Talk:List of Christians

Would the disciples and/or other Biblical figures count as Christians? I think they would have considered themselves Jews still. I remember reading that somewhere. Were they Christian enough to qualify for this list? I'm sure there are other Protestant reformers and Christianizing saints to add, if anybody knows any I've forgotten (most of them).

Seeing possibility of flamewar, Tokerboy

Just a quick note. I don't know if you were around when Jesus was on the list of famous Muslims. Congrats on the new sysop status. Danny

Well they started calling themselves Christians not long after the Resurrection. Even the disciples would have called themselves Christians at least sometime before their death. They were both Jew AND Christian. Granted that originally they wouldn't have called themselves that, but I don't know that we are that picky! -- Ram-Man

---

<snipping list>

Try again, this time without kidding around, please. Columbus is a noted explorer, and are you sure Hobbes is even a Christian? And as for Rush, what were you smoking? --Ed Poor

Despite the fact that many hold that Columbus was a devout Christian, he is noted almost exclusively for his explorer status. I wouldn't normally put him on a list of noted Christians, not that I don't think he was one, just that *most* people don't think of this attribute first. -- RM

I added Columbus because he was Christian and was influential in the conversion of a large number of people (Native Americans). I might be getting my names confused, but I thought Hobbes was an early Protestant reformer? Am I thinking of someone else? And Rush and Jerry are surely famous Christians, and I think famous enough to qualify for a list of noted Christians. Tokerboy 01:28 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

I think you meant Jan Hus. Danny

We will avoid flambait as long as we don't try to define 'Christian'. Many people who call themselves Christian wouldn't add some of the people like Jerry or Rush, just because they have the extreme views. -- RM

Agreed. Maybe there should be a note that the term "Christian" is defined differently by different people.Tokerboy

Perhaps the standard for inclusion should be:

• they are a Christian
• they are not a saint (see List of saints, List of Christian saints[?])
• they are noted for something having to do with Christianity, like:
  • an exemplary life
  • instituting a reform
  • contributions to theology

Now that I've had a night to sleep on it, even people like the following are indeed "noted" or at least "famous" Christians:

• Jerry Falwell, founder of Moral Majority
• Ralph Reed (Christian Coalition?)
• Martin Luther King, Jr., fought segregation
• Jesse Jackson

I got confused and forgot that we could categorize them like we did for the famous Canadians. Some Christians are noted for their unselfish devotion, such as Mother Theresa. Some wrote books or founded movements. Some focus primarily on political issues (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton). Falwell is hard to categorize (political or social?). --Ed Poor

Why don't we move all the "noted" lists to "famous"? That is a far less vague term. We could also use "influential" if we don't want to go by popularity alone. --Eloquence

Sounds good to me -- but you really would have to put most of the Saints listed above on a separate list. "Famous" should mean, well-known to non-Shristians. I am not a Christian but sure have heard a lot about St. Bemedict, Joan of Arc, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, as well as St. Christopher and Sta. Theresa. But I never heard of Saint Pisentius of Qift, Saint Babylas, Saint Callistratus -- as well as many of the Protestants on this list. No offense, but they should be cut -- they may be important and beloved to some, but this does not make them famous or even "noted" in a general sense.

I do have an alternative proposal: divide the list into two: one on famous Christians, the other on important Christians. I think most of Ed's generally very good/well-thought out criteria above would apply to Important Christians. But maybe I am wrong, this is just an idea. However, either way I would add one thing to Ed's criteria: people who made an important contribution to the world as Christians. For example, I do not think MLK Jr. is famous for having something to do with Christianity - he is famous for his role in the Civil Rights movement, and as a great American (warts and all). Nevertheless, he himself found much of his inspiration from within Christianity, identified himself as a Christian and as a Christian leader. See my point? I think Ed's criteria of "something" having to do with Christianity is too vague. Some people are important because of their contribution to Christianity (e.g. Sts Augustin, Benedict, Thomas); some drew faith from Christianity to make a contribution to their nation (Joan of Arc, MLK) or the world. Slrubenstein

First, I think "important" is likely to create more POV/NPOV discussions than "influential", but that's just a gut feeling. Second, I believe it's reasonable to maintain, at least for the time being, a collective list of people who have been influential within Christianity and one of those who have been influential outside of it, especially as someone can easily be a member of both groups. Let's try to avoid long discussions about whether someone did or did not act in the "true Christian spirit" (same goes for other similar lists as well). We should just have to check:

• Was X a Christian? (i.e. did/does he call himself that and did/do most people refer to himself as such)
• Was X influential? (positive or negative, like Time's "Person of the Year")

One important point to consider, however, is whether or not Christianity was a completely voluntary decision. At a time when non-Christians were persecuted, which covers the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages and much of the Renaissance, was being a non-Christian really an option?--Eloquence

Tokerboy summarized his latest article edit as:

(probable naming errors; aside from needing more annotation, how does this strike everyone? (especially Mr. Poor))

I would say that there's so many people on the list that I guess it looks balanced. But dividing them up into musicians, storybook authors, theologians, activists and "really nice people who haven't been canonized as saints yet" would help, too. But I got no time for that tonight. I'll help tomorrow. --Ed Poor 22:37 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

---

Saint George and Lancelot are on this ludicrous list both probably didn't even exist and if they did no one knows if they were Christian. Mintguy 22:56 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

---

I'm not a Christian theologian, so some of the names I chose might not be appropriate, but let me explain where the list came from. I went to religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org) and added one or two of the founders/influential members of each of the groups listed under Christianity. Then, I typed something into Google (I forget what exactly) to find out who has been influential as far as Christianizing a nation or area or something. The handful of others I added came from the Wikipedia article at Protestant Reformation and a handful from my own knowledge.

I'm not sure why saints shouldn't be on this list. Just because they have a list of their own? Popes, Archbishops of Canterbury, Kings of England, Roman and Byzantine Emperors all have their own list too, or probably should, yet I think the most influential members of each list should be on this one. Maybe some of the saints are too obscure, but I think there should be some. Tokerboy 23:19 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

Instead of repeating all of the names on those lists, why not just link to those articles? -- Zoe

Agree with Zoe. A similar style to list of scientists would be desirable, imo Martin

Also agree with Zoe. Deciding which names are worth duplicating is entirely too subjective. Just suffice it to say that everyone on the List of saints, List of bishops, and similar lists also considered themselves Christian. We can add other famous/influential Christians who aren't already on one of the other lists. The duplication is wasteful, and also in the case of saints ignores important distinctions concerning which Christians recognize which saints. If we're going by what people called themselves, then none of the people listed should be called a saint, as they did not call themselves that.

As for people who were Christian but most noted for something else, like Christopher Columbus... well, if the article is just "List of Christians", they should be included, and this list should eventually be expanded to include literally millions of names. Perhaps it would be better to revise it to List of famous Christians. ;-) Wesley

---

I suggested a couple of additional criteria here: Talk:List_of_people

---

Is St. Peter suitable for inclusion in this list of christians?

• Yes:
• No: fonzy
• Don't Know: Martin

I'm unsure. While St. Peter was born a jew, didn't he convert to xtianity? On the other hand, he's already listed at apostle and list of Biblical figures, so why duplicate that info here?

Of course St. Peter was a christian, though whether he would have used the actual word or term is a question since it originated a bit later in Antioch. Most christians acknowledge that a person can be both a jew and a christian. Most jews (other than jewish christians) do not. I don't know that it's worth having a category for noted post-biblical jewish christians. Grizzly[?]

According to our Judaism article, the only requirement for being a Jew is that one have a Jewish mother. Converting to Christianity would not change who one's mother is, so I don't see how they can conflict. I thought the point of this list was to be broadly inclusive? Wesley

---

Does anyone know why W.S. Sadler and Urantia are grouped together? --Patrick Corcoran

  -- Never mind, answered my own question.  :)

---

Including gnostics on this page is silly. Gnosticism is a different religion. Including heretics on this page side by side with the saints who demonstrated the heretical and un-Christian nature of the heretics' teachings and lifestyle is also silly. Wesley 16:43 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Except some gnostics considered themselves both gnostic and christian. Further, some people that one or more churches called heretics were important people in other christian variants.

Perhaps the solution is to have a seperate List of Catholics[?], list of Protestants[?] - one can debate forever whether or not Martin Luther was a Christian or a heretic, but he certainly was a Protestant.

Oh, see list of Gnostics Martin

But the gnostics who tried to call themselves Christian had fundamentally opposed theology about the nature of God that was rejected by the rest of christendom. If we include them, we may as well include all the hindu groups that say both Krishna and Jesus were avatars of Brahman, and include icons of both on their altars. Is that what you're aiming for? Keeping the lists separate may be safer, although the standard of inclusion still seems very shaky. What's the purpose of this article again? Wesley 17:44 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

I think I was just thrown by the word "heretic" - don't mind me... Martin

This entry is terrible. What possible question can a reader have that could be answered with a list of all Christians throughout history? There is no such question. Do we really want to make an entry that will grow to include millions of people, who have absolutely nothing in common at all except for the fact that they profess to be Christian? There is no reasonable explanation for this entry to exist. Why not also have a monsterously huge list of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc? Obviously, there are uses for meaningful lists, such as a list of Christian theologians, Christian philosophers, Christian saints, etc. But just plain Christians as a subject? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a phone book. I vote for deletion. RK

See talk:list of people by belief

I'm going to reply on the talk page of the article I'm talking about.

As I said when discussing List of saints, I don't think those uses justify this page. Those questions can be better satisfied by directing people to use the search engine, rather than have a page with a list of links and keywords gathered on it that has to be maintained manually. Many List* pages do try to be comprehensive, such as List of popes, List of famous whoevers, etc. It's theoretically possible for even the List of saints page to be comprehensive. This page is frankly unhelpful and misleading... and there's nothing to prevent it from becoming an overwhelming phone book, as RK said. I second his vote for deletion. Wesley 19:27 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

To me, all those votes for deletion are signs of self-mutilation coupled with hysteria. Why would anyone want to annihilate a collaborative effort which has been going on for more than two months? Both the nature and the relevance of lists in general should be reconsidered thoroughly. For example, the question whether a list should aim at being exhaustive or not is a very important point. What all those delete voters seem to ignore is the fact that we are dealing with work in progress rather than a finished product here, so perfectionist attitudes are only okay as far as correctness and authenticity of Wikipedia articles are concerned.

See similar discussions at Talk:Remake and Talk:Losers in literature. --KF 19:46 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Hysteria? No. Why stop what's been going on for two months? Because I (and others) apparently failed to catch it sooner. My apologies. On the contrary, RK and I are perfectly aware that this is a work in progress; one key objection is that it could grow to many millions of names. The discussions at the other two article are unconvincing; in fact, just judging by the discussion, it seems that Remake may have a similar problem unless it's renamed Bad Remakes[?]... even though that would be almost redundant in your opinion. As far as correctness goes, it's often very difficult to be objective when listing who is and isn't a Christian; listing one and not another is often a matter of theological and/or historical opinion. See the recent discussion on List of saints about the importance of identifying who call whom a saint, for instance. Wesley 20:04 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Please keep this page, and the saints page, oh, and the rest of the apparently dubious lists. They'll be useful as seed datasets for the soon-to-come automated category schemes. -- Anon.

Can't make keep or pitch decisions without knowing about automated category schemes. Link? Wesley 20:04 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps some background is in order here. It used to be the case that there were various list entries titled list of notable boozers[?], list of famous seventh day adventists[?], list of celebrity Americans[?], frequentists[?], famous flamers[?], [list of IRV advocates]]. I checked on wikipedia talk:naming conventions and decided to rename them all list of X[?] for consistency, findabiliy, linkability, etc. If you were fine with list of notable Jews[?], you should be fine with list of Jews - it's just a name change to fit in with conventions, not a dramatic repositioning in the market.

In terms of longevity of these articles, going through list of people by belief:

• List of agnostics -- Sep 29, 2001
• List of atheists -- Oct 6, 2001
• List of Buddhists -- Dec 14, 2001
• List of Christians -- Dec 4, 2002
• List of Confucianists -- Aug 15, 2002
• List of Deists -- Sep 29, 2001
• ... (I get bored easy)

So, ranging from a few months to just over a year. There's a number of articles here, with, together, several hundred edits, so it's right that we're discussing this before deciding on a delete. If one considers all the other lists on list of people (such as those on list of people by nationality and list of people by occupation), then you're talking about even more work removed.

While many lists are exhaustive, many more are not. This can all be easily handled by appropriate introductions - list of popes can say "this is a comlete list of ..." and list of atheists can say "this is a partial list of atheists, focusing on atheists who are particularly notable, famous, or important". Different lists are organised in different ways, according to the subject matter - by date, surname, location, etc. Each list says in the intro how it is organised. So too, lists can be exhaustive or not, and it can be stated on the top of the entry.

Sure, I see the logic. There's a reason I'm keeping my comments on this page, and not on the other list pages.

* You haven't yet really said why this wouldn't or shouldn't grow to list millions of people.

* I'm struggling to stay objective here. The big difference with this list is, Christians tend to get much more particular about who else is called a Christian. Calling everyone who describes themself as a Christian, Christian, might seem to be objective and neutral on the surface, but it's really an endorsement of a particular ecclesiology, with which I and many other strongly disagree.

* I've already had to correct many inaccurate descriptions of various people; listing the same info on people in multiple places makes it easier for errors to creep in.

* This duplicates info already on several other list pages; again, makes it more likely for errors to creep in.

I'd be interested to hear from other wikipedians what they think? Wesley 20:55 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

I really think all saints and popes should be off this page -- they already have their own articles. Also, what makes Kathy Ireland of importance on this page, let alone Charles I! What made HIM so important in the history of Christianity? Constantine I was NOT a Christian, he merely allowed Christianity become acceptable. Benjamin Franklin was NOT a Christian, he was a deist. And "Blessed" has go to go. Is Rush Limbaugh particularly imporant religiously, vs. politically? -- Zoe

I believe Constantine I was a Christian catechumen most of his life, and was baptized and chrismated into Christianity shortly before his death; main significance is that he called off the persecution, like you said, and also that he convened the First Ecumenical Council.Other than that, I think I mostly agree with you. Wesley 20:55 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Just checked, and it turns out Constantine I is actually a saint, often remembered with his mother Helen. Although that's a great case in point where someone's Christianity really depends on how you look at history; lists work best when it's unambiguous who should or shouldn't be on the list. Wesley 21:00 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Constantine was definitely a Christian as far as outward image goes. Whether he was a genuine convert, or simply played the part for political reasons, has been questioned, though I think most indications lean towards the former.

FWIW, Charles I is revered as a saint of sorts in Anglicanism, and churches are dedicated in his name. --User:Ihcoyc

Do you mean Charles I of Enland[?]? If so, that should info probably be added to that article, and his name with link to List of saints. :-) Wesley 21:54 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Aye, while I've never heard of Charles I of England referred to as "St. Charles," there are several churches dedicated to him in England, Canada, and the USA as "Charles I, King and Martyr." This would seem to be some indication of a de facto Anglican canonisation. OTOH, someone handier in HTML than I perhaps ought to be the one to add him to that list. ---User:Ihcoyc

I just think that all Christians who are famous should be added, just like all famous Muslims or Cubans or transgendered people are in their respective lists. In the transgendered people list, for example, I dont think we are adding only the ones who were 'influencial' to that genre, are we?

Antonio Spanky Martin

---

Might it help to organize this page into subdivisions, like theologians, activists, officials, and the like? That might help define some idea of who belongs on this page, and in the event that it proves unworkable make it easier to salvage some material.

What of people not formally canonised by a church but deemed a saint? This happened with a lot of early Irish 'saints', eg. St Braccan, St. Ultan, etc. They werent canonised by the RC church, but were 'canonised' as in effect local holy men, in whose honour churches were dedicated. JTD 22:09 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't considered that the ambiguity over who is or is not a saint would simply strike in reverse at this page - ouch. Wesley is definately convincing me that this particular page, as is, is unworkable. If you decide to scrap it, though, please keep the page as a set of disambiguating links to list of saints, etc - that'd be more useful than deleting it completely. Martin

Regarding early Irish 'informal' saints, if they were pre-1054A.D. (i.e. prior to the Great Schism), and are still locally regarded as saints, they would probably qualify as Eastern Orthodox saints and could be listed as such on the List of saints page. The Orthodox procedure has never been quite as formal, rigid or legalistic as the Roman Catholic canonization process. I know for a fact that the Orthodox Church recognizes St. Patrick and several other Irish saints; I imagine these would be included as well. Wesley 15:59 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting. I never thought of that. As far as I know, Ireland has five properly canonised saints, which includes (I presume) St. Patrick and most recently St. Oliver Plunkett. There are hundreds of de facto canonised saints, usually from the first millenium AD; of the top of my head I can think of St. Braccan, St. Ultan, St. Ciaran. etc etc I don't know if St. Columkille (also known as St. Columba) is a de facto or a de jure saint. Ditto with St. Brigid who according to recent research wasn't just a prominent lay saint but a fully ordained bishop of the Catholic Church, a woman bishop. It is amazing the things you find studying history. JTD 19:48 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

This page seems silly. I feel like adding a name like Mario Lemieux or Isaac Brock. Why not? There's not one Anabaptist on this page and just Anabaptists could fill up the entire page, what's next Famous monotheists? Famous Homo sapiens?stoltz (Maybe I should add Kent Hovind).

--- It seems to me that Edith Stein belongs on the List of saints. I mean to move her. -- IHCOYC 05:33 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)