a single concession has been made to address a legitimate issue with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=615686307&oldid=615610158 this edit] raised by Changeful, namely that the phrase "What is defined as Protestantism..." is never qualified by a reference or explanation of who or what is doing the defining! Even worse, the progenitors of these edits and reversions have become increasingly belligerent in defending their activity, belying strong signs of racist, anti-Western, and anti-Christian bias while also engaging in attacks against other users, all the while concealing themselves in anonymity. Consider, for example, these comments:


 * "Notice that the new version edited by the "respected user" Changeful is full of Christian bias: David Aikman, Patrick Johnstone, and other American Christian missionaries and journalists (!) aren't reliable. These personalities have constructed, over the years, an image of Christianity in China that is present only in their minds. Even the "house churches", which name has a different meaning in Chinese, are a conceptual construction of these imaginative Christian missionaries." --79.10.148.72 (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC))


 * "There is no real proof that the "house church" movement constitutes a majority of Christianity in China: it has been described as such by a bunch of American Christian writers, with a political agenda against China, totally detached from the Chinese reality." --79.17.79.245 (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

While I assert that it is important to balance any possible Christian or Western bias with secular Chinese scholarship, is the wholesale dismissal of scholarly material by "American Christian writers" as well as edits and revisions made by "Christian users" valid?

If we value Wikipedia’s utility as an unbiased source of reliable information, we would do well to stop those with personal or political agendas from abusing it. -Abishai 300 (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with this analysis. The anonymous user(s) (who now, apparently, posts as Plukch) is not interested in a meaningful presentation of information. He repeatedly cites statistics from a survey of Christians in China but then removes any reference (from the same survey) of statistics he does not prefer. His argument that there are no house churches (or "underground church") in China is simply laughable. Worse, however, is his insistence that we not cite any source (Chinese or Western, religious or secular) that does recognize such a phenomenon. The text removed by the anonymous user cites numerous sources, academic and popular, both Chinese and Western. But this is repeatedly replaced with meaningless text like "What is defined as Protestantism in China also includes a variety of sects based on the Bible teachings..." I hope that someone can revert these political edits and allow us to post content reflecting actual scholarship and current perspectives on Christianity in China, rather than turn this page into an outlet for one person's propaganda. Changeful (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope we can return the article to its original form prior to the flurry of edits made by Plukch and possibly another editor using different IP addresses. The concern for accuracy on the number of Christians in China may be warranted but it seems as if the editor Plukch is relying on questionable statistics and downplaying others sources for advancing a POV. I'm also puzzled as to why the said editor is so strong in maintaining what is at best a tenuous relationship between the cult Eastern Lightning and those in the house church movement. This kind of association can have real world consequences for people who identify as Christian in China outside of the Three Self-Patriotic Movement and China Christian Council.--Theophilus144 (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

After review of many of the edits of the related pages I agree with the analysis of Abishai. I also think many of the edits of the IP address users have been irresponsible and biased using, at best, out-of-date or wrong references. &mdash; Σosthenes 12   Talk  07:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Abishai has changed disputed parts of this article without achieving any consensus. He has even added a misleading edit comment claiming consensus to his POV changes. Consensus does not happen because one person claims that they have consensus. Yujitokawa (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

False accusations aimed at vilifying users and removing inconvenient information
I am the anonymous user who has taken part in the edit war that was going on last month on the article "Christianity in China". I have finally decided to use an account to deal with the situation.

I think that the message of accusation written by Abishai is unacceptable, for two reasons: the first is that it contains personal attacks against me and other users, and the second one is that it is basically a call to arms to gather attention and support from other Christian editors, for which it has succeeded.

Accusing a user to act moved by a "pro-Chinese government, racist, anti-Western and anti-Christian political agenda" is particularly harsh, while the reality is that I have introduced neutral information supported by reliable sources and occasionally removed some sentences that were unsourced subjective opinions of past editors of the articles.

Besides, some of the accusations are utterly false (for example that I wrote that house churches are illegal or that they are basically the same thing as the cultic groups. What I wrote is that cultic groups form a large part of the house church movement, which is exactly what the book quoted says).

Secondly, the accusation that I, user Plukch and user Zambelo (who have intervened supporting my edits) are the same person is false.

Abishai's post has succeeded in attracting attention from other self-declared Christian apologists (Changeful, Theophilus and Sosthenes), and to impose their subjective POV to the article, a serious failure in Wikipedia neutrality. Now, information about the various fringe Christian groups that populate "Christianity in China", like the Shouters and Church of Almighty God, have been completely erased from the article. I hope one day the article will be made neutral again.--Etsop (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "What I wrote is that cultic groups form a large part of the house church movement..." No that's not what you wrote. You wrote this:


 * "What is defined as "Protestantism" (基督教新教 Jīdūjiào xīnjiào) in China also includes a variety of cults based on the Bible teachings, such as Eastern Lightning, Mentuhui, Beili Wang, The Shouters and the The Meeting Hall. They primarily operate in the form of the so-called "house churches", small worship groups in family homes, outside the state-sanctioned Three-Self Church." This strongly implies that the groups you identify as cults (without proper citation) equate to the house churches. I've already proven that this is completely false using statements by TSPM officials.


 * "...which is exactly what the book quoted says." You don't cite the book, you cite an online book review by G. Wright Doyle which says this (in the second to last paragraph): "To answer the question posed in the title above, it would seem that a great many house churches are both doctrinally sound and politically harmless, though many others are definitely theologically unorthodox and, perhaps, potentially politically dangerous, especially if the government fails to open up greater space for civil society generally, and independent Protestants specifically." Emphasis added. Anyone can plainly see that you are utterly misrepresenting the position held by Doyle in his review, namely that discretion and accommodation are needed by the government in dealing with unsanctioned religious organizations which include both a-political, doctrinally-sound groups as well as anti-government sects. Furthermore, he does not even mention the specific groups that you have listed as he is speaking about the house churches in strictly general terms.


 * In summary, your position, which can be clearly seen in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=612674000&oldid=612571164 one] of your numerous reversions, where you write "Again: revert deletion of information and sources aimed at hiding that much of the "house church" movement is made up of sectarian groups..." is not supported by Doyle's review upon which you are relying. More importantly, it completely contradicts the position held by TSPM officials. Since neither your own source nor TSPM chairmen, past and present, support what you've written, from where do your ideas come from? The answer is your own bias. -Abishai 300 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but "Chinese Protestantism also includes" in modern English means that "in addition to X it includes Y" as a secondary, yet relevant, thing. I do not have written anywhere that "Protestantism in China = Christian cults such as Church of Almighty God".
 * As for the "house churches", that is the form of Protestantism in which Christian cults such as Almighty God operate, you specified yourself that they are churches unregistered with the Three-Self Church. If they were members of the TSC, they wouldn't have existed as "unregistered churches".
 * Regarding the source How Dangerous Are Chinese House Churches, I think that a quote of the second paragraph would help to have a better understanding of Protestantism in China, Christian cults and house churches:
 * "Lian believes that most of today’s Chinese Protestant house church Christians – what he calls “popular Christianity” – bear the marks of various men (and women) and movements whose history he relates in the first few chapters. These early indigenous leaders emphasized independence from Western control; Pentecostal, or at least charismatic, ecstasies and miracles; and millennial, apocalyptic beliefs that predicted the imminent end of the world. In many ways, they resembled popular Chinese religious movements, some of which have ignited rebellions which sought to usher in the new world order by violence. Although most house church Christians today are a-political, there are plenty of sects and cults, most of which grew out of the popular Christianity whose story Lian tells, and which, if government repression continues, have the potential to spark a widespread revolt."
 * Moreover, you forgot the second source that I have been using for my edits: Robert Murray Thomas. Religion in Schools: Controversies Around the World. Praeger, 2006. ISBN 0275990613. p. 99, quote: «Protestantism expanded rapidly in China within the confines of the TSPM. But that movement accounted for only a portion of Chinese Protestants. Another portion was composed of believers outside the official body, members of sects not acceptable to the government—sects referred to as "house churches", because their covert meetings were usually held in members' homes. [...] The Shouters was one such groups [...] Over the last half of the twentieth century, a variety of Christian evangelical groups sprang up in China, much to the distress of the government. [...] illegal cults, which included not only the Shouters, but also Eastern Lightning, the Society of Disciples, [...] the Full Scope Church, the Spirit Sect, the New Testament Church, [...] the Lord God Sect, the Established King Church [...] and more. The Local Church is the official title of the group that became known as the Shouters because of the members' practice of stamping their feet and repeatedly yelling "O Lord Jesus" during religious services.»
 * This second quote clearly identifies the Christian cults with the "house church" milieu that flourished in China in the 1980s, including the Shouters.--Etsop (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "I do not have written anywhere that "Protestantism in China = Christian cults..." This is not issue. No one is claiming that "Protestantism in China", which you define arbitrarily without a proper citation (Doyle's review is of no use to you here), is devoid of sectarian groups.
 * "As for the 'house churches', that is the form of Protestantism in which Christian cults such as Almighty God operate..." This is the problem at hand. This sort of language implies that the cults equate to the house churches. By emphasizing that cults operate as house churches and not qualifying the statement, you ignore two crucial facts:
 * Cults like Almighty God are a tiny minority of the house church/unregistered church group which includes literally millions of participants from across the theological spectrum.
 * TSPM's attitude toward the house churches as a whole is that they are essentially non-cultic. I have already demonstrated this with published statements from the top levels of TSPM's leadership.


 * I'd also like to point out that both of your references, which you so vigorously promote, are from American academics that are quite possibly among of the very group that you previously dismissed as unreliable. I have provided references that include published statements straight from TSPM officials as well as a statement from a respected Chinese scholar. The sooner you accept the information I have provided and revise your thinking, the better it will be for this article and everyone involved. -Abishai 300 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to include a copy of Abishai 300's wikipedia profile, which he changed just before making a large revert in this article: Like my namesake, I like to consider myself a fierce warrior for God's interests, fighting not by myself, but along side my all my Christian brethren for the truth of the Gospel. I would like to follow my brother Paul, and continue in his spirit of warfare from which he spoke these words, words that have become part of the divine revelation delivered once for all to the saints, from which nothing can be added nor subtracted:

''This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.'' Galatians 2:4-5 (NIV) While I have been studying the Bible for most of my life, I do not take this, or anything else as my qualification for this most holy warfare. My unique qualification is this: I am a genuine believer in Christ, and I know Him Whom I have believed. I know the truth, love the truth, and wish to see the truth, even the Gospel of the Kingdom, preached throughout the inhabited earth, so that the end may come."

It is obvious that Abishai considers himself to be a "holy warrior" dedicated to promoting Christianity. Yujitokawa (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do yourself a favor and read up before posting next time. My former profile has already been discussed above and, in any case, it's not the issue here. Focusing on my talk page just tells everyone that you can't deal with the actual facts that I and others have presented. -Abishai 300 (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Yujitokawa, there's a terrible conflict of interests in Abishai300 and other users, or "God warriors", contributing to this and other articles, which at the current state is nothing better than a piece of propaganda from American journalism.--Etsop (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct. If I were to follow the same standards of notability as Abishai and his buddies I could make a series of edits to the United States of America page indicating that a holy war between godless liberal media elites and the chosen warriors of god was occurring on American soil. I could blame hurricanes and natural disasters on homosexuality. It's ludicrous. The fact that you can cite an extremist with an acknowledged religious and political bias does not make your claims admissable, that is not a reliable source in any way. Either start citing legitimate sources or better yet stop editing.

And yes, Abishai, your POV pushing is, in fact, the issue here. Literally nobody reading this page has any illusions about what you're doing.174.50.96.97 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, that you want to deflect the discussion to my talk page or my personal beliefs proves that you cannot refute the sourced information I have provided. There was an attempt to censor information about the house churches in China and to equate them to cultic Christianity. I and others resisted it using proper sources. This is not about advancing a Christian agenda - you will not find contributions that I have made "promoting Christianity" as you allege. What I 'have' done is to revert edits that distort or conceal the reality of Christianity in China, specifically as it pertains to unsanctioned groups like the house churches.
 * The real "illusion" here is this pointless debate concerning mine and others' personal beliefs which you are, of course, welcome to continue amongst yourselves if you desire. However, please do not try to apply censorship here or in related articles. Christianity in China includes millions of Christians of orthodox belief that meet outside of the government sanctioned religious organizations. That is simply the facts. -Abishai 300 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Asia Harvest
Hi,

According to, Asia Harvest is an "unreliable source[s]", since " "AsiaHarvest" is essentially an American Evangelical propaganda agency, not a neutral reliable source. Specifically, Paul Hattaway's estimates aren't based on empirical data from surveys or censi, but are speculations from his own fantasy". If think that since Asia Harvest's data is often used by others reliable sources, they cannot be ignored. Indeed Hattaway's estimates are quoted by:
 * Refugee Review Tribunal, Australian Government
 * Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa
 * The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: "Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population - Appendix C: Methodology for China": "An ambitious assessment of the number of Chinese affiliated with all forms of Christianity in every county of China", "The study’s numbers are based on secondary analysis of more than 2,000 published sources as well as interviews with leaders of unregistered churches who granted the research team access to statistics on their membership." " Hattaway’s estimates are summarized in a series of national and province tables, many of which include links to sources used to makes the estimates"
 * Atheist Political Activists Turned Protestants: Religious Conversion among Chinese Dissidents, Journal of Church and State, Oxford University
 * Estimating China's Religious Populations, Todd M. Johnson and Brian J. Grim, John Wiley & Sons

Moreover, the fact that Hattaway may be biased is not a problem as long as its clearcly indicated ("a US non-profit organization and "inter-denominational Christian ministry"). A455bcd9 (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I report here what I wrote yesterday on A455bcd9 talkpage:
 * Please, do not use Asia Harvest as a source, for it is not neutral, its statistics are unscientific, and it is therefore totally unreliable. Asia Harvest is essentially one of the different American Evangelical websites or organizations of propaganda, which have contributed in the diffusion through the internet of many false statistics about Christians in China and in other countries.


 * Specifically, Paul Hattaway's estimates aren't based on empirical data from surveys or censuses, but are evidently speculations from his own fantasy. Figures from Catholics are even contradicted by the official counting of the Roman Catholic Church itself.


 * Wikipedia is not a place for fantasy speculation about alternative realities. Sources must be factual. In our specific case, results of empirical research the number of religious people in China from neutral scientific institutes have been published in recent years (some of them are already enlisted in the page, and they have found no more than 3% of Chinese claiming to be Christian), and they are available for the writing of factual articles in Wikipedia.

AsiaHarvest's self-definition of "a US non-profit organization and "inter-denominational Christian ministry" does not make it a neutral information agency. Looking at its website, it appears clearly to be an agency of Christian evangelism, very similar to the Joshua Project in its approach to ethnic groups (which I think to be totally disrespectful; scientific anthropology has long abandoned that type of objectification). Using AsiaHarvest or Joshua Project as sources is like using extremist Islamic websites as sources for the number of Muslims. This is not acceptable. At least in the field of statistics about religions, Wikipedia can and must be written through empirical data collected by neutral organizations. I hope you understand this.

In addition, A455bcd9, also the articles you have enlisted who report Hattaway's estimates do not make them reliable. If you look at the tables, only the TSPM statistics have a source, while all the other numbers are pure speculation. About Ye Xiaowen's claim, the same source that you used states that it was denied; if you know or translate Chinese, you probably know that mistranslation of the Chinese for "13 million" can give the "130 million" that has been so enthusiastically spread through Christian media. It was exactly since this minstranslation that figures of 100 million and higher began to circulate.--Etsop (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * You should read WP:BIASED: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." In the paragraph I wrote it was clearly mentionned that Hattaway may be biased and that his figures may be overestimated.
 * The question of the number of Christians in China in complex. Thus we give here many figures from many sources, with some explanations to show why some may be overestimated or others may be underestimated.
 * Ye Xiaowen's claim is quoted by the U.S. department of State, which is a reliable source, I didn't found any document stating that there were a mistranslation. (Besides I know Chinese and I don't understand how there could be a mistranslation since 130 million = 1.3亿 and 13 million = 1300万) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You also deleted the estimates of Liu Peng and of the gov in 2012. WP:NEWSORG states: ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." It's all the more true in the case of Global Times as the newspaper is owned by the government of China. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello A4,
 * Wikipedia policy about biased sources ("...Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints...") does not involve statistics, which is an exact mathematical science. We have empirical data collected through surveys, so we do not need biased speculations (from Christian evangelism agencies) in a section about the statistics of a phenomenon.
 * What I think (and it is logically true) about Ye Xiaowen's claim is that he said 1300万 = 13000000 of Protestants, which was also the number officially published by the government in those years (mid-2000s, search in Google books for corroboration), but it was mistranslated as 130 million Christians / Protestants in the West.
 * As for governmental websites like that of the US, they are not reliable, and they are not sources (see below). It is also true that the US government has been particularly near to certain kinds of Christianity in recent decades.


 * Again: factuality, empirical data and truth. We must not use blatant lies or abstract speculation as "source".-Etsop (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: about the news agencies policy, what it says is "for statements of fact", that is for things that are "certainly" known (like "the sun is a source of light", or even "Christianity is an Abrahamic religion"), not for statistics, except when those quoted by the news agencies are researches of empirical data (and in this case we must use its original source).
 * In detail, in the case a website or a news agency reports a data, it is not the website itself that is the "source", for it is just the "reporter". In our case the source is not the Canadian, Australian or US government website, as they are the "reporters" of the original "source" that is AH. --Etsop (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

About the heterodox sects
Abishai300. Since your main interest seems to be related to the sects of Christianity in China that are defined by government and media as heterodox, I inform you that I have moved the section about them in a distinct paragraph. I hope you can collaborate to make it neutral, without removing it entirely. These types of Christianity in China must be mentioned in the article. --Etsop (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

missionaries during the Qing
http://images.library.yale.edu/divinitycontent/dayrep/9866641_1924_026-005_eng.pdf

http://booksnow1.scholarsportal.info/ebooks/oca9/24/peoplespoliticso00norm/peoplespoliticso00norm_bw.pdf

https://archive.org/stream/antiforeignriot00heragoog/antiforeignriot00heragoog_djvu.txt

https://archive.org/stream/missionaryquesti00gardrich/missionaryquesti00gardrich_djvu.txt

https://books.google.com/books?id=LbkLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA220&dq=incited+attack+missionaries&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMIuJXI8LvRyAIViPI-Ch3fawJ_#v=onepage&q=incited%20attack%20missionaries&f=false

good will Mandarins treaty rights

https://books.google.com/books?id=CGUhAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA124

https://books.google.com/books?id=CGUhAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA123&dq=swedish+missionary+mobs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMI04CCpIPSyAIVAaA-Ch0mLQyG#v=onepage&q=swedish%20missionary%20mobs&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=NKZDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA79&dq=swedish+missionary+mobs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMI04CCpIPSyAIVAaA-Ch0mLQyG#v=onepage&q=swedish%20missionary%20mobs&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=9sILAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA400&dq=swedish+missionary+mobs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAmoVChMI04CCpIPSyAIVAaA-Ch0mLQyG#v=onepage&q=swedish%20missionary%20mobs&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=eI4EAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA149&dq=swedish+missionary+mobs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBGoVChMI04CCpIPSyAIVAaA-Ch0mLQyG#v=onepage&q=swedish%20missionary%20mobs&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=RYNRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA149&dq=swedish+missionary+mobs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBWoVChMI04CCpIPSyAIVAaA-Ch0mLQyG#v=onepage&q=swedish%20missionary%20mobs&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=wLDllrl5NpUC&pg=PT108&dq=swedish+missionary+mobs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCWoVChMI04CCpIPSyAIVAaA-Ch0mLQyG#v=onepage&q=swedish%20missionary%20mobs&f=false

05:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

An article on persecution/suppression/restrictions of Christianity?
There has been an uptick in the Communist Party's restrictions on Christians in China. Is there any reason that Wikipedia does not have an article specifically about this aspect? Clearly that is not the full story of Christianity in China, or even the most prominent story, but it is a major story. All thoughts from regular editors [should they exist] welcome. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are sections about China in Persecution of Christians and Anti-Christian Sentiment which can be expanded. STSC (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources studying facts, not on claims from tabloids
Recently a user has added claims about the number of Christians in China which are regularly reported by Western online tabloids (in the style of a vulgar and niggling propaganda campaign) but which don't have any ground in scholarly study and sociological analysis of religion in China. Wikipedia is not a vulgar tabloid, its articles should not be soiled with such groundless claims from insignificant sources.--151.57.104.81 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * it's solid material. A major news agency accurately summarizes the recent published book of a world-famous scholar. That's RS. -- the book = A Star in the East: The Rise of Christianity in China (2015) by Rodney Stark and Xiuhua Wang. The anon critic has never helped out on Wikipedia before -- he needs to read the book and show more respect for scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Catholic News Agency is not a reliable source and the 100 million number is not the result of any sociological or demoscopic analysis, it is a projection based on the questionable (in many cases, such as ours, groundless) statistics of religion by country published by the Pew Research Center in 2010 and assumptions about the rate of growth of Christians. They don't find any corroboration in actual sociological study and demoscopic analysis of religion in China. Regarding Rodney Stark, I am sorry to say that he is probably even less reliable than Catholic News Agency and he is not a historian or a scholar of religion in China. His historical projections are fantasies.--151.57.104.81 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not interested in your personal opinion. If you dispute the reliability of a source, you must provide your evidence. if you dispute the content, then provide us your sources that back up your argument. STSC (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As for the stature of Rodney Stark: Google Scholar shows 10,000+ references to him in the scholarly literature, --including the leading journals in sociology. see Google scholar. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is evident from the CNA article itself that the 100 million number is a projection and not the result of any demoscopic analysis (<Stark and Wang estimate that in 1980 there were 10 million Christians in the People's Republic of China, and that in 2007 the figure was 60 million. These numbers yield an annual growth rate of 7 percent – which means that last year, there were nearly 100 million Christians in China.>). Moreover it has been claimed for decades, always without any grounding in reality. Demoscopic analyses, i.e. censuses and surveys, find only 2-3% of the population of China claiming Christianity as their religion. If you want to add that source in the lede you should reword the phrase: "some Western scholars claim the number to be higher" and provide as source the page in Stark's book and not a random online tabloid article. Saying that it is a certain fact that there are 100 million Christians in China you're not telling the truth to the Wikipedia reader.--151.57.104.81 (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I partly agree with 151.57.104.81.
 * We should revert this edit and go back to the more nuanced version "tens of millions". provide more details in the Demographics and geography section. Indeed, even if Rodney Stark is a well-known scholar, we have to look at the sources he used in the book itself. Do you own the book to check that? He maybe extrapolated from the 2010 Pew Forum's study + growth rate?
 * Moreover, Catholic News Agency and Ucanews (that I personally love and often read) are not neutral. A mainstream newspaper, such as The Guardian, should be preferred.
 * Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also aware of the Guardian's news articles which often mention '100 million Christians in China'. Anyhow, I would add "are in 100 million today according to sociologist Rodney Stark" to the content. STSC (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should change the intro to add Stark's study. Stark's study should be added to the Demographics section. What's more, we should only add Stark's figure if you have the exact reference inside the book of the number of Christians. Does any of you own the book? A455bcd9 (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We just say what the sources say, that's how Wikipedia is built. Wikipedia is not a research paper (WP:NOT PAPERS). I would just leave it as it is. STSC (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that you didn't even read the link you sent. WP:NOT PAPERS doesn't say that the intro should only present one point. Indeed, "the sources" don't say that there's 100 million Christians in China. But, one source says that, and we don't even know the quality of that source, since nobody here seems to have read that book! There's also a lot of sources saying that there's around 30 million Christians in China. As stated in WP:LEAD, the intro needs to be neutral. And even if, of course, Wikipedia isn't a research paper, neutrality requires research WP:BESTSOURCES.
 * I think that the intro should say that:
 * this topic is highly controversial,
 * estimates range between 26 million and 100 million,
 * official figures tend to underestimate the number of Christians (un-baptized believers, children and underground churches) [source: 59, Lambert 2003],
 * some figures from some Christian organizations tend to overestimate the number of Christians [source: 75, Wieland 2013].
 * In any case, the current intro cannot stay. If we let "According to sociologist Rodney Stark, there are now around 100 million Christians in China", we could add 20 similar estimates from sociologists, Christian leaders or government officials. It doesn't make any sense, doesn't respect neutrality, doesn't sum up in a correct way the Demographics section, and is clearly biased with the current sources that are both Christian organizations. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This source http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/why-is-christianity-growing-so-quickly-in-mainland-china-57545/ indeed says there are 100 million Christians in China, and many other sources say so. The WP:NOTPAPER tells us not to turn the article into a research paper and we the editors don't research into Rodney Stark's work as you suggested. As it stands, the lead is neutrally presenting the estimates of 'tens of millions' and '100 million' Christians. STSC (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutrality doesn't mean: putting everything we can in the intro. Also, the intro should sum up the content of the article. Stark's work isn't cited in the content!
 * Again, catholicnewsagency.com isn't a source of quality. And sure we don't need to research into Rodney Stark's work, but if we don't do it, we need to find an unbiased source of quality that refers to Stark's work. The only I found is The Guardian, which states: "Accurate data on Chinese Christians is hard to come by because a large proportion belong to unrecognised underground “house” churches. Rodney Stark, author of A Star in the East: the Rise of Christianity in China, has suggested that the number of adherents exceeds 100 million and is increasing by 7% a year – growth that is largely fuelled by social media. The respected Pew Research centre puts the number of Christians in China at 67 million, 58 million of whom are Protestant and 9 million Catholic."
 * So, why should we only cite Stark's work in the intro?
 * I don't understand your point. I don't understand why you didn't include Stark's work in the demographics section. I don't understand why you keep using biased and poor-quality sources. And I don't understand why you don't want to sum up, in a neutral way, the content of the Demographics section in the intro (which means citing both gov figures, independent research, and church figures). Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think 'tens of millions to 100 million' is a fair representation in the lead. I would not mind putting more information in the demographics section, when time allows. STSC (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-"experts" backed by the Templeton Foundation
151.57.104.81 was me unlogged. There is a serious problem of overestimation of Christianity in China being spread by certain Christian agencies, through a variety of tabloids, as a sort of psychological terrorism campaign. I already denounced this problem in the summer of 2015 after the umpteenth wave of deceitful news. The logical construction behind the propaganda is almost the same for all of the articles: "in China there are 100 million Christians or even more, growing at a skyrocketing rate, and they have surpassed the Communist Party's 80 million members". (There would be a lot to say about articles which portray the demolition of churches and crosses in Zhejiang as a persecution from the Chinese government; the fact is that the number of churches in Zhejiang is now completely beyond demand for the number of local Christians (2.6% of the population), as most of them were built with foreign funding in the 1980s when the real "Christian fever" occurred.) These numbers don't find corroboration in surveys and Chinese language sources and media.

Based on what I have observed, much of this campaign can be traced to certain American Evangelical organisations including the John Templeton Foundation. They always make reference to certain personalities portraying them as "experts of religion in China"; these people are always part of the aforementioned Evangelical establishment, have become successful thanks to funds from this establishment, and have given little or no contribution to the study of religion in China. One of them is Fenggang Yang (a Christian and a Templeton member). Real scholars of value with a strong expertise on contemporary religion in China (Sébastien Billioud, Philip Clart, Thomas David Dubois, Vincent Goossaert, David Palmer, John Lagerwey, Richard Madsen, James Miller, Daniel Overmyer, David Ownby, Mayfair Yang, Xinzhong Yao) are always ignored. Their new "expert" seems to be Rodney Stark, who was avulsed from the topic of religion in China before his recent book A Star in the East (published by Templeton Press) in which he mentions the projections made by Fenggang Yang about the growth of Christianity in China based on the groundless 2010 Pew Research Center estimate (another Templeton project, see the article A Partnership Grounded in Faith) which in turn is based, among various estimates from Christian organisations, on a claim by Rodney Stark himself (see p. 110)! In other words they work by circular reference and circular reporting.

Given this, I am opposed to the "100 million" claim in the lede and I would revert back to the "tens of millions" fact. However, I appreciate the neutral version written by and I let him decide the final revision.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's your original research; you'll have to provide other sources that dispute the '100 million' estimate. STSC (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is full of them. No competent scholar of religion in China or no survey has ever proved the "100 million" estimate to be a fact.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Aethelwolf Emsworth: Why did you add the "dubious" tag? The intro says that according to some Christian groups there's more than 100 million Christians, and we do have a lot of Christian sources (Churches, newspapers, leaders, etc.) saying that there's more than 100 million Christians in the country. We don't have to seek truth from facts, but to find sources of quality. It's not our job, as Wikipedians, to analyze those sources and decide who's wrong and who's right. I think we all agree that the exact number of Christians in China is subject to controversies. Therefore, we should make everything possible to explain in the article why there are such controversies, who are the stakeholders and what are the different estimates, based on reliable sources, not on our own opinions. A455bcd9 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically you're complaining the '100 million' is an over-estimate and should not be mentioned, then you're censoring the POV from the Christian community. This is not a forum, you'll have to have the sources that back up your argument in Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

For the introduction of the article, why not simply state that estimates of the number of Christians in China varies but generally stands in the tens of millions? Then, in the body of the article, explain the controversy. The lead of articles should be restrained and present the most careful versions of statements or facts. This also nullifies the need to say that Christian organizations exaggerate numbers. Such information is distracting and misplaced in an introduction to the topic.Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)