Talk:Christianity#Infobox

This article still uses the outdated PEW estimate for global Christian population which was compiled in 2017. New reliable estimates are available such as this one from World History Encyclopedia.{{cite web|first =Rebecca |last = Denova|url=https://www.worldhistory.org/christianity/|title=Christianity |date =2 March 2022 |publisher=World History Encyclopedia|quote= Christianity is the world's largest religion, with 2.8 billion adherents.}} Yet they are constantly being reverted to the older ones by the editors here. Meanwhile articles on Islam and Hinduism no longer use the PEW data from the same timeframe and have adherent population estimates for 2024. I hereby also invite {{ping|Plakosa}} and Remsense to contribute to this discussion. Thikmi (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Thikmi (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:Like I said in the edit summary: there's no reason to cite another encyclopedia for statistics like this. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, and therefore not as useful to verify specific figures against—for starters, it would always be preferable to cut out the middleman and cite whoever they're citing instead. Unfortunately, if you read the article, the author does not attempt to provide anything like a complete bibliography for their article—this is often the case with encyclopedia articles written by experts, and we rightfully don't get that privilege (though I still wish they would cite their sources regardless). So, we don't have any actual idea of where the 2.8 billion figure came from, so this is not a very good source for it, even if it is accurate. Pew is a secondary source, and provides more in-depth information about their methodology, etc. If you're going to update the figures, get them from a secondary source of equivalent quality to Pew. Remsense ‥ 论 13:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

::Also, just so it's not left implicit: the figures are not that out of date, and the discrepancy is actually substantial, so I am rather more skeptical that we should cite this tertiary source that doesn't explain where its number came from at all. (Pew's figure for 2020 is around 2.4, so there must be some real underlying differences to bridge that gap, which again are not explained by the encyclopedia author.) So, do not over-fixate on the idea that a newer figure must be preferable here, because it simply isn't for the reasons I've described above. Remsense ‥ 论 14:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:I utterly agree with @Remsense. Not only Rebecca Denova of the WHE does not cite her source, and the number which she gives could very well be a typographical error, but I also see that in the overdone list of citations that follow the number in question, none of which support it, there is even (cited twice) the WP:WRDWCD compiled by the people of the Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, which unfortunately continues to be spammed throughout Wikipedia despite being a biased source (cf. 1 and 2). Æo (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::Addendum: I also believe, as I already hypothesised in the past, that there might be an organised activity by certain users (even with multiple accounts) to spam these sources in Wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decline_of_Christianity_in_the_Western_world&diff=1122602982&oldid=1122553459 Here] you can see an IP adding a 2017 publication by Gina Zurlo (of the WRD/WCD and GCTS) to support the claim that Christianity has been growing in Europe (whilst all censuses prove otherwise), and a registered user later added the exact same source and claim to several other articles (cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Europe&diff=1168528648&oldid=1162547452 1] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_Europe&diff=1168528846&oldid=1168416331 2]). Æo (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:When are we going to openly acknowledge that almost all "counts" of the numbers of believers are inherently flawed and exaggerated? Parents inevitably list their children, including new born babies, as believers in the same faiths they follow. In many cultures, people say they are believers when they're not, because of social or worse pressure. In my own country the Census question on religion is optional and obviously, unlike other questions, the answers cannot be cross checked against other sources. Churches themselves exaggerate their numbers. I have no idea how anyone can claim to know anything like the true numbers of believers. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::Well by that logic, no one can really know anything about human identities and beliefs, since there is no way to gather information on those things other than asking human beings. As for the number of Christians in the world, there are definitely quite a few, I'd say easily over a thousand. 129.130.19.197 (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::All true. But that's not a reason to use sources that are inherently unreliable, and pretend they are sound. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

In the third paragraph between the following 2 sentences:

The inclusion of Gentiles led Christianity to slowly separate from Judaism (2nd century). Emperor Constantine I decriminalized Christianity in the Roman Empire by the Edict of Milan (313), later convening the Council of Nicaea (325) where Early Christianity was consolidated into what would become the state religion of the Roman Empire (380).

insert the following short sentence to keep chronology:

King Tiridates III adopted Christianity as state religion in Armenia (301).

Later in the article there are more details provided on this historical event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerses73 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Nebraska_Wesleyan_University/Christian_Theology_from_the_Enlightenment_to_the_Mid-Twentieth_Century_(Spring_2024) | assignments = Emahaffy | start_date = 2025-01-14 | end_date = 2025-05-09 }}

— Assignment last updated by Emahaffy (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Christianity|answered=yes}}

Change 'current leader' to 'former leader' or 'most recent leader'. The Chruch is in Apostolica Sedes Vacans, so the acting soverign is the Camerlengo (Cardinal Kevin Farrell). Sorry if this is overly semantic. EllisJ123 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} {{yo|EllisJ123}} Thanks for the heads-up – instead of adding the acting leader, I modified the caption for the time being. When a new pope is appointed, the image and caption can then be updated. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, a church that most Christians haven't went to doesn't deserve to be the lead image. As we can see in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christianity/Archive_62#The_main_picture_should_be_of_the_Crucifixion_or_the_Resurrection this] archive, the consensus is that the image should be changed. Thegoofhere (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Should we start a request for comment, then? 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 03:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::'K Thegoofhere (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, per WP:RFCBEFORE, I think we should probably ask members of WikiProject Christianity first, to see if this can be resolved quickly and easily without a request for comment. I'll post a message on the noticeboard. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 04:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Anyone at all is welcome to comment below. You can support the current image or oppose it and propose a different one. Remember that we are not voting, so participants should give clear reasons for their opinions. If consensus cannot be reached in this way, we may need to start a request for comment. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 04:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support for the image of the Church: While Jesus is unambiguously the central (divine) figure of Christianity, I don't think it makes sense to put him as the lead image, since he's not necessarily representative of the institution of Christianity as we know it today, and that's mostly what the article is about. The current image works because it's recognizable, representative, and not apt to cause denominational disputes (like an image of St. Peter's Basilica might). Nsophiay (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::What about an image of the cross? That's what most people use to represent Christianity, and it's recognizable too Thegoofhere (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's about the only image that makes sense to me. Anything else is made up. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure, I'd be fine with that too. Nsophiay (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'll reiterate how I think it's a pretty ideal lead image. I'm not sure how to tease "most Christians haven't been here" out into a fully reasoned argument. Clearly, the point is where the church is located, what it represents within the tradition, and who can feel historically and presently represented by it (more Christians than just about any other symbol or object but the True Cross, maybe). A cross might be an issue too—I know it's an exaggeration to say a plain cross is Protestant-coded, right? Forgive me, I didn't grow up Christian, so that's just a crazy semiotic leap for me to make, right? In any case, I would prefer the church, since this article is very much about the religious tradition, which of course centers on Jesus, but is simultaneously an ideal place to feature some illustration of the "cloud of witnesses" he's assembled. Dunno. Remsense 🌈 论 23:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support for the image of the church. I agree that an image of Jesus would somehow not be best for this purpose. Also, a cross might not be ideal either, as not all Christians agree on this symbol. The church seems like the best option, at least for now. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 00:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Support for the image of the Church: The article is about Christianity as a religion, including its beliefs, institutions, theology, sacred scriptures, canon law, religious rituals, history, denominations, and culture.

::I feel that the image of the church represents several of these aspects. It symbolizes two significant events in Christian belief and theology—the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus—both of which are central themes in Christian sacred texts. The church also represents various Christian denominations; in this very location, Eastern and Western Christian traditions share their religious rituals.

::It reflects history as well, as this church played a pivotal role during key phases of Christian history, including in the context and causes of the Crusades.

::Moreover, it expresses the culture of Christianity. The fact that different denominations share this church has produced a unique blend of Eastern and Western Christian architectural and artistic styles in a single site.

::This church is deeply connected to the beginnings of Christianity as a religion and to its most theologically and historically significant events.

::Another issue concerns the image of Jesus. There’s no debate that he is the central figure of Christianity. But the question remains: which image should we choose? One from Eastern Christian art or from the Western tradition? The image currently used appears to reflect a Eurocentric legacy of a religion that originated in the Middle East, with a central figure who was himself Middle Eastern. Durziil89 (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support for the image of Jesus - Christianity is not about worsphipping a holy building/church like the black box/Kaaba of Islam. Christianity is about worshiping Jesus. So, restor the img of Jesus (even the lead sentence says this that Jesus is the central figure of the faith). AimanAbir18plus (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Not every illustration has to be so arbitrarily direct. There's no connotation whatsoever that Christians worship the church from it being the lead image, just as there's no such connotation with a picture of the Kaaba at the top of Islam, even though that image includes many visible worshippers. That's seemingly a point purely of rhetoric.

::—wait, I wrote that before you updated your comment. Muslims, very deliberately, do not worship the Kaaba. Instead—get this—it's a symbol that plays a part in their worship of God, which represents much of the history of the faith. I only make this point so deliberately because telling Muslims they "worship a black cube" would be rather hurtful. Remsense 🌈 论 12:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::But, Kaaba, a holy place, still plays a significant role in Hajj and prayer direction. But, Christians don't pilgrimage to this church as an obligatory. Moreover, it's not a prayer direction either. I think a cross image will fit the best here, as it represents the very foundation of Christianity. Also, there are numerous WP articles of religions that use symbols in the top section. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::No, but it's still a site of heavy pilgrimage, and is built on the place where the central event in the history of the faith (ostensibly, that of the history of the entire world!) took place. It's a sufficiently strong comparison where that's worth considering, plus my points above. Remsense 🌈 论 13:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)