This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Xian was copied or moved into Xian (abbreviation) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
@Crusadestudent: After all the muddle caused by this stub I'm now far from convinced that it's at the right title. I see no evidence for the existence of "Xian", while the Oxford English Dictionary recognises "Xtian" (since 1845), "Xtianity" (1634), etc - and there's a redirect from Xtianity. Have you any WP:RS evidence for the existence of "Xian"? Googling shows a few unreliable-looking sources only. PamD 21:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
@PamD: (Almost had an edit conflict there—phew!) Yes, here is a psycholinguistics textbook published by a Cambridge U. professor by the CUP confirming its existence. Note that Xianity redirects to Christianity as well. Deus vult!Crusadestudent (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Please add that source as a ref. Perhaps the article should also include "Xtian"? PamD 21:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
@PamD: One step ahead of you. I don't have a ref for "Xtian", but I'd be happy to include that as an alternate spelling. Do you have any refs in mind for it? Deus vult!Crusadestudent (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
@PamD: I've found it dating back at least as far as 1817 (now in refs). Does that satisfactorily remove any doubt that it's a neologism? Deus vult!Crusadestudent (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
