Talk:List of evangelical Christians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] C. S. Lewis

I'm not disputing that C.S. Lewis was an evangelical, but in what sense can he be regarded as a Calvinist? Also, has it been decided whether or not to include Catholics - or am I opening up a whole can of worms? Joey1898 23:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal "born-again Christian laypeople" --> "evangelical Christians"

Please discuss merger here.

[edit] Support

  • Support ··gracefool |☺ 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (see previous discussion)
  • Support - if it will settle the arguments on the other page. California12 02:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope that California2's intent here isn't that a potential merge would somehow reduce the requirement to conform with WP:V and WP:NOR by providing proper citation of any included name. Whether or not a merge occurs, evidentiary standards remain crucial. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion regarding the constant bickering on the other article,over the definition of born again.Nothing to do with citations.On the other article I have added citations where none was given or where others have lamented that they could not find citations.For this reason I do not understand the above assumption.California12 10:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for making a false assumption, California12. My own experience of "bickering" was mostly where I had asked for a citation that so-and-so was born-again, and only been told that it was "obvious", or "well-known in evangelical circles", or something else less than WP:V. But none of that was with you. I actually do not recall any particular discussion over the meaning of "born-again" at the List of born-again Christian laypeople (though it might have happened on other pages, of course... or maybe I just didn't pay attention to it). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  • Oppose In many ways "evangelical Christian" is a term that should probably die out as it's misleading or potentially confusing. Most Christian denominations encourage their clergy or scholars to be evangelical in least in some sense. (Exemptions being some Eastern Christians and Amish or Hutterite groups) There's potential of enormous overlap with other lists as numerous Lutheran churches call themselves Evangelical and even with Quakers there is the Evangelical Friends International. Although I guess I could tolerate it as something like "List of Evangelical Christianity adherents" with the explanation that I imagine is already here.--T. Anthony 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see how "List of Evangelical Christianity adherents" is any better. To define "Evangelical Christianity" as something different from "Christians who are evangelical" is to do original research. Your point about Lutherans and Quakers is moot - if they're not Christians, they don't overlap, if they are, there's no problem. ··gracefool |☺ 06:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      • You have a point. I just oppose in general then. There already is a List of Baptists, List of U.S. televangelists, List of televangelists in Brazil, and List of preachers. Evangelism and preaching is already dealt with and merging "born agains" would be merging different phenomenon. To be specific to the merger "Born again" is, oddly enough, a better name for a list as it describes a terminology only a minority of Christians use so is more specific. I know you believe most Christians consider themselves "born again Christians", but this is wrong. The majority of the world's Christians are of denominations who practice paedo-baptism and so rarely if ever use words like "born again" to describe themselves even if it's used during infant baptism and in certain other technical situations. Anyway the thing I meant about overlap is that there already is a List of Lutherans and List of Quakers, so listing members of Evangelical Lutheran or Quaker denominations is redundant.--T. Anthony 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm convinced by T. Anthony's explanations that the merger would just create more confusion about inclusion than it would help to clarify any list membership and criteria. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Woa, I didn't mean to do that good. If a definition could be created of what this even means, that would also apply to people commonly called born-agains, I could maybe change my mind. On the whole though I think I'd prefer these issues be on denominational lists. Although this would anger some I think I'd favor more denominational lists in order to deal with other groups who often call their members "born again" or capital E "Evangelicals."--T. Anthony 08:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Look, not wanting to rabbit on for ages, it's kind of hard to merge any article on Evangelicals and "born-again Christians" because you're talking about two completely different kettles of fish. A born again Christian could be of any stance theologically and thus can not be merged with a discussion on Evangelicals. This would effectively undermine the intellectual stance of the Evangelical Doctrine. --Nick0 17:47, 13 February 2006 (AEDT)
      • Actually I'd prefer that (merging to denominational lists) — that was my intent with the original proposed merge to List of Christians. ··gracefool |☺ 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure why that didn't work. I had some concerns it'd make the list too long, but I was sort of preparing for that merger.--T. Anthony 04:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

  • I am leaning towards support, but I initially just want to comment that if this is done, this page should be organized into section along the lines of "People known mainly for their evangelical activity" / "People notable for other reasons who have professed belief in evangelism". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Move to oppose.
That's the idea (see Talk:List of born-again Christian laypeople#Interestedness and NPOV) ··gracefool |☺ 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • If List of born-again Christian laypeople cannot be merged anywhere, it should be deleted, since it's inherently unverifiable, as previously discussed. ··gracefool |☺ 03:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've made a deletion proposal. ··gracefool |☺ 03:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antolìn Tovar

Who is him? 201.74.182.183 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Harper , the current prime minister

Stephen Harper, the PM of Canada, should not be on the same list as Billy Graham. This is very misleading. THe PM's personal religous views do not make him a "contemporary evangelical movement leader." It is not even certain that the PM is an evangelical (as opposed to simply protestant). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.68.144 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC).