Talk:List of converts to Christianity/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Mediator Stepping Out

I can no longer mediate this case, and this is why: while I'm not sure if I agree with it or not (I still have no opinion regarding whether I think former converts should be included) there is a very clear consensus here. Cleo and Bus stop, you two are indeed very loud, but talking a lot does not mean that there are any more of you. The majority of users (and it's a very clear majority) seem to feel that former converts should be included. Consensus exists and etiquette would dictate that you end this. I mean, come on, how many archives is this talk page going to occupy? This page is a list. Lists aren't even supposed to exist at Wikipedia, according to WP:NOT. We're all devoting too much time to it.

The bottom line is this: consensus exists, for better or worse, to include former Christians on this list, so long as they converted to Christianity. This is not a pro-Christian activity. This does not in any way affect anything on this list. There is a small minority, primarily consisting of Cleo and Bus stop, who disagree with this. Their reasons are valid, but they are only two. Everyone has been rude, but these two have shirked all attempts at coming to a compromise, twisted other users' words in very obvious ways, and been outwardly rude to everyone else involved. It would be ridiculous to continue this any longer. I'm going to close the MedCab case- not every case can come to an amicable conclusion.

I recommend the following: just about everyone seems to agree that it doesn't harm us to include former Christians on this list, so long as they're noted as such. I suggest creating a section called "Former Christians Who Were Converts," or something like that. Put the contentious people there. Hopefully, those who disagree will try to build a consensus the other way on this page. If they decide to start a wheel war instead, you know how to reach an administrator.

Alternatively, you could move on to the Mediation Committee. Either way, I can't see any way to come to a conclusion that's acceptable to Cleo and Bus stop without defying consensus, so it's pretty much impossible to continue to mediate.

By the way, my "judgement" was a clear interpretation of policy. If a mediator isn't allowed to do that, what are we allowed to do? --Moralis (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was an objector to including former converts, but I'm willing to yield on the matter. I'd like to see a formal vote on Cleo's one idea. If that fails to get a simple majority I think we should allow the former converts in to end the stalemate. (Yes I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but I think we need to end the stalemate and a 2/3 reasoned majority either way isn't likely to happen) And I'm sorry if this has been rough on you. Although I understand some of where Cleo's coming from I think she might've gotten a bit too critical of you.--T. Anthony 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe I was "hard on" the mediator or his/her EGO. All I did was quote the MedCab page in response to the judgement Moralis issued, which seemed to run contrary to that group's policy. Interpretation can be a very subjective thing and it doesn't seem that anyone agreed to any binding policy interpretations by the mediator. In addition, I really don't see how six editors for inclusion of Non-Christians vs. six editors against inclusion of Non-Christians represents a clear cut consensus. The mediator has stated that there is "a very clear majority" - I ask the mediator to, please, list the names of editors that constitute the "clear cut" majority he/she cites. I will also go on record as saying that the mediator's remark that : "Cleo and Bus stop, you two are indeed very loud, but talking a lot does not mean that there are any more of you." borders on a lack of civility and truly is not supported by the contribution history to this discussion. In recent days, User:Bus stop has made very few contributions to the discussion. The page would seem to be dominated by editors arguing on one side of the debate - that does not mean, however, that there are any more of them. "Behold! My signature..." Cleo123 08:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It struck me as a bit snarky at the time and still kind of does. The other thing is that whenever this was put to a vote the "keep them in" side did clearly win out. The side for removing them has made comments that could seem uncertain, me included, so I could see believing there is a clear concensus for keeping even if I think that's overstating it.--T. Anthony 09:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a vote over that matter is a good idea. I'm not too sure about the vote ratio proposal, though; although it seems altogether reasonable. Anyway, I thank Moralis for his involvement.--C.Logan 07:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the two recent polls here and here at least strongly suggest an existing consensus? The further discussion seems to have indicated that there is indeed a small minority that hold to the position that Bob Dylan's Conversion has not been adequately demonstrated. In the bigger picture, the principle question of whether or not we should list former converts has been more contested, but only a couple of editors have remained inflexible on this point. There seems to be a consensus supporting and/or willing to accept the compromise that sections out the former converts and explains their status. If you also weigh the comments of the two moderators who have attempted to settle this, but who were driven away exasperated by the unwillingness of a couple of editors to concede on even the clearest points, then the picture of an established consensus is revealed. Will a new vote/poll/whatever somehow turn out radically different from the last one? Will it actually convince anyone who isn't already convinced?

I'm going to boldly follow Moralis' advice. I'll place Mr. Dylan in the section for former converts, and ask that those who would like to change this, or to remove the section, or to split it out as a separate article, should first attempt to demonstrate a consensus for their position here. If anyone knows of other suitable "former converts," or people whose latest status is indeterminate, go ahead and add them in that section, and add any reasonable explanatory notes so that all the information we have is fairly presented. zadignose 09:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's debatable that including former converts got a two-thirds majority, which is standard. It might look like a 6-2 vote, but that's because I crossed mine out because I figured the issue was over. I have uncrossed it now. You could say "that's still 6-3", but one of the agree votes had no content and those kinds of votes can be discarded. I do want this debate to end, but I'd hoped we could try one last attempt to make it end with some kind of resolution. I know you feel that's impossible, and maybe it is, but I'm not saying "a happy resolution" just a tolerable one. Unilateral action by the side that wants to include Formers is not what I had in mind. Would it have been different if a member of the "exclude formers" camp, like the rather quiet Sefringle, had put Dylan back? Yes because that would shift the concensus toward "including them."--T. Anthony 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you believe Ttiotsw's vote can be discarded, as he's been pretty vocal about his position in this discussion (and it seems he originally argued for exclusion, and later changed his mind). I'm pretty sure that vote exclusion logic should only apply when new names happen to show up in the votes. I'm not sure if the current re-addition is a problem or not- it seems a decision has been made on the part of the moderator, so we have a position we should gravitate towards. Of course, we should still consider other possibilities and continue to compromise until we're all amicable enough to share a cherry soda at a drive-in film.--C.Logan 11:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He is one of the few to be editing as long as me here. Still I was just going by how votes are counted at other places I've been at WP.--T. Anthony 11:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't forget in addition to all the folks who voted, two different mediators from MedCab reached basically similar conclusions. T. Anthony I've found you to be a rational and reasonable representative from the anti-inclusion camp, however I must think it should also be becoming apparent to you Cleo123 and Bus Stop don't seem particularly interested in building consensus (in fact I have a suspicion Cleo123 believes and knows full well Dylan converted, judging from the length of effort she goes to manufacture/synthesize sources while quoting ones that stated Dylan "returned" to Judaism) and just want to "win" the debate by getting Dylan off the list. I also don't like unilateral actions by either side, however there's a strong reason to first get Dylan back on the list: I'm starting to think a couple anti-inclusion editors may be trying to prevent consensus on purpose, because as long as Dylan stays off the list while the discussion drags on, they deem that a working filibustering tactic, and they think they win something and it's time to break out the Merlot and "LOL" etc: [1]. The mediator summed it perfectly: "Everyone has been rude, but these two have shirked all attempts at coming to a compromise, twisted other users' words in very obvious ways, and been outwardly rude to everyone else involved" I can only speak for myself but I suspect virtually all parties in the pro-inclusion camp would be happy to carry on the discussion with you, Wfaxon and all and whoever else that ever voiced a concern about inclusion and have been civil and reasonable; but any action to involve two disruptive editors here who have a history of tag-teamming like this (see Michael Richards page talk archives for instance) is counter-productive to building consensus--consensus is the last thing they want as long while Dylan remains off the list. We've just wasted another week only to have them reject the results of mediation again, that is ludicrous. Tendancer 11:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want one last shot at some kind of vote or proposal. If it becomes clear the anti-inclusion camp loses then I will actually go against it/them for the sake of resolution. I don't think it's entirely clear yet. If they do lose and still can't accept it, and continue to take Dylan out, I'll support putting them on some kind of block from editing this article. Okay? I just think this needs a clearer "that's it, the end" for both sides.--T. Anthony 05:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done...that seems to me to be the most suitable conclusion to this controvesy. Teapotgeorge 10:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. I was hoping for something to finalize whatever decision. Maybe not another vote, but some sense of acceptance. A gracenote of some kind. Instead zadignose has essentially just given us "we're right, you're wrong, suck it up losers." We never even really had a discussion that wasn't Dylan-centric or Dylanelicious or Dylantastic.--T. Anthony 11:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Formers: The final battle, the Next day

I kind of don't think I have the power to do this, but this is a proposal I'm putting to a vote. Either way it ends, when it ends, I intend to end my involvement in the discussion. Due to the way I'm presenting it I should mention I count myself as a supporter of the proposal. As the proposer though I will be uninvolved in any discussion in this section.--T. Anthony 11:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Former converts should be moved to a new list that concerns temporary converts to Christianity

• Oppose As far as I can see that is just a way to placate Bus Stop and let them have their own way in removing Dylan from the list. We should not try and go to such ridiculous lengths to placate the wishes of a tiny minority of users who clearly have an unreasonable obsession. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Arranging such an idea as a separate article is not viable. The parameters are a bit too specific, and it is extremely unlikely that such a list will ever grow beyond 5-10 entries. Such an article would (doubtless) be deleted for the same reasons some users here find such information unnecessary to list even here. Such specifics would be better suited as a subsection within this article, and it may also be a good idea to list this subsection both here and on the List of notable former Christians as well. I'm not entirely sure what argument exists that would lead one to prefer a separate article over a subsection, but it would seem that such a suggestion ultimately stems from a few editors' determined position to remove an individual from a list, even when the majority of editors find his inclusion relevant. I believe that such a concept works as a section, but not as an article.--C.Logan 11:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - only on the basis that creating such a list, and creating parameters for such a list, seem to me to probably at least at some point involve original research. Specifically, unless the subject has clearly and explicitly indicated that s/he no longer holds Christian beliefs (and it should be noted the main bone of contention, Bob Dylan, has never apparently made such a statement) it seems to me to be original research to indicate that he is no longer a Christian. Also, it could reasonably be argued that anyone whose religious beliefs are a syncretion of Christianity and something else could be still, technically, called a Christian, not a "former" Christian. We would thus, I think, have to prove that the subject's current beliefs specifically and pointedly include no beliefs which would clearly qualify as specifically Christian. Proving a negative like that is always problematic, as no one can ever know everything about anything. It is also true that the main bone of contention, Dylan, has recently seemingly expressed belief in New Testament scriptures, so it could be argued that he might not qualify for such a list even if it were created. I could see groupings within existing lists, but, with all respect to T. Anthony, I personally think any attempt to create a separate list stands a very good chance of creating a discussion which could at least potentially dwarf this one in both heat and length. John Carter 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The section is not big enough for its own article. Nick Graves 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Totally unnecessary and would weaken this article. --JJay 16:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've tried to think a way to make this work, but I can't see how it would be better than a section within this article. Only when the section develops into something we can see as a viable article of its own, and we can find a way to properly title it and set out its terms, could it be possible to spin this section off into a free standing article. I'll also comment below, but let me me point out that we should not decide when to spin off a separate article based on an arbitrary number of entries, but rather should only do it when it becomes apparent that it would actually work as an article, and stand up against an AfD. zadignose 02:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Approval for alternative proposals

I thank T. Anthony for making his proposal. I believe we need to find the solution that is acceptable to the greatest number of editors here. I also believe that finding that solution is best done using the approval voting method, rather than a simple support/oppose. I have listed a number of options below. Please sign your name under each option that you find acceptable. In other words, even if an option isn't your favorite, you are indicating that the solution is acceptable ("good enough") for you. Feel free to add more options and vote for them. Please reserve justifications/discussion on the votes for the second section so we can more easily evaluate the vote tally.

The votes

Move former converts to a new list of former converts to Christianity

• Drumpler 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC) -- I am for this, although I am for other proposals as seen below. I, however, am willing to work with the consensus, whatever it might be.

Move former converts to a list of ex-Christians

• Nick Graves 15:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• T. Anthony 05:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Cleo123 05:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Drumpler 05:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Too wide and not specific enough. Although they could certainly also be included on such a list. For the purposes of this article, however, I am removing my vote. Drumpler 22:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sefringle^Talk 17:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

List former converts in a separate section of this article

• C.Logan
• Tendancer 17:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• John Carter 18:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC) - with serious reservations
• Drumpler 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Nick Graves 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• zadignose 02:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• T. Anthony 04:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC) with extreme reluctance.

List former converts in a separate section of this article, and make this section into its own article if and when 10 or more former converts are found

• Nick Graves 15:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• T. Anthony 05:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

List all converts under former religion. Use footnotes for any relevant information related to religious practice

• JJay 17:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• C.Logan (though this is a return back to square one, it's worth credit- I place my vote here cautiously.)
• This page lists people who converted to Christianity not people who are now Christians which is something Bus Stop never understood. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• John Carter 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Drumpler 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC) -- although I thought this list already had a separate article? Nevermind, I had it confused for this. The parameters on this list are too large to cover former notable converts (although they would likewise be included in such a list). Although maybe a subsection on this article might suffice? Drumpler 05:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Teapotgeorge 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Separate subsections of each "by religion" section of the article, with each section made into a separate article linked to by this article when enough names are gathered

• John Carter 16:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• C.Logan (A bit messy to have sections with one person each, though...)
• Drumpler 21:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the above means. Drumpler 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the "reverts" who left Christianity (in this case) to their religion prior to Christianity would be listed in a "reverts" (or similarly titled) subsection of the "from whatever" heading. So, in the case of a notable singer whose name is probably getting used a bit too often here, that individual would be included (depending on whether sufficient evidence were found to justify it) in the "Reverts" subheading of the "From Judaism" heading. I hope that clarifies the proposal a little. John Carter 15:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does. So basically, "From Judaism" > "Reverts" > list? Drumpler 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, basically like the "From Zoroastrianism" section and "Reversions" subsection I mentioned below would look like, if they were included normally. John Carter 22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion or responses to the votes

• A separate list of former converts would not survive AfD at this point. If the section ever has ten or more entries, I think it should then be split into its own article. Nick Graves 15:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm afraid my same concerns for the viability and usefulness of such an article still prevent me from seeing this idea work. If the bar for viability was raised to 15, or even 20, I would consider the idea, but even then, that would realistically be the utmost extent of the section/article. Essentially, we would be moving information from a page in which it is useful and relevant to the subject matter, to an isolated location with complex parameters and limited usefulness. As I'd said, it works better as a section than an article. Reasonably, any one of these sections 'by religion' are more than viable enough to form their own articles, but doing so would stunt the usefulness of this page and of the information in the section moved. I don't see how the same problems don't apply when considering the movement of this section to an article. I could flesh out my thoughts a bit, but I'd prefer to keep it general here.--C.Logan 16:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I would add another possibility. Create separate listings under each subheading for individuals who have (apparently) converted to other faiths. So there might be a subheading "later conversions" under each section heading currently extant for the various faiths. To clafify,

==From Zoroastrianism==<br> ===Reversions===. Then, if there were to prove to be enough names for a separate, stand alone list for one or more religions individually, create those as separate subpages with links to them from this one. John Carter 15:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. I believe such subsections would be quite small, and not as viable as a single section for all former converts. But feel free to add that option to the section above and vote for it. Nick Graves 16:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Agreed with Nick. I find the idea reasonable, but the section we have now has only three individuals. We would basically have an entirely separate section for one individual- imagine the appearance of the Sikhism section when the 3 listings are bisected by an entirely new section. It doesn't seem warranted. However, if we get 3 or more 'former' individuals for some of the faiths listed, I would see the subsections within religion sections being a viable idea. Still, though, that leaves the bisected Sikhism for a single entry (lets be honest with ourselves- the odds of another 'former Christian convert Sikh' turning up are astronomical).--C.Logan 16:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Agreed. Basically, I think the best set-up for such a proposal would be as follows:
    • (1) The first such convert is listed in the regular "converts from" section, with text indicating his/her reversion
    • (2) If a second such convert is also added, then a separate subsection is created
    • (3) Upon ten names being added, a separate page is created.
    • This would allow all names to be included somewhere, and would allow for creation of separate pages wherever practicable. It also doesn't have my biggest objection to a separate section of the page, which is that such a section is not consistent with earlier sections and would attempt to create a second location in the list where individuals seeking a particular type of conversion (Sikh-Christian, for example) would have to look through for instances of the kind of conversion they are looking for. John Carter 17:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - While well thought, the above suggestion has some problems. The procedure exhibited in the first 2 points might make perfect sense to us, but to the reader, it's going to be confusing to have to deal with our sectional compromises. We shouldn't, I think, simply make a 'pre-coupling' staging area like the above idea seems to suggest. It should be one section with all names, or all names under the appropriate religious subsection with no other 'former converts section'. It is conceivable that we could move from the single section format to the subsections format if the number of individuals grows to a point (for example, 3 Muslims, 2 Jews, 1 Sikh, 2 Pagans, etc.)- we would simply reach a point where the subsection idea would make more sense, and then switch to it. Additionally, I disagree with point 3, for reasons I've explained directly above.--C.Logan 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Question - I wish the language of JJay's proposal above were a bit clearer. I think I might kind of agree to it, but I would want to have a clearer understanding of what it specifically means before I do so. John Carter 17:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Tendancer 17:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Also oppose any separation to other articles. Right now a single link can be created to this list via Christianization or Religious conversion, any efforts to break out the articles would make that no longer feasible. Not to mention, proposals such as e.g. having a condition like "make this section into its own article if and when 10 or more former converts are found" is inviting a couple of disruptive editors to game the system, by next week if not sooner we'll find about 15 uncited or synthesized original research names on the list, followed by one or both of them immediately deleting Dylan and writing here "we now have 10 names, this was agreed upon, and per <insert random WP:acronyms too complicated for them to understand but they'll mis-apply anyway, certain to contain the words/phrases WP:BLP WP:LIVING libel anti-semitic, and LOL". "LOL"
• This page lists people who converted to Christianity not people who are now Christians which is something Bus Stop never understood. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - please define which "former religion" (original or religion later converted to) you mean in the phrasing above. John Carter 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The headings say from x to y so by former. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The religion or belief system prior to conversion to Christianity. --JJay 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have another question for JJay. The option you proposed reads "List all converts under former religion." By "converts," do you mean just those who, as far as we know from the sources, remained Christian, or do you also mean to include those who converted, but are no longer Christian? Also, I would suggest that, if this is the option that is agreed upon, it should be acknowledged right in the list entry (not just in footnotes) if someone is no longer Christian, or if their current religious status has been called into question by reliable sources. Nick Graves 20:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• If I may assume, I believe JJay intends to mean that converts who later changed their religion should be listed under their religion of origin, but with descriptions and footnotes explaining the individual's status. This is actually how the list was at the beginning of the discussion, so I'm a little cautious about returning to this state, even though I myself did not find great issue with the configuration- a major concern is 'confusion', but I'm certain that any individual with sufficient higher brain functions to navigate Wikipedia in the first place will have no trouble discerning an individual's situation based on his or her description. So basically, my major apprehension about this configuration is simply this- after 2 months of discussion, are we really going to return to square one? In the end, I don't mind either way, but it seems like a waste, and I'm afraid it may leave the door open for future contentions over the content of these lists.--C.Logan 21:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I mean all converts, whether post-conversion they were ardent Christians, nominal Christians, or lapsed Christians. This should be expanded on in the article introduction, to indicate that we have not sought to verify the life-long practice of people on this list. Of course, the entries can be as long as editors feel is required. Footnotes can also be used to expand on religious practice, particularly when there is conflicting later information. The advantage of footnotes is that the list entries can be kept manageable, while still allowing analysis and expansion - which is something to be encouraged if we want this to be more than a mere itemization of names. The abandonment of one religion for another, the motivations and circumstances, is what interest me in this list (in this case, the specific conversion to Christianity). The act of conversion has historical validity that remains unchanged by later events. To me, that is the underlying scholarly justification for these sorts of lists. But personally, I don't see a later loss of faith, renouncement or reversion as much of an issue. When information is available to that effect, it should be noted. --JJay 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not directed at anyone, but responding per request of Nick Graves. First I applaud Nick Graves giving us more options. I'd actually wanted to do that, but I wasn't sure how as I'd never set up a vote before. However I find some of the options confusing. What does Separate subsections of each "by religion" section of the article, with each section made into a separate article linked to by this article when enough names are gathered mean? Does it mean we'd have a bunch of articles like "People who converted from Islam to Christianity", "People who converted from Paganism to Christianity", etc (if each is long enough to make an article) and then they'd all link back to here? That seems a bit excessive if so. Also with as many options as are available how will we arrive at a decision? Will we have a run-off or go by plurality? There's enough here I think that's all I'm saying for now. I may not say anymore, but if I understand the issues better I might.--T. Anthony 05:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, basically what the proposal is meant to indicate is that there might be, for example, a list of "Reverts to Islam" list which would include those who were adherents of Islam, left Islam for some other faith, and later returned to Islam. Presumably, those articles might be broken down either by time or by the religion to which they converted and later converted away from. Potentially, if some of the individual lists on these lists get really long in time, they might be at some time in the future broken down into sublists of "Reverts to Islam from Christianity" (for example), but I while I can see that potentially happening I don't expect to see it happen anytime soon in most if not all cases. John Carter 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay I see now, I think. Thanks.--T. Anthony 15:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In answer to T. Anthony: Once all of the editors have weighed in to their satisfaction, we can close the approval vote. The option that the most editors found to be acceptable is the one that is considered to reflect the strongest consensus. It might not be anyone's favorite option, but it is the option that most people find good enough so we can settle this issue and move on. There is no runoff unless there is a tie. In that case, we can hold another approval vote with just the options that have tied.

Editors might decide to expand what they consider acceptable options, after they see the general trend in the votes, and then vote accordingly. However, for this vote to succeed, editors must not withdraw their votes. Once you indicate that an option is acceptable to you, you should let that vote stand. I dare trust to the good faith of the editors not to try to go down that path, as it would undermine the advantages of this voting method. Nick Graves 18:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree in general with the above, with one qualifier. If, after later comments and possibly later options are created, you find that one option you supported might have serious weaknesses which you had not considered when you did indicate approval, it might be possible to remove your indication of support. However, I do believe that it would be reasonable to request in such cases a clear statement as to what has led you to change your opinion. I only say this because it might be possible for someone to see something someone says after they indicated support which they themselves had not thought of and might change their midn regarding the subject. John Carter 19:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

One potential problem I did not foresee in proposing this voting procedure was the possibility that one might withdraw a vote in order to give advantage to a personally favorite option over a merely personally acceptable option. Obviously, this would have the effect of violating the spirit and intent of the approval voting method in achieving compromise. Even if such was not the motivation behind a vote withdrawal, the appearance or possibility of such a motivation could be cause for someone to question the outcome of the vote. It remains to be seen whether Drumpler's vote withdrawals above would have any effect on the outcome.

If I were to propose a similar procedure for compromise in some article in the future, I think I would formulate it this way: (1) Have a certain period during which options are proposed. Anyone may propose as many options as they like. (2) Have a period during which the options are discussed, clarified, and reworded as necessary. (3) Have a period during which people make their approval votes, with the caveat that they may make additional votes whenever they like, but may not retract a vote. Each period would last maybe two or three days, and would have a specific date and time deadlines.

We'll see how the current vote pans out. It's unknown whether all of the editors will be satisfied enough to just accept the frontrunner and let this issue be. Methods beyond mediation or voting may be in order to settle this thing, though I hope not. Nick Graves 22:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be useful/might have been useful if we were to first discuss the pros and cons of each proposal. I was actually formulating a section like this on one of my personal pages, and was considering pasting it here until you proposed the vote. That being said, I think it would be useful and might change a few votes. If each possibility had the pros and cons listed, users would be able to consider these issues instead of voting for a possibility which 'sounds' good. Of course, the 'pros' and 'cons' should remain neutral in presentation and should not involve accusations concerning editors and such.--C.Logan 23:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also suggest that larger questions be settled first, with each party casting only one vote. (For example, do Non-Christians belong on this list? Yes or no? Should such people be included on another list? etc. etc.) As possibilities are eliminated, a second vote or series of votes, can iron out formatting particulars. Cleo123 01:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing the poll

I believe everyone involved has had ample opportunity to propose options, clarify them, discuss their merits, and vote for the ones they find acceptable or least objectionable. What does everyone say to closing this vote precisely 24 hours from the time of this post and moving on to a tie-breaker, if necessary? Nick Graves 04:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think most have been informed of the vote or will be within the 24 hours.--T. Anthony 05:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of us have selected more than one. Maybe extend it to 48 hours and allow others to then decide what they think is the best option of the ones proposed above? Drumpler 11:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, noticed this was mentioned above. I'll make my final decisions now. Drumpler 11:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That could be okay too. Or we could do a middle ground. Say 36 hours from now.--T. Anthony 11:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

36 sounds reasonable. I just made my own final decision, though. I think we need to do it as it used to be done, with footnotes serving as clarifiers (although clarifying text might also need to be added to each name). It should be clear that the convert is no longer a Christian and doesn't identify with such any more. Drumpler 11:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in, as I don't want my failure to participate to have any negative effects, but I think the main points have already been demonstrated to have met a consensus. I know that Wikipedia decisions based on extensive dialogue should not be determined by a "vote." I know that polling is generally a resort meant to demonstrate the strength or weakness of an existing consensus. I also find the variety of proposals above seem to have complicated matters. Anyway, as I post my above comments, I'll add here that I had no intention of declaring a "winner," that in my comments I've stated that I believe the various "sides" and opinions have already contributed to bettering the article, even though we are not all in perfect agreement. I finally edited the text of the article itself, in keeping with the apparent consensus, as prompted by the departing moderator. Of course, continued dialogue is good. But we shouldn't be leaning on any two-thirds measure of consensus, as this is actually counter to Wikipedia policy. When we have half a dozen proposed ways to approach the article, with expressions only of "approval," this can perhaps give us a better sense of what the various editors think, but it is unlikely to demonstrate a "majority" of anything. zadignose 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an unusual situation. It's been unclear at times what the concensus is and two mediators have given up. I think we should have some leeway to find a solution. If that doesn't meet up with some Wikipedia rulebook so be it.--T. Anthony 04:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to go on record, again, as saying that I believe the approval voting method is inappropriate. Each editor should not be allowed more than one vote. Major issues such as do Non Christains belong on this or any other list should have been settled in a preliminary vote. Mixing formatting issues as to how they'll be listed would appear to be forecasting. Regardless, a poll that does not even acheive a 2/3 majority would not appear to be a consensus. Cleo123 04:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that that sort of voting Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity/Archive_4#This_is_an_article_about_a_list_of_converts_to_Christianity,_regardless_of_what_has_occured_afterward took place. And with the multiple voting possibilities, I believe that the purpose of the poll is to work towards compromise. By placing only one vote for one option, we are still moving towards resolution in the cold sense. By indicating which possibilities would be satisfactory, we can determine which proposals are most agreed upon. I understand what you're saying, but in this way, we're working together more so. For instance, you and I would naturally choose possibilities that would be opposed if we were given a single vote. But with multiple options on the 'acceptability' spectrum, we might meet a resolution through an option that mildly satisfies the both of us- which essentially, is the typical outcome of a real compromise.--C.Logan 05:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiebreaker

The proposed time limit of 36 hours (to which no-one raised objections) has passed. (For the rest see Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Tiebreaker (moved))

Continous Vandalism and Anti-Semitic Accusations

This bugs me greatly (and given the edit history, I'm sure it does other editors). I think we are way past the stage of mediation. Two mediators have quit because of this user. Its about time we take it to the next step. Drumpler 09:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we're finally make a bit of progress. The second mediator leaving gave a sense of how necessary it is to resolve this and the current proposals might do something. Although if the current vote proposals don't end things I quit. I hope User:Bus stop weighs in favor of one of the proposals, but I agree he needs to be less disruptive. If he won't or can't do that is there a way to block him from this article? (And only this article as I guess he does some good work elsewhere)--T. Anthony 10:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In case he gets angry I'm talking "if." If he doesn't abide by whatever conclusion we make and also continues to call people names. The same would apply to say User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel or anyone else if in the future they're continually disruptive and don't accept any resolution. I'm certainly hoping no such thing happens and that we get this straightened out soon.--T. Anthony 10:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is obviously something I am missing here, as I do not, nor have I ever seen User:Bus stop call anyone, any kind of names. I have seen people call him names. As I see it, he has referred to the article content potentially being perceived by Jewish readers as offensive and, in his view, "antisemitic". Perhaps, I've missed something because I really don't recall him ever calling another editor "antisemitic". I'm not sure why anyone would have that perception. There is no question that he has belabored his point, but how one extrapolates personal attacks and/or incivility out of a Jewish editor's perception of the article's content eludes me. I am not at all offended by his remarks. If an African American editor voiced concerns about racist overtones in an article, would editors be trying to get that user blocked from editing the article? Cleo123 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He has pretty clearly said that editors who want Dylan in do so for antisemitic reasons. That antisemitism or "forced conversion" is the main reason to include Dylan. For example see "Mediator, on the Definition of a Christian" where he says "I see a small group of dedicated editors intent on knocking Judaism down a notch. I defend my right to say that" and also added he doesn't need to assume good faith. He had plenty of opportunities to say he was not accusing editors of antisemitism, but he generally chose not to do so. Granted it's possible his style has made his remarks sound worse than they are in reality. Still I was also against User:zadignose putting Dylan back and complained about here. I made sure to lead to his re-removal in order to see how this last thing plays out. I did not say his putting Dylan back was returning "antisemitic and contrived" content. Even if he thought the Dylan info was "antisemitic and contrived" there's less hurtful ways of referring to zadignose's actions. Besides which I was saying "if." If I'm all wrong about how Bus stop is now that's great. If Bus stop proves to be no problem after we decide whatever than also great. If he or anyone else becomes continually disruptive than something should be done. (Although I'd want it to be done in a civil way. Just a recognition that he became too obsessed on Bob Dylan related matters and not any kind of overall condemnation of him)--T. Anthony 02:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking we need to set a deadline and agree to take action, no matter which side wins in this debate. If it is agreed, I think this should be the most appropriate route. I would propose to protect the article from contentious editors for a short time period also. Drumpler 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protection has been done (twice) before. It was, shall we say, only temporarily effective. The last mediator said the matter should be referred to the Mediation Committee. It already factually was, though, and Bus stop refused to accept mediation. Assuming he would do so again, the only subsequent step I can think of is the Arbitration Committee. Would that be an acceptable step to you? John Carter 22:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I think you all may be over reacting a bit here. I understand you are angry with User:Bus stop and that you find his editorial view offensive – but what has he done here to warrant any sort of escalation on your part? He is not even participating in the discussion anymore. Thanks, I suspect, to the numerous personal attacks that have recently been made against him. As I see it, User:zadignose jumped the gun by restoring Dylan to the list before a final vote had even been conducted. [2]. In the midst of the ongoing debate, the premature edit should have been reverted as User:Bus stop did – once. I will say that User:Bus stop’s edit summary was a bit inflammatory and unnecessary, however, he is not edit warring on the article – the group of you are. [3][4][5][6][7][8] It seems to me that several of these edit summaries are just as, if not more, uncivil than User:Bus stop’s one edit, which the majority of editors seem to condone, as they have been reverting to User:Bus stop’s version. Why would there be grounds for arbitration and blocking against someone who has made one edit to the article that was consistent with majority opinion, and is not even participating in the discussion? Cleo123 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel too as he called me a bully and such. Still looking through the history Bus stop's here he started with removing Dylan and when that got reverted he just kept removing. He didn't discuss including him or not until later. He even indicated the list should be deleted if Dylan was not removed. (This was back in April) So I think he came in pretty confrontational. This might be confrontational for a just and righteous cause, but it's been counterproductive from the beginning and made him look like an obsessive.--T. Anthony 03:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to Bus Stop as the bully not you T Anthony. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Obsessive might describe someone who insists on putting non-Christians on a list of converts to Christianity. Bus stop 03:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering they'd been on from the beginning, I'd say failure to remove them is not obsessive. It could have just been laziness or an attachment to the status quo. No, you were one of the more obsessive ones. I'm not saying this obsession was necessarily wrong as I also oppose including non-Christians. I think you brought up some valid issues. However I think the way you did this was a bit counterproductive. Further you made unsubstantiated accusations of editors wanting to demean Judaism. I think you mostly have been attacked for being provocative. Now being provocative is not always a bad thing, but you have to accept that it inherently means you'll provoke a response. That response may get negative, even personal. That said maybe I shouldn't have "piled on." I'm totally willing to forgive you for your insults if you'll forgive those who insulted you. Then maybe we can move on.--T. Anthony 05:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To Cleo123: Given, but the fact that Bus stop has been doing this for quite some time has not really helped his cause. I actually joined this discussion when I read on the WP:EAR board about this list. When overwhelming consensus has been reached, he has gone in and reverted regardless. Likewise, he has accused many here of being anti-Semitic and Christian missionaries (I'm surely not either). One of the mediators, who was a Jew, told him he was overstepping his bounds in that area. I think I speak for many editors here when I say I am tired of having to deal with his antics and think only real progress can be made by stripping his editorial privileges from this article.

To John Carter: I think the Arbitration Committee would be appropriate to settle this. Two mediators later has certainly not resolved it (even though both did fantastic jobs, in my mind) and I think it is time to settle it once and for all. I'll maybe contribute some diffs when I have the time (this whole debate has had me exasperated). Drumpler 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try to follow procedures. Evidently, the next step would be to file a request with the Mediation Committee, and see if this time Bus stop agrees to mediation. If not, then the Arbitration Committee would be the only step remaining. However, I think it would be a good idea to put off requesting more formal mediation until after the time for requesting opinions on the existing proposals has ended and we have some idea of what the more favored and less favored options are. John Carter 14:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome an indication from the rest of you as to when you believe that the required time for the conclusion of the polling has ended, so we can file the request for mediation, which is the indicated next step. John Carter 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're thinking about a new mediation, when the situation seems mostly resolved at this point, or very close to resolved. The minds of many people coming from many sides and perspectives are meeting, we're just not meeting with Bus Stop's approval. If we form a consensus on how to proceed (and it seemed to me we already had, but the latest round of discussions and polling seem to even further establish a viable compromise solution with broad consensus to proceed), then it will again be abundantly clear when Bus Stop tries to revert against consensus. In some ways, it seems we have a history of undermining ourselves, because everytime we reach some kind of consensus, we suddenly call for more polls, more opinions, and more moderation, as if we're insecure in our decisions and need further reassurance. Then, of course, Bus Stop notices this insecurity, launches another aggressive campaign, shakes everything apart, and we find ourselves once again looking around and saying "do we still agree, guys?" We rebuild the bridges that have been built to meet with those who disagree, but can see merit in several points of view and are able to "agree to disagree." And we have to hope that feelings haven't been hurt, and people haven't become too exasperated to be able to go another round and reaffirm the consensus that was already established long ago. For a simple example, consider how the question "Did Bob Dylan ever convert?" keeps getting reoppened, when that point hasn't seriously been disputed in a long long time, and the consensus there is clear. The questions "is this list essentially anti-semitic," and "are we proselytizing?" aren't even serious, as the clear consensus answer to both is "no," but they frustrate, anger, and inspire enough inappropriate responses to threaten the consensus building on more serious issues. We just have to build our consensus without Bus Stop, and if we see we have the necessary consensus, then we don't need to call in another moderator to confirm an already formed conclusion. zadignose 14:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

On some points, there does seem to be the possibility of consensus. What seems to me the most problematic area of discussion, and one which I personally think will sooner or later wind up before ArbCom anyway, is the contention that WP:BLP applies to what some will call controversial content such as being included in this article. I personally wouldn't mind seeing that brought before ArbCom simply for the purpose of having some sort of clear statement on the subject for future use elsewhere. Having said that, if there is a consensus on the content here, there would be no reason to bring it before MedCom and later ArbCom if there is nothing to be mediated or arbitrated, based on general agreement on the subject. John Carter 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't entirely see it that way. There was enough of an irritated minority, before, that I think we did need a bit more hashing. This wasn't "insecurity" it was genuine concern for a real agreement. Granted I'm behind some of the recent proposals, but I still think there is evidence they were good things not signs of weakness. Finally Cleo, Nick, and I were able to get a clearer sense of what the concensus was and how to accept it. I think that's very positive and we did it without mediators. Maybe when it all ends we'll have something tolerable to all of us. Where I agree is that I really think the only problem left is Bus stop as he refuses to compromise, discuss, or deal with others. I also don't see how mediation will help that.--T. Anthony 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes you're right that there have been positive outcomes. I tried to highlight that elsewhere in the discussion, and didn't mean to take too negative a perspective on the process. In fact, I think the article itself is moving in a positive direction. But I do fear seeing certain points hashed out endlessly, and I am aware that the frustration caused by some of the personal accusations and reposted comments can be disruptive too. I nearly threw up my hands and walked away on several occassions, and I'm sure some editors have done just that.zadignose 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

zadignose -- I think you are misconstruing issues. There are references to conversion from 1979. There is no indication of formal conversion, only the use of the term, and only from 27 years ago. Since about 1980 Bob Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity. Is he a convert to Christianity? No. Is he a Christian? No. He is a Jew. This is a list of Christians who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion. There is no evidence of formal conversion. There is no evidence of Bob Dylan having anything to do with Christianity for the past 27 years. He has in fact, in the intervening 27 years been involved with Orthodox Judaism. How do you reconcile Orthodox Judaism with Christianity? Bob Dylan was not only born Jewish, to two parents who were both Jewish, but he is presently practicing the most severely observant form of Judaism found on Earth. Bob Dylan is regarded as and accepted by the ultra-Orthodox Lubovitch sect of Judaism. Bob Dylan is involved in their religious services. How is it that some of you are so insistent that the Jewish person Bob Dylan is for your purposes a Christian?

We are talking about a list (List of notable converts to Christianity) that should only have Christians on it. Many of the editors here have come up with a variety of contrived understandings of what should be very straightforward parameters for this list -- all with the express aim of getting Bob Dylan on this list. All of the argumentation above involves altering the parameters and changing the name of the list to try to get the Jewish person Bob Dylan onto this list. There is a mirror image of this list. It is called the List of notable converts to Judaism. It does not contain anyone on it who is not a Jew. Read the parameters. The parameters are explicitly stated at the top of the List of notable converts to Judaism. It says:

"This page is a list of Jews."

It goes on to say:

"This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

Can you give me any good reason why the List of notable converts to Christianity cannot use similarly straightforward parameters? And why, in title change, is there the suggestion of changing the name of the List of notable converts to Christianity? Isn't that an attempt to circumvent logical parameters? And for what reason -- just to get Bob Dylan onto the List of notable converts to Christianity? There happen to be 200 other names on the List of notable converts to Christianity besides Bob Dylan.

If Bob Dylan were a Christian then he would belong on this list. But he is not. And the fact of conversion is absent. The mere use of the word 27 years ago by the media doesn't label Bob Dylan for life as a convert to Christianity. To list Bob Dylan on List of notable converts to Christianity is offensive to his present status as a Jew. The argument for syncretism is bogus in Bob Dylan's instance -- the Lubovitch don't dabble in Christianity. List of notable converts to Christianity should be following the straightforward parameters as found at List of notable converts to Judaism. It is attempts at contrivance to get or keep Bob Dylan on the List of notable converts to Christianity that keeps this dispute going. Bus stop 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you don't understand or aren't reading what others say. This is not about Dylan. I don't care about Dylan and I don't think User:Nick Graves cares much about that either. We have tried to move on from that, or at least deal with more than that, but you haven't moved on. What we're at now is trying to come to a concensus on what's to be done with former converts. I think we've had a good conversation on that and come to an agreement. It's not what I'm entirely satisfied with, but that's the nature of agreements. I can live with it as I see it's the best option. I really wanted you to be part of all that and I still would like that if you can. However if you can't than please at least find a way to tolerate it. If you can't even do that then frankly I think you need to ignore this article. Or put it up for AfD. I think you will lose at AfD, but if you can't tolerate a concensus maybe it means you need to lose in a way more final and definite than we can give you.(statement withdrawn--T. Anthony 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)) Whatever you do please try to move on. I fear you're on the verge of being disciplined if you go on this way and I don't want that.--T. Anthony 16:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's not give him any crazy ideas. He's already put it up for deletion, with this result. And furthermore:

"Actually, that's incorrect. We can't contrive parameters, because, you see, Dylan is not Jewish, and this is a list of Christians."zadignose 17:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

zadignose -- That is not a quote from me. That is a fictionalized representation of something I might have said, produced by Moralis, and it contains within it something that is nonsensical, apparently not spotted by Moralis or zadignose.

Aren't some of you playing "fast and loose" with information? Is that the proper attitude to take to writing what is represented as being a form of encyclopedia? Bus stop 17:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article was kept last month on AfD following Bus Stop's nomination. Don't encourage further disruption from this user. --JJay 17:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, then, you would say that your own undocumented claims of "anti-semitimism", Christian conspiracy, etc., etc., etc., do qualify as being the "proper attitude to take to writing that is represented as being a form of encyclopedia"? Personally, I believe that if you view your own comments mentioned above as acceptable, that slight misstatement, which does not make the unfounded accusations you regularly do make, has to be regarded as acceptable. That is, of course, if your conduct to date is viewed as acceptable. John Carter 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop: And, of course, I'm quite aware that it's not a quote from you, which is why I linked it to where I quoted it from. And I was aware of the absurd contradiction within it, but didn't edit it as it's a quote, plus the sheer inanity of it made it seem even more apropos. zadignose 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not address issues?

There should not be non-Christians on a list of converts to Christianity. That is the issue. This is not a voting process. This is a talking process. We know perfectly well that the majority can be wrong. This is, in its simplest understanding, a list of those Christians who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion. Why are any of us trying to expand it to include more? The concept of this list is the listing, not of those who have experimented with Christianity, but of those who have found Christianity. Did Dylan (and the two others) find Christianity, or is it more correct to say that they experimented with Christianity? It almost seems as though one is penalized for experimentation. Should a Jew be cautious in checking out Christianity? That is the lesson that we gain from the goings on here. Dylan is not a convert to Christianity. Please compile a list of converts to Christianity. Don't include on it those who are Jews, or those who are of any other religion. Please include on it only Christians. It is abusive of the list to do otherwise. Bus stop 12:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Jesus put his hand on me. It was a physical thing. I felt it. I felt it all over me. I felt my whole body tremble. The glory of the Lord knocked me down and picked me up. Being born again is a hard thing. You ever seen a mother give birth to a child? Well it's painful. We don't like to lose those old attitudes and hang-ups. Conversion takes time because you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. You have to learn to drink milk before you can eat meat. You're re-born, but like a baby. A baby doesn't know anything about this world and that's what it's like when you're re-born. You're a stranger. You have to learn all over again. God will show you what you need to know. "I guess He's always been calling me", Dylan said gently. "Of course, how would I have ever known that? That it was Jesus calling me." [[9]
• In late 1978 Dylan himself was busy being born again. His widely-publicized conversion to Christianity made him perhaps the most famous Jewish apostate in American history Yudelson, Larry. Dylan: Tangled Up in Jews. Washington Jewish Week, 1991

• Dylan has, if only from the ironic sideline, taken part in --and sung at-- the deepest spiritual crises of his generation of American Jews: the drama of the civil rights struggle, the comforts and exoticism of the Jewish homeland, and the spiritual excitements of Lubavitch. He also became a Christian--the one leader he followed--and never really looked back and renounced it Yudelson, Larry. Dylan: Tangled Up in Jews. Washington Jewish Week, 1991[10]
• Elie Wiesel wrote to me [and said] he had considered Dylan's conversion a tragedy and hoped that efforts to reach him would succeed. Marshall- Bob Dylan's Unshakeable Monotheism -- Part IV: The 1990s,Jewsweek, 2004 [11]
• "During the conversion thing, I went where I was told. I was aware that it mattered to him. He's never done anything half-assed. If he does anything, he goes fully underwater" Jakob Dylan, JAKOB'S LADDER Part 2, Rolling Stone, 1997
• ETC, ETC, ETC, ETC. -- --JJay 13:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- Dylan is a performer. Everything you say is explainable as mere performance, as mere persona, as mere transitory lifestyle. But that is not the point. The point is that Bob Dylan is not a Christian now, is he? That is why I entitled this section, "Why not address issues?" Your edit summary shows a disinclination to address issues. This is your edit summary: "Why not realize you are wrong?" Are you discussing the issue of what the parameters of this list should be? Or, are you escalating the tension by making a frontal attack on my premise in opening this section in the discussion? Bus stop 13:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We're having one last go on "former converts" and where to place them. I would appreciate your vote on one of the proposals available. Maybe that can help those that want former converts somewhere else. You and JJay fighting is probably not helping anyone.--T. Anthony 14:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• You do realize that no conclusive evidence has been presented to establish Dylan as a "former convert"? --JJay 15:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay, as you know User:Metzenberg has provided a plethora of reliable sources for Dylan's "return" to Judaism on the Bob Dylan talk page. Likewise, on at least three occassions, I have provided additional sources during this dispute. Plenty of sources that meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria have been provided. I don't understand why you keep asking for something that has been previously provided to you. As you have been a primary participant in this dispute since it first began on the Bob Dylan talk page, you are surely aware that the majority of editors have accepted User:Metzenberg's sources, which resulted in a consensus vote on that page for the removal of the Christian Converts Tag from Dylan's biography. It is very unfortunate that a group of editors, whose point of view did not prevail in that discussion subsequently chose to engage in a campaign of censorship regarding Dylan's ethnic heritage, attempting to remove mention of him as a Jewish American artist. Likewise, it would appear that editors, who have identified themselves as Jewish, have been the targets of harassment. Several of the key participants on the loosing side of that discussion chose to follow User:Bus stop to this page and initiate a new, yet similarly themed argument. I would encourage all editors to review the Bob Dylan article talk page, as it is very enlightening as to the roots of this dispute. Cleo123 02:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Believe as you will, but will you please drop the accusations of "antisemitism"? It is very unprofessional. Drumpler 02:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have made no accusations of antisemitism. I have also discouraged User:Bus stop, on the record, from speculating as to the motivations of other editors. I have stated only documented facts above. If you choose to infer something from the facts, that is your interpretation of what has transpired - but that is not my statement. Cleo123 04:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I infered it from this statement: "Likewise, it would appear that editors, who have identified themselves as Jewish, have been the targets of harassment". If I misinterpreted it, I apologize, but to me, it read as if said editors were being targeted because of their Judaism and I do not think that's the case. Drumpler 07:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't start that up again. I think the matter is in debate enough that for our purposes he counts as a former Christian. Anyway and in any event whatever you think is Dylan's status the proposals are about former converts. I do want Bus stop to be part of the process as I hope that may ultimately lead to some peace.--T. Anthony 17:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree. The matter has not been seriously discussed here and is contradicted by the sources. "Former Christian" is not the language used in the Bob Dylan article and is also not the language that was nearing consensus for the Dylan entry prior to the recent mediation. Vocal complaints by wikipedia editors can not overrule WP:V or WP:RS. --JJay 17:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh. Fine you want to fight, fight. I'm done with this section. Hopefully Nick will inform me how the vote goes. I will abide by that regardless. If none of you can well that's your problem.--T. Anthony 17:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Dylan is a performer- totally irrelevant
• Everything you say is explainable as mere performance, as mere persona, as mere transitory lifestyle. - a bizarre point-of-view. Everything I say is supported by WP:RS
• The point is that Bob Dylan is not a Christian now, is he? - There is no significant evidence that Bob Dylan has renounced his conversion to Christianity. There are numerous sources that argue against that POV.
• That is why I entitled this section, "Why not address issues?" - You have started innumerable, largely identical threads on the same issue. Your heading for this thread is a violation of WP:Talk
• Your edit summary shows a disinclination to address issues. This is your edit summary: "Why not realize you are wrong?" - I'm discussing the "issues" right now. We have repeatedly established consensus on this issue. Continued defiance of consensus qualifies as WP:DE. You have been blocked for disruption once and edit warrring twice concerning this issue. Review WP:DE and WP:TE
• Are you discussing the issue of what the parameters of this list should be? Or, are you escalating the tension by making a frontal attack on my premise in opening this section in the discussion? - your "premise" has been discussed to death here. Do not submit "premises" or opinions or theories. Provide sources. In terms of "escalating tension", you have repeatedly attacked the integrity of most participating editors here. You have made numerous biased accusations. You have attacked the mediators who participated here. You are poorly placed to discuss "escalating tension". --JJay 13:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To Bus stop. It's true, the concensus can be wrong. Wikipedia tends to do a horrible job on religious matters. I left Wikipedia because it allows many stupid things based on the concensus of stupid people. However I think you might be rushing the gun, We don't know what the vote result will be yet. I generally gave the process a chance before leaving in anger. So please wait to find out what we decide of the proposals and votes. If you don't like what we agree to you can revisit the matter in a few months. Could you at least consider that?--T. Anthony 13:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To JJay. I understand your irritation, but please try to refrain from making things worse or fighting.--T. Anthony 14:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

T. Anthony -- How do you understand JJay's irritation? We are trying to resolve an issue, are we not? If, as you say, you don't think that non-Christians should be included on this list, then why is that not what you are saying to JJay? Instead you are saying that you understand? Am I incorrect in getting the impression that you want to perpetuate this issue rather than resolve it? Bus stop 15:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to understand your position too and I think we need to reach some kind of closure or peace on this matter. I do understand being a religious minority here and feeling like other editors want to "knock down" your religion or origin. Added to being Catholic, I'm also an OI. One edit on the OI article said we're "nature's cruelest joke" or something similarly insulting. However I can understand his being frustrated by your calling editors antisemitic. If you do not feel you are doing that than I'd be happy if you'd clear up the misconception. Because it looks to many, I'd say most, here that you have been unfair and overly aggressive to other editors. Anyway I'm really trying to be fair. Although I fear this may lead to me disliking both of you or vice versa.--T. Anthony 17:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

T. Anthony -- I'm sorry about your having OI and sincerely I wish you well coping with and hopefully triumphing over that.

I never called any editor antisemitic. I said that a list of Christians containing Jews is antisemitic. The opposite of antisemitism involves the respecting of differences. Antisemitism commonly involves ignoring the differences between Jews and non-Jews. All the disclaimers do not remedy the ignoring of parameters. If you do not have a Christian who arrived at that identity by conversion then you do not have an individual who belongs on this list. I called no editor an antisemite. Obviously it is editors who write a list. But it is also possible the error was inadvertent.

I haven't been "overly aggressive to other editors," far from it. The opposite is the case. You would have to dig back into a few months of archives to see that. I'm not inclined to do that at the moment. Bus stop 18:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to post in this section, but thanks for that. Maybe much of this has just been a misunderstanding of some kind. I hope so. As for the OI deal for amount of men with my condition things improve starting at age 10. This has been the case for me, mostly, and I haven't had any fractures for nearly a decade. I'm pretty happy, for the most part, but somewhat embarrassed at my own laziness.--T. Anthony 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

T. Anthony -- It is offensive to mislabel a person. It is offensive to mislabel a Jew a Christian. This is not the list of those who passed through a Christian transitional phase 27 years ago. This is, properly understood, the list of those present Christians who were not born Christian, but who are in fact converts to Christianity. We should stop dancing around the hard facts. No non-Christians have any place on this list. It is a list. That means it has parameters. We should stop fudging the parameters in order to include Bob Dylan. There is no onlooker who does not know that this list is all about Bob Dylan's dalliance with Christian identity 27 years ago. This article began with the germ of an idea that Bob Dylan's dalliance with Christianity could be showcased with a list of converts to Christianity. Do I know that for a fact? No. Of course I do not know that for a fact. But if we look at the earliest version of this article we see Bob Dylan on it. And next to Bob Dylan's name is the statement that Bob Dylan is not in fact a Christian, but is in fact a Jew. The dithering was there from the start. The imprecise parameters have been there from the start. The very contradiction between the name of this list and the contents of this list were there from the start. That contradiction should alert everyone to the possibility of point of view pushing going on here. The simple definition of this list does not allow for such point of view pushing. The simple definition of this list is that it is a list of those notable Christians who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion. Those are simple parameters. Abide by those parameters and we have a perfectly sensible, and non-offensive list. Bus stop 14:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I don't think the list should include former Christians either. However you're basically just repeating yourself so I might as well do the same. Please wait until we find out what conclusion the vote reaches. If you dislike the conclusion the vote makes then leave the article for a few months. That's not an insult. I think time off can be useful. After that you may return to find editors are more open to your position and you may become better able to argue your perspective. In the meantime please give this one last effort a chance.--T. Anthony 14:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What bugs me, Bus stop, is not so much your views but how I feel you handle things. You have a tendency to throw around the words "should" and "should not" a lot. Where people disagree with you, they or their actions have been variously described as "anti-semitic", "proselytizing", etc. There are others who (I believe) reasonably disagree with you, however, you have a tendency to throw weight and authority around which you don't possess. I think if you were to actually discuss the issue without throwing said words and accusations around, people would feel less alienated toward your position. There's a world of difference between "should" and "I think we should". Likewise, where consensus is reached, I don't think it wise to undo edits you had no formal participation in. It was the mediator who actually suggested we vote on the issue. Votes show where consensus is reached.

WP:BLP actually says this (emphasis mine):

Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

We have had plenty of reliable secondary material that states that he indeed was a Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica explicitly says this:

In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows. Critics and listeners were, once again, confounded. Nonetheless, Dylan received a Grammy Award in 1980 for best male rock vocal performance with his “gospel” song “Gotta Serve Somebody.”[12]

There are several such sources that editors have contributed that say likewise. This is all that is needed in order to fulfill the criteria for mention of his religious conversion. No one is trying to "widen the net" in order to "convert people" or be "anti-semitic". We are doing our best trying to include verifiable facts. This is a list of Christian converts, true. But many of us (myself included) feel it appropriate to include those who converted at some prior time in their lives, because their Christianity had some significant impact in their lives (Dylan's effected his music). Instead of undoing what others have contributed (much of which was actually done in order to compromise with you), try discussing and participating in polls. Whatever ends up being the outcome in the end, accept it, and move on for a while before attempting to bring up the subject again (if, over time, you think it is worth bringing up). But please do not let your own religious sensibilities override the hard work and sensibilities of other editors. It is not fair to be called something that you are indeed not and personal attacks, as such, do not belong on Wikipedia. Drumpler 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- From where do you get the parameter for this list that Christianity had to have some significant impact in someone's life for them to be included in this list? Aren't you devising parameters that will result in the list that you would like to see, specifically a list containing Bob Dylan? The requirements for inclusion on this list, as I see it, are that a person has to be notable, they have to be Christian, and they have to have arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion. (They couldn't have arrived at Christian identity by way of having been born Christian.) Bob Dylan is not a Christian. So how do you see him as qualifying for inclusion on this list? Bus stop 02:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Former Christian. Notable. Made significant impact on his life and career. Per article's original heading. Drumpler 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree - He converted. Whether he is one now is another matter, but it's encyclopaedic that he is included. It would be revisionist to exorcise this entry because he is a Jew in race. The two are not mutually exclusive; he could be a Jew and an Atheist for that matter but do we remove Jews from the list of Atheists simply because these would appear incompatible if you considered that a Jew could only ever fully believe the Tanakh in its entirety. In the end after many weeks Bus stop has simply rephrased his same tranche of original research without showing some authority other than his own views that being a Jew (in race) and being Christian (in theology) are mutually incompatible. If we allow Jew (race) and Atheist (from Wikipedia POV it *is* a religion) then we can equally allow the former example. The idea that a person born a Jew cannot disentangle themselves from a religion is a little disturbing and runs counter to what I'd feel is acceptable in society. What is acceptable is codified in, for example, Article 9 of the ECHR which provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". What you are proposing runs counter to that unless you can identify some law or necessity that forbids Dylan from having done this.

In the end thus, Bus stop has not shown which authority deems that Dylan is unable to exercise a fundamental human right because, as a Jew, Dylan is forbidden from exercising these rights which we all enjoy (at least in the free world). Ttiotsw 06:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He says some confusing things, but it's not clear what Bus stop thinks of List of notable converts to Christianity#From Judaism as a whole. If he wants it removed you'd seem to be right. Feel free to can ask him, but let's try to be civil on all sides.--T. Anthony 06:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler, Ttiotsw and T. Anthony -- No, actually, we are not permitted to contrive parameters to get the list we desire. There happen to be two means by which either Jews or Christians acquire their identity as Jews or Christians -- that is by birth or by conversion. The most elemental parameters for this list are those notable Christians who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion. Contriving parameters in any which way you want to get Bob Dylan onto this list is manipulative, and it is just a manipulation to achieve desired ends. See the parameters used at the List of notable converts to Judaism. It says at that list:

"This page is a list of Jews."

It goes on to say:

"This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

The above are actually the same parameters for this list. Just substitute the word Christian for the word Jew to read the parameters for this list. That is not because I say so, but because parameters arise naturally, in their elemental state. We must avoid point of view pushing here at Wikipedia. If Bob Dylan were a Christian then of course he would belong on this list. But he is not. Please confine this list to those individuals who meet the parameters that actually apply to this list. Please don't concoct the parameters that will result in the list that you desire. Bus stop 07:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You must understand that other individuals do not come to the same 'logical' conclusions which you do, and do not have the same 'expectations' about what they are going to see.

Despite the continued use of certain terms and phrases, you are simply aggrandizing your own personal logic and expectations and portraying these as universal fundamentals. To most others, whether they agree with your beliefs or not, it is clear that these are merely your opinions, and your own subjective analysis of the situation. There is no universality in your opinions or arguments any more than there is in my own.

That being said, you're neither wrong nor right- you are merely stating your own opinion. Whether a reader agrees or disagrees with you is his or her own business, and neither stance makes their own opinion right or wrong.--C.Logan 07:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreed. Its not so much that I disrespect Bus stop's right to believe as he wishes as it is that he pushes his own point of view as the law of the universe ("should, should not") and those who disagree are writing "anti-semitic", "proselytising", etc.

We can agree to disagree. I actually see Bus stop's point-of-view and understand it, but find it unnecessary to split the article into two to accomodate it when a footnote or explanation is significant. Drumpler 07:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To Bus stop. I do not want to contrive a way to get Dylan, or any other Jewish person, on. In many cases I've actually asked to have names in the Jewish section removed or removed them myself when I feel they are on inappropriately. (Although I did the same with a pagan as well) Ideally I don't want former converts on the list at all, or at least as it is now titled, because I think it's misleading or unnecessary. However I think a "minor evil" can be allowed in order to avoid a "greater evil." I will tolerate whatever agreement is made, even if it's the awful "only explain their status is footnote" deal, in order for the greater good of ending the stalemate. That's the way this place works. You can't always get exactly what you personally think is right here. If you could List of Christian thinkers in science wouldn't have started harping on the evils of the Catholic Church, Aluminum wouldn't be a redirect, and List of Catholic priests wouldn't have quite as many sex offenders.--T. Anthony 10:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Given the repeated editwarring by multiple editors, this article is protected from editing.--Isotope23 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Big Picture

This could go on for quite a while. I was once involved in a similar dispute that lasted well over a year (except it got a lot more nasty, if you can believe that). Then people got burned out, quit Wikipedia, or stopped watching the article. The dispute ended at around Groundhog's Day of this year. Since then, edits to the page have been few and far between. People just decided that having their way with the page wasn't a prize worth the continued bickering. And now the article is at peace. The things that seemed so critical to the disputants at the time turned out not to be so.

Right now, it looks like consensus is headed toward putting things back pretty much the way they were before the dispute. That could change, if Cleo and Bus stop (and possibly T. Anthony) were to support the "separate section for formers" option, even if they really don't like that option, and even though it's exactly the same as the previous compromise. The way I see it, it's the lesser of two evils, and really "evil" is too strong a word. It's great to stand up for principles. But one principle that gets forgotten too often is the principle of "not wasting time" (and I'll be the first to admit that I've lost sight of this as much as anyone).

This article can be an incredible timesink to anyone who lets it. My advice would be for everyone to put in their final votes, respect whatever consensus the vote indicates, and just let it be. That's what I plan on doing. Nick Graves 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreed. I have decided that no matter where the votes lead, I will accept the final outcome. Drumpler 01:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made it clear I will abide by the ruling/poll-concensus/whatever-we-call-it and encourage others do the same. Although you have made me think.--T. Anthony 04:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That said could we at least rename it to "List of notable people who converted to Christianity" or some such? I'll accept whatever even if we don't, but that might help some.--T. Anthony 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually like this proposal. It makes the article parameters unambiguous, whereas left as it is, people could interpret it either way. Drumpler 07:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with T. Anthony's suggested title change. It would make the article less misleading. Cleo123 08:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I too agree with the title change it seems such a neat resolution? Presumably there would be no objection to Bob Dylan appearing on the list then? Teapotgeorge 09:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd considered making it a proposal, but I waited too long.--T. Anthony 10:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• reset indent - Please use indents*

Isn't that just another contrivance to get Bob Dylan on the list? Should we be starting out with the contents for a list already in mind and then coming up with the title that seems least contrived? Is that the way an encyclopedia should be compiled? Or should we be starting out with great concepts and then letting those concepts run and seeing where they take us? Do any of you see the difference? In the one instance you already have your answer, and you are only seeking the question for your answer. In the other instance you are asking what you believe to be a valid question and your goal is to get the answer to that question, no matter what that answer may be. There is no question being asked here. There is only the formulation of a question to sit as a figurehead on top of the answer that you already have in mind. That is not encyclopedic. That starts out with one's personal point of view and then finds a suitable form for promoting it. Does anyone not see that it promotes a pre-formulated, preexisting, point of view?

The fact of the matter is that Bob Dylan isn't Christian. So now the title should get changed to accommodate a Jewish person on a list that is ostensibly a list of converts to Christianity? Bus stop 11:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I like "converted" as it implies the past tense in English. Still would be open to conjecture that the "converted" were still currently "converted" so I guess we add the little section for the 'flip-floppers' who we know have flopped back.

So far only Bus stop's personal opinion regarding the mutual exclusivity of someone going on about Jesus (a verifiable fact that Dylan has done this so AKA a Jesus-head/Jesus-Freak/Christian) and being a Jew (a verifiable fact I think). Show us an authority that says that this cannot really happen. Ttiotsw 11:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On my own I honestly don't care about Dylan and I've tried to mention him as rarely as I can. His voice grates on my ears and I think he's even overrated as a songwriter. I would rather not include him in this list. However what I do want is a list most of us can agree with to break the deadlock. If that means I have to tolerate Larry Flynt or Dylan or even people with totally meaningless temporary conversions than that's what it means.--T. Anthony 11:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

T. Anthony -- If you "would rather not include him in this list" then why isn't that what you are saying? I am saying that I would rather not have him on the list.

I have the peculiar quality of arguing for what think is correct, taking context of course into consideration. The context, I think, is that of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia has some peculiar requirements. An encyclopedia tries to avoid promoting a particular point of view, for instance. That is not peculiar to Wikipedia. That is true of most general use encyclopedias.

The reason, of course, why Bob Dylan should not be on the list, is because he is not a Christian, but is in fact a Jew. By way of further explanation, Judaism and Christianity are, by and large, distinct religions.

I have heard the arguments for syncretism but they are not demonstrably applicable to Bob Dylan's situation. What we have in Bob Dylan's situation is a brief period of a long time ago of explicit Christian language used (no evidence of formal conversion) and then a complete drop off in any Christian involvement for the next 27 years.

And in the intervening 27 years we have a clear involvement with the most severely observant Jews found anywhere. If the Lubovitch are not considered highly pious Jews, then no Jews are religious, and that is a pretty cynical view to take about one of the world's important and eminently valid religions. Bus stop 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to be realistic. I'm willing to accept a compromise to avoid a worse outcome or continued fighting. Also Wikipedia is not really an Encyclopedia. It serves multiple functions, including that of an Almanac. Hence encyclopedias would not list converts in any form, but such a list can be appropriate for some Almanacs or Wikipedia. Not related to this, but Wikipedia is also way more juvenile than any Encyclopedia would allow. It is heavily focused on anime or juvenile literature, List of Bleach Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes inspired enough work it became a featured list. I think your expectations are not entirely realistic. Although it has also been shown that other Encyclopedias say he converted.--T. Anthony 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hence encyclopedias would not list converts in any form- This is totally false. Encyclopedias have listed converts. For example the Jewish Encyclopedia, which compiled a list of Jewish converts to Christianity in 1905. [13]. JJay 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, but I was thinking generalized encyclopedias.--T. Anthony 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay and T. Anthony -- Let us cease obfuscating. Religion is taken seriously by many people. If a person is put on a list defined by religion they should be of that religion. No encyclopedia should take the step of mislabeling a person lightly. Bus stop 13:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to be realistic. I don't want to offend other religions, but some are indicating they find removing some names offensive to them as Christians. I'm working with others to find a balance that can please the most people. If it ends up displeasing you, that's the price I'm willing to pay. I just hope I don't have to and that you will become part of the process somehow.--T. Anthony 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Title Change?

Per T. Anthony's suggestion above[14], who is for renaming this article "List of notable people who converted to Christianity" so that the article's parameters are clearer? As is, it can go to either side (either people who are Christian or people who ever converted to Christianity). Drumpler 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes

• Drumpler 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• T. Anthony 18:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)(No matter which way the vote goes down)
• Yes, if it will end the madness about "naturally arising parameters" and other assorted gibberish. --JJay 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• John Carter 20:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC) - although I would favor changing all similar pages as per Nick's comments below
• C.Logan (As far as I'm concerned, it's not essential, but if it will expedite resolution, then I'm for it.)
• Cleo123 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC) (List of Notable People who converted to Christianity)
• Ttiotsw 06:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC) (Yup seems fine. I guess our struggle with words to fit concepts is what Wittgenstein would recognise but our use of 'ed makes the word a preterite and that is fairly common speech not an esoteric concept. Thus the event happened in the past. We cannot undo the existence of this event simply because the person has moved on from that one event any more than we cannot deny that our car had crashed because we got it repaired. Ttiotsw 06:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No

• Nick Graves 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (Proposed title is redundant, and fails to make clear that only people notable as converts are included. See alternative proposal below.)
• John Carter 20:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sefringle^Talk 23:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (This is inconsistent with every other convert to religion X article)

No Contest

• zadignose 03:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC) - I have no objection to such a name change. I'm not really sure if it's necessary, nor do I know what is the perfect way to word the title, but I certainly wouldn't mind this proposed title change if it somehow made the matter even more clear.

Discussion

In my description above. Drumpler 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Question - Would any similar pages with similar parameters be changed accordingly as well or not? John Carter 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think we should focus on this list for now. Nick Graves 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - No objections per se, but want to see that the various lists remain as parallel as possible. That was the reason for asking the questions. Having one specific list with a notably different name but basically the same parameters as some others would be something I would like to avoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlordjohncarter (talk • contribs)
      • Comment - I've explained this below. I think similar articles should all be renamed as it shows a potential bias to include only living individuals of a given religion. Drumpler 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The "notable" is redundant. It should be a given that all those listed are notable. I propose changing it to "List of people who converted to Christianity." "List of people who made notable conversions to Christianity." Nick Graves 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with this proposal as it doesn't preclude anyone from adding their own names or others to the list. By using the tag "notable", it is clear that we are only talking about notable people. Drumpler 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia precludes that possibility. The vast majority of lists of people on Wikipedia do not have "notable" in the title for this reason. It is a pretty widely followed naming convention. The criterion for notability can be explained in the lead section if necessary. Having hordes of Joe Schmoes adding their own names to the list is a pretty far-fetched scenario that we needn't worry about. Nick Graves 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the "notable" is redundant and I've tried to remove it from some such lists. However, for now, the notable seems to be standard on convert lists. True the rename makes it non-standard anyway, but I think the word "notable" should be dropped as a separate measure. A measure that would more directly discuss all such lists.--T. Anthony 03:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

True. They are supposed to be notable on Wikipedia either way. Drumpler 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an important shift in meaning that I think has been missed. You are correct to point out that it is pretty standard for converts lists to be titled as "notable converts to X." That's actually not redundant, since it means they are notable as converts, not just as people. The title clarifies that some people who are not notable as converts are excluded from the list. If you are interested in following the convention for lists of converts as closely as possible, "List of people who made notable conversions to Christianity" is actually the better option. "List of notable people who converted to Christianity" is not only redundant, but it leaves open the possibility that people whose conversions weren't really notable would fall within the parameters of the list. That's counter to precedent and convention on lists of converts. Nick Graves 04:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also accept that rename, mostly, but it reads a bit awkward. Also it almost sounds like it means people who converted to Christianity more than once. Which has happened. There were kings in Africa who'd say convert to Anglicanism, revert to paganism, and then convert to Methodism or something.--T. Anthony 04:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "List of people who made a notable conversion to Christianity," or "List of people who notably converted to Christianity"? Too awkward? Ok, how about "List of people who became notable converts to Christianity, but who may or may not presently be Christians, or who may or may not have been Christians at the time of their death"? Just kidding, of course :-). The name you propose is fine, except for my niggle about the "notable" bit. Nick Graves 04:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I like "List of people who made a notable conversion to Christianity" okay. Could the proposal be changed to that? The other complaint is that the other lists aren't in sync with that. However that can happen in time. Although it seems like every time I edit List of Catholic converts, which is already named differently, it tells me they can't accept the edit due to a spamlink. They never give me a clue what link that is and I've tried removing almost every ".com" to find it. Oh well.--T. Anthony 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It would not be done in order to make the article's parameters clearer. It would be done to include Bob Dylan among converts to Christianity, which would be a contrivance, because only three names out of two hundred names are not presently Christian or did not die as Christians. There are literally 203 names on the present List of notable converts to Christianity. If you change the name it won't be in order to make the "article's parameters clearer." That is quite bogus. Pease, let us be a bit honest at this point. We would be changing the article's title in order to have Bob Dylan on the list. Is that not correct? Would it be possible to own up to that fact? Bus stop 19:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No this is not why I suggested such a rename at all. If you'll look I was not involved in the Dylan edit-war except to remove him a few times during the discussion. What I was trying to do is reconcile the name with the fact fact former converts, any former converts, are staying on the list. I'd like them gone, but it's been agreed they won't be. I am not interested in Dylan and this is the last time I'm telling you that.--T. Anthony 03:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think this was already brought up once, but I'll bring it up again. The current name for this article (and I suppose articles similar to it) is misleading. "Converts" can imply present tense, which would mean that dead converts to Christianity would be out of the count. I don't think any editor has considered this as faulty parameters, though. However, editors have brought up a similar argument which precludes people who converted to the religion and then re-converted. In this case, a circumstance occurred which led to their departure from Christianity. Isn't death a circumstance? If said people were still alive, mightn't there be a chance that they would eventually end their Christian involvement? Why show favoritism for the dead, who can't formally renounce their previous faith, and not so for those who are still living?

My remarks might be interpreted as me being facetious, but I'm trying to prove a point. Their Christianity did make a significant impact on their lives. However, there's no evidence that, if they had lived longer, they would've continued in their faith. They were "notable Christians" for the duration of their lives, just as Dylan and other former well-known Christians were "notable Christians" as long as they continued to hold to that faith. So I believe that the living should be included with those "notable converts" because of the impact said religion made on their lives up until a predefined point. Otherwise, there's an inexplicable bias -- if Dylan were to die as a Christian, would he belong on this list then? In this sense, isn't it unfair to include people who may have rejected their Christianity later if death didn't get in the way?

I believe we need to throw out the bias and list people who have practiced Christianity, either living or dead, regardless if they've rejected the practice later (however, an explanation does need to be given if they did). It is for this reason that I also support the article name change above to "List of notable people who converted to Christianity". Again, the current name can imply present tense -- are the dead really Christians? Its easy to rest on theology and beliefs, but atheists might not agree with such argumentation. For purposes of Wikipedia, we need to say we don't know about the afterlife and not even enter it into the equation. In this case, we don't know whether or not they remain Christians and it would be silly to argue that one who dies as a Christian remains a Christian. Drumpler 19:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm now having alternate history theories after writing the above. ;) Would we even be discussing this if Dylan died in the late 70's, early 80's? ;) Drumpler 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: These are the parameters at the List of notable converts to Judaism. They are perfectly sensible. They are actually quite restrictive. Anyone who is not Jewish would not be on the list. The list thus has a clearly defined meaning. It doesn't malign anyone by including them among a group that they may have once dabbled in but which they decided against. Here are those parameters found at the List of notable converts to Judaism:

"This page is a list of Jews."

It goes on to say:

"This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

The List of notable converts to Christianity shouldn't be manipulating titles and otherwise trying to contrive parameters just to get one person onto this list. It is a pretty silly endeavor to be engaged in at what is supposed to be a fairly serious encyclopedia, and it is ultimately unfair to Bob Dylan. A Jew should not be portrayed as a Christian. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions, and I think we should respect the distinctions between the two. Don't forget that there are 200 other people on the List of notable converts to Christianity for whom the proposed change in title is irrelevant. Bus stop 19:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consider removing the numerous gentiles currently included on List of notable converts to Judaism. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions, and I think we should respect the distinctions between the two. According to that list's elaborate disclaimer:

most of these conversions (apart from the Biblical ones) are not recognized by Orthodox Judaism because the converted did not convert under Orthodox auspices, or by Orthodox and Conservative authorities because the conversions were not done in accord with halakha. In 2005, five present and former Chief Rabbis of Israel declared: Any such conversion, under its various names such as `Reform' or `Conservative,' has no validity, and anyone who undergoes such conversion is still a gentile in every respect." [15]

The editors of List of notable converts to Judaism do not have the authority to override the Chief rabbis of Israel on the question of who is a Jew. Are these editors all rabbis schooled in the Talmud? No, they are not. The editors of List of notable converts to Judaism should not contrive parameters in order to include as many non-Jews as possible on the list. Some might view that as a forced conversion of Christians and that is really not kosher. We should not portray Christians as Jews when they are still Christians according to other Jews. --JJay 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- Which names would you want to remove? Have you tried doing so? Why not? Please allow me to take this opportunity to cordially invite you to remove the names from the List of notable converts to Judaism that you feel are not Jewish. Just note in your edit summary that you are removing names that you feel are not Jewish, and you are doing so in accordance with the stated parameters for that list. These are them:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

You've made the above complaint many times before. Please avail yourself of the readily available remedy for the problem you describe. Bus stop 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that List of notable converts to Judaism is not a list of Jews. Which names would you want to keep on that list? Have you tried getting the List of notable converts to Judaism to adhere to its naturally arising parameters? i.e. a list of people who came to Judaism by way of conversion, rather than a list of goyim rejected by leading authorities of Judaism. Have I mentioned that Judaism and Christianity are not the same religion and we should not portray Christians as Jews? Do you deny that Halakah is Jewish law? No, you do not. We should not make lists of converts to Judaism that includes Christians who masquerade as Jews while flouting the requirements of that religion. Rabbinical authorities have clearly stated, without any obfuscation or kangaroo court antics, the parameters for "conversions". These are them:

Any such conversion, under its various names such as `Reform' or `Conservative,' has no validity, and anyone who undergoes such conversion is still a gentile in every respect."

You have claimed many times before that the List of converts to Judaism is a List of Jews when it is actually contains many gentiles in every respect. As it stands today, only a meshugener or schmo would believe that the list of converts to Judaism is a list of Jews because wikipedia created a template that says this is a list of Jews. You are clearly not meshugee, so, I ask you, have you availed yourself of the readily available remedy for the problem you describe? No, you have not. This is supposed to be a fairly serious encyclopedia so I know you agree when I say that it is a pretty silly endeavor to manipulate templates and otherwise try to contrive Jewish law in order to create a list of non-Jews.--JJay 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- Just remove the names that you feel do not belong on the List of notable converts to Judaism. If you don't want to address what you are describing to be a problem that bothers you then please stop your incessant complaining about it. Your rant is totally beside the point if you don't utilize the readily available remedy. Just remove the names. It's that simple. Bus stop 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop- Just stop repeatedly quoting a meaningless template that has nothing to do with this list, this discussion or Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. Your ranting about that template and incessant praise of a list of non-Jews that violates halakah is totally besides the point. Just focus on Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. It's that simple. --JJay 00:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the names of anyone who did not have a lasting "conversion" should be removed. However, if a true consensus exists for the inclusion of such individuals on this list, I would like the article's title to be as clear cut as possible. For the record, I still do not believe that Dylan ever formally converted to Christianity, in point of fact. This is typical media spin and conjecture that has unfortuantely evolved over the decades to include a few affirmative statements. No evidence has been presented to support a departure from Judaism, only a fleeting adoption of some Christian principles. Regardless, I understand that Wikipedia is based upon reliance on secondary sources and will accept its inclusion until it can be proven otherwise. I have contacted someone who knows Bob, in the hopes that Dylan can be prevailed upon to make a clear public statement on this matter, that has caused so much discord for so many people. I'm not sure that he will - but at least an effort has been made on that front. Dylan's subsequent return to Judaism can be established through reliable sources, and that must be mentioned next to his name. Cleo123 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wow that's really above and beyond the call of duty. I'm either impressed or a bit confused. I guess mostly impressed, I have an uncle who knows some minor actors but not any of them are real famous, that you have those kinds of connections. Although I have a feeling it won't accomplish anything it's still appreciated. I also appreciate your involvement in proposals and discussions. I was worried this was just never going to make progress.--T. Anthony 06:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And I redirect you to my response just immediately above your own. How many of those people are dead? Drumpler 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- I don't think you are understanding my point. All this is about Bob Dylan. But Bob Dylan happens to be a Jew. Isn't it a little silly to change a list with 200 people on it just to try to justify including one person on it? Bob Dylan is just one person. And he is not even Christian. At least I think we should be honestly be discussing the reasons why we are considering doing this. We are not considering changing the name in order to make the parameters more clear, because the parameters already are perfectly clear for the other 200 people on this list. Bus stop 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I perfectly understand your point and it isn't all about Bob Dylan. There are a few other "former converts" on the article page. Also, isn't it likewise silly to attempt to have this article deleted just because of one person? To continually revert it and make accusations of anti-semitism because of one person? You've done plenty of that, Bus stop. I'm sure you are operating in good faith, but other editors (myself included) disagree with your proposition. Will you please accept the consensus, no matter how badly it offends you personally, so that we can move on? I've already decided that no matter the decision in the end, I would surely move on. Will you? Drumpler 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This discussion has basically been about one person, Bus stop, who has consistently refused to accept mediation of his opinion. I have requested above that upon the conclusion of the current collection of opinion this matter be referred to either the Mediation Committee or Arbitration Committee, preferably the former but the latter if that party refuse mediation again. John Carter 19:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to sound ruthless, but after a pretty consistent track record, I'm for making WP:ArbCom the next step. I don't think any mediator should have to go through what the last two went through. Drumpler 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should follow defined procedures. Also, of course, if the mediation is rejected, ArbCom would be the only place for further discussion. Considering Bus stop has already refused to sign on to MedCom involvement, I think the likelihood of his/her doing so again has to be considered, though, in which case the only remaining option would be ArbCom. John Carter 19:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we already follow procedures the first two times? Drumpler 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but for informal mediation, which is a separate thing from MedCom. If as seems to me at least possible, the matter might have to ultimately go to ArbCom anyway, I'd like them to see that all reasonable steps have been exhausted before referring it to them. John Carter 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that WP:ARBCOM is going to be your next logical step here if a consensus that everyone can live with isn't reached.--Isotope23 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to note Cleo's approval of renaming the article, unless of course s/he revoked it since his/her last post. If I understand correctly, this person is Jewish and doesn't seem to find the renaming the least bit anti-Semitic (at least that I know of). Drumpler 19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to Bob Dylan article

I thought you all might be interested in noting the recent activity of some of the members of the discussion here on the page above, in order here, here, and here. I have recently started a thread on the talk page here regarding this activity. John Carter 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to John Carter's latest bit of harrassment on the Bob Dylan talk page. It is unfortunate that this user continues to post misleading information that is counterproductive to achieving any sort of amicable resolution. Cleo123 05:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Weighing In Again

I wasn't going to point this out, because somebody would inevitably accuse me of bad faith, being uncivil, etc., but I think at this point it's moot. I want to point out to the group that User:Bus stop has stopped responding to you in any coherent way. Whatever anyone says to Bus stop- whether they agree with him or not- is responded to with something like, "Actually, that's incorrect. We can't contrive parameters, because, you see, Dylan is not Jewish, and this is a list of Christians."

I think it would be entirely fair of you lot to just kind of drop the argument with him. You were very close to establishing consensus, though I think the straw poll was kind of an unnecessary step and will affect your overall credibility if you go before ArbCom. A very agreeable compromise has been set before you by a couple of your own, and it looks to me like you've got only one user on each side (ignoring Bus stop, for the moment, since he's not really conversing with the group so much as repeating himself in a babbling sort of way) who's not willing to take that compromise. What's the holdup?

Bus stop: It would be a lot easier to work with you if everything you say didn't come off like, "talk to the hand." --24.16.156.223 00:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(Note: The preceding IP address was actually Moralis, who doesn't pay enough attention to notice that he's timed out >.<) --Moralis (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So much for the unbiased mediator. Bus stop 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, after an unnecessarily dramatic departure, which left everyone hanging, it would appear that she/he has returned only to take a few more uncivil jabs at Bus stop. Moralis chose to leave the discussion and close the mediation. We have managed to move forward and make progress without her/him. It is inappropriate for her/him to re-enter the discussion at this juncture offering criticisms under the apparent guise of authority. Cleo123 05:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is a good one, though. If consensus has seemingly been established except for the exception of one editor who repeatedly flouts wikipedia rules such that he has been blocked three times for his edits to articles relating to this subject, why not go with the existing consensus of those who actually have followed policy in this discussion? John Carter 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreed. We should just go forward with it. Also, Bus stop, would the "unbiased mediator" be so unbiased in your mind if he had agreed with you? Or is the article only allowed to be edited as you dictate? Drumpler 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I guess that it's natural for a person to point out bias when it's 'against' him, and consider it merely a 'mark of sensibility' when the bias works in his favor. I'm speaking in general terms, but some might consider the idea applicable here.--C.Logan 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To Bus stop. Moralis is no longer the mediator. Sadly I think s/he is making a valid point. I tried to include you in various proposals and polls where you could add your voice for removing Dylan. Cleo responded to some of these, why didn't you? I really want you to be in a solution, but you seem totally unwilling to bend or compromise. Or to get over your obsession with Dylan. If you end up as the only hold-out then, sadly, I think some action wiull have to occur. Please please don't do that. Just try to accept what you can't change, at least not for now, no matter how hard.--T. Anthony 03:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer the mediator here, and regardless, suggesting that this group should follow consensus is hardly biased. My point overall does not support one position or the other. My point is that Bus stop has gotten out of control. While the rest of you have moved on with the conversation and tried to focus on the larger issue, Bus stop is still stuck on Dylan, and more importantly, hasn't actually responded to anything the rest of the group has said for ages now.

Bus stop, you've discovered a couple of buzz words, like "contrived", "parameters", and "offensive." And you use them in an authoritative way, when you haven't got any more authority than anyone else. As has been previously stated, there's a big difference between "we do not" and "I don't think we should."

It's very difficult to take an editor seriously who responds to everything with the same speech, roughly worded: "This is a list of Christians. Dylan is not a Christian. Stop trying to contrive parameters to make Dylan fit on this list. He does not fit on this list. He is not a Christian." If I can make your argument for you, your argument is stale. You've invested too much emotion on this. Everyone else is willing to compromise, whereas you won't move forward, because everyone else, in your mind, is wrong. The bottom line: whether or not you're sure what's going on here is "wrong," policy doesn't prohibit it, so consensus must dictate the result.

What you're doing now doesn't come off as discussing, or even arguing. It comes off as stubborn, incoherent, and impersonal. It's time to become a part of the conversation or leave the issue alone. --Moralis (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Moralis -- What is the "larger issue" that you refer to? It seems to me that the difference between the larger issue and the smaller issue consists precisely of two names. There are only three non-Christians on the list. The larger issue involves whether or not non-Christians should be on this list. The smaller issue involves whether Bob Dylan should be on this list. I see the large picture and the small picture as pretty similar. The principle, as I see it, is that non-Christians should not be on this list. The small picture is that Bob Dylan should not be on this list. (He is a non-Christian. It is misleading for a non-Christian to appear anywhere on this list. It constitutes point-of-view pushing to flout the obvious parameters of this list by including non-Christians on this list.)

Furthermore, is it correct to characterize only me as focused on Bob Dylan? I think there is equal focus on Bob Dylan by people arguing both sides of this issue. I think there is an obvious passionate interest in getting Bob Dylan onto this list despite the fact that he is not a convert to Christianity, nor is he a Christian. That contradiction with the title of this article has led to the move to change the title of the article. My concern is with the avoidance of contradictions. The List of notable converts to Judaism engages in no contradictions, because it only contains Jews on it. It expresses its parameters clearly and simply:

"This page is a list of Jews."

It goes on to say:

"This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

Why is it that some editors feel that the List of converts to Christianity should have non-Christians on it? Is that fair to the living non-Christians on it? There happen to be full, free-standing articles on the people in question. Those are not lists. Those are full articles written in prose form. That is where balanced language can be found for, for instance, Bob Dylan's experience with Christianity 27 years ago. A list, by contrast, lives by its parameters. Its parameters are expressed both by its title and by a small blurb like the one above quoted from the List of notable converts to Judaism. But above all else its parameters have to be logical. The parameters (or the title) shouldn't be contrived with the express intent of running roughshod over a living individual's present identity.

We are playing fast and loose with Wikipedia in general when we allow point-of-view-pushing to distort an article, in this case a list, into a grotesque entity solely designed to showcase Bob Dylan's long ago experimentation with Christianity. This article, in its simplest sense, is a list of those who've found Christian identity by way of conversion. There are, after all, only two ways of becoming a Christian, or a Jew. Those two ways are by birth or by conversion. There are no other ways. That points to the two most basic categories. Those categories are elemental. Anything more complicated represents potential point-of-view pushing. That point-of-view pushing represents a disparagement of a person's present religious identity. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of contriving means by which people can be disparaged. Changing the name of this article or changing its elemental parameters represents facilitating the disparagement of an individual, and Wikipedia should stand staunchly opposed to that. Bus stop 16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A Plea For Some "Christianity"

Moralis, "suggesting that this group should follow consensus is hardly biased?" I'll tell you what appears to be biased. It seems biased for a mediator, who is supposed to be neutral and impartial, to engage in personal attacks against participants in a discussion that they are supposed to be mediating. It seems quite biased for that same mediator to abruptly close the debate and post false reasons for that closure on the mediation board. It is strikingly biased for that same mediator to then return to the discussion only to launch more personal attacks and then cast a vote! Bus stop is "out of control"??? Please...

Had you taken the time to read the history, you might realize that Bus stop's use of the word "we" is, undoubtedly, a play on C.Logan and User:Warlordjohncarter's repeated use of similar phraseology earlier in the debate. I do not see Bus stop using an "authoritative tone" - that is your subjective opinion. It is always best not to impose your own tone on Internet communications. It is easy to misread another's comments when you read them with a negative or hostile tone in mind. An assumption of good faith would be preferable. Bus stop is entitled to his opinion. You may not "like it" - but he is not required to reverse his opinion, simply because it might make life easier for you or anyone else.

I have worked with Bus stop on another article and I know him to be a fair and reasonable editor, who has engaged in compromise in the past on a contentious article. He has a history of working successfully with others to reach a consensus. I have little doubt that editors who have worked with him on other articles would also speak well of him. This is an unique situation in which this editor has been repeatedly harrassed and abused over an extended period of time, right from his very first edit to this article. When you box someone into a corner, it is unreasonable to expect movement from that individual.

There is no doubt, in my mind, that Bus stop is only acting out of a conviction to ethical principles. I know that he is not trying to be what you and others seem to see as disruptive. Indeed, he recently stepped out of the conversation for a while, in what would appear to be, an attempt to "cool off". He has posted much less frequently to the discussion, in recent times, and he seems to have toned down his statements quite a bit - yet, he is more harshly criticized than ever!

There are a number of editors involved with this discussion who have focused their work on Wikipedia, almost exclusively, on Christian and/or religious projects. I often wonder if they are somehow struggling under the misguided notion that they are somehow "doing the right thing" by Christianity. I think if every editor, truly, searched their souls in an honest way (knowing "God" knows your every thought) we would all have to acknowlege that there is some question as to whether or not this man actually underwent a formal conversion to Christianity. Do they really think that Jesus would condone their behavior in this matter? Do they think that Jesus wants them to misrepresent facts and attack others who have the fortitude and spiritual strength to stand up to them? There is no evidence to suggest that Dylan ever left Judaism, only that, for a time, he embraced some Christian beliefs. Yes, there are some "verifiable" sources that we can use and abuse to push our point of view past policy and win the debate - but is that the right thing to do? Is that the moral thing to do? Is that the Christian thing to do? Bob Dylan clearly "returned" to Judaism - not just Judaism - but Orthodox Judaism. Am I the only editor who has given thought to the fact that this man's Jewish grandchildren and their children may, one day, have to see their grandfather's name on a list of Christian Converts on Wikipedia?

Indeed, at the outset of this debate some significant attempts were made to make the article as misleading as possible. A great example would be placement of the "This is a list of Christians Tag". This man and his family have a right of privacy, which I believe has been violated by editors on this forum. I think that the mediator has misinterpretted policy and blatently ignored the law - which stands above any policy Wikipedia wants to dream up. Rather than interpretting the policy in a conservative manner regarding a living person, this group of editors have chosen to place Wikipedia at risk, so that their own individual points of view can prevail. They have placed their emotional needs above what is in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and they apparently have no compassion or sympathy for this man and his family.

Worn down by the constant barrage of personal attacks, ongoing harrassment and pure evil of User:Warlordjohncarter and others, I have decided to try and "go along" with the "compromise". Moralis has indicated that she/he sees Bus stop as being "stubborn, incoherent, and impersonal." She has also intimated that he is somehow wrong for believing he is right. I wonder if he is not the only person that is truly trying to do what is right. Surely, he has paid a considerable price for having the courage of his convictions. It is easy to "go along with the crowd." It takes a special, courageous person to speak the truth, even when that truth is not what others "would like" to hear. The annonimity of the Internet is a dangerous thing. People say and do things that they wouldn't do in "real life" because they somehow feel that they are not "personally accountable" for their actions. God does see this. God knows who each and every one of the editors involved with this discussion is. He knows your thoughts and what is truly motivating your actions and one day each & every one of us will answer for our actions in this matter. If there is one thing to be learned from Dylan's religious journey, perhaps, it is that we should be accepting and open to the religious beliefs of others. Perhaps, his "conversion" only exists as part of God's greater plan to foster understanding and respect between Christians and Jews. Sadly, it appears to have had the opposite effect on Wikipedia.

WIth that said, I would ask every editor on this page to truly examine his own conscience and reconsider removing all non-Christians from the list. These "conversions" are already adequately covered in the biographies of the notable people currently effected by the list. Is it really that important to Christianity, or to Wikipedia, to include potentially misleading or factually incorrect information on this list that could negatively impact the lives of living people? Or are you just interested in "beating Bus Stop" and you just don't care that innocent people and their families are being dragged down in the frey? Cleo123 06:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

With that said, I would like to open a new poll. Please, agree or oppose the following: In the interest of making all "Convert Lists" on Wikipedia consistent with one another, it is agreed that no "fleeting conversions" will be included on this list in the interest of respecting the legal rights of living people and their descendents.

• Agreed Cleo123 06:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Soapbox material does not belong on talk pages. I am not Christian and I don't think it ethical to make an appeal to Christianity when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Likewise, you didn't cite a Wiki policy in that last paragraph -- you cited an article, an article every bit as stable as this own page. I redirect you to this statement in BLP (emphasis mine):

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

I am sure your motives are pure, but please make an appeal to Wikipedia rules and guidelines, not how you think a Christian should act. I came to this article after a request on the WP:EAR page and found Bus stop's behaviour repugnant using my own reasoning. Likewise, the claim that Dylan only dabbled in Christianity is a belief, a belief upheld by a minority of editors on Wikipedia. The facts, however, are documented by reliable third-party sources and in the end, that's all that matters. Drumpler 07:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

johncarter, I'm sorry. I thought you were an active participant in the prior discussion regarding WP:BLP policy. I guess, you weren't paying attention, so I will gladly restate those policies for you. The "article" I cited was the law which I beleive trumps your misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. Regardless, here are what I believe to be the applicable sections of policy:

Presumption in favor of privacy

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, this can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. -Jimbo Wales

Biased or malicious content

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The subject matter of this article is Christianity. To date, no one has demonstrated why or how Bob Dylan is relevant or notable to Christianity as a whole. Has he made some sort of notable contribution to this religion in his breif 2 year exploration that I am unaware of?

Use of categories

Main article: Wikipedia:Categorization of people

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question; The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation. See Invasion of privacy#False light.

As I have previously stated, I believe that the special provision regarding self identification applies not only to categories, but to lists. There is little or no difference between calling someone a homosexual on a category tag or on a list. Legally, they would appear to be one in the same in terms of labeling the private preferences of individuals. It should be quite obvious to any reader that considering the explicit wording that mirrors the law, as written - that these policies were crafted to protect Wikipedia from potential legal issues. For that reason, these policies should be interpretted as conservatively as possible where living people are concerned. Wikipedia is a legitimate publication and its amateur staff must take a conservative editorial stance when dictated by law. Cleo123 08:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Drumpler has stated above that he is "not a Christian". That's odd. The link he's provided on his user page for Drumpler's myspace page [16] tells a very different story. Perhaps he's having a bit of trouble keeping the particulars of Drumpler's identity straight? Cleo123 06:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea from my page that I'm a Christian, Cleo? And why should it matter what I write on my private page? This does not even pertain to Wikipedia. And once more, I reiterate I'm not a Christian. I have nothing to "prove" to you. Drumpler 06:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the girl with the cross-earrings? He's into Japanese anime so I'm guessing he likes one that has a girl with cross-earrings. The Japanese are mostly not Christians. My sister is in Japan now. Anyway they like some Western religious stuff as a fad, kind of like Americans liking Buddha statues.--T. Anthony 06:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, I thought about it . . . is it because I included the "Serenity Prayer" on my page? That makes me a Christian? Outrageous! Obviously, you missed this quote:

i think in general, religion causes more problems than it solves. however, i believe in the supernatural due to events that have happened in my life, pending a rational naturalistic explanation to them.

There's even a link to an article I wrote stating why I don't believe in the Bible! But unlike you, I don't bring such grievances to Wikipedia. I keep them to myself and do my best to be a neutral editor.

However, your own neutrality as an editor is being called into question. I see you re-moved your paragraph back into your place of favoured status. Drumpler 06:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you did bring this up. For whatever reason, you chose to open your first post to this thread stating "I am not a Christian" - in what would appear to be an attempt to justify your commentary as neutral. Well, your myspace page would seem to contradict that. Yes, the serenity prayer is one thing - but membership in an organization called "Crusaders for Christ" seems relatively clear cut. Frankly, I couldn't care less about your religious persuasion. I think religion is a personal matter, I don't know what compels people to post their private religious beliefs all over the Internet, as if someone cares. What troubles me is deception. You have proffered unsolicited statements regarding your lack of Christian beliefs in what would appear to be an attempt to bolster the perception of neutrality regarding your remarks. It would appear that you may have attempted to mislead other editors on that front. I am concerned that you may have engaged in other deceptions.

And yes, I have reverted your unjustified movement of my talk page commentary. Please, do not move or alter my talk page comments again - your pal User:Warlordjohncarter has done more than enough of that. Thanks! Cleo123 07:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would warn Cleo123 that discussing the personal beliefs of other users is not acceptable. Immediately review WP:TALK, which states that: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely. Do it again and you will be blocked. JJay 13:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see it says he was a member of "Campus Crusaders for Christ" from 2003-2004. I'd missed that. Still it's certainly possible his religious beliefs changed in the last 3 years. This is not too unusual for college students. It didn't really happen with me, but conversion or apostasy are fairly common in 18-25 years. (Although he may have just joined the group to please his parents or friends)--T. Anthony 07:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I second Drumpler's statements, and I'd like to reiterate that the 'appeal to Jesus' is a really weak tactic- you attempt to combine your perspective on the discussion with the personal beliefs of others. The attempt just comes off as a hollow ploy, and may be rather offensive to Christian editors who feel that they are doing nothing wrong in following guidelines and presenting information which is available to the public either way- I doubt anyone feels that Jesus opposes the reporting of verifiable information. As for non-Christian editors, I'm sure they couldn't care less about such an appeal.

From what I can see concerning the rest of the comment, about 75-80% percent of it is 'Bus stop promotional material', and I admire you for working so hard to paint such a saintly picture of an editor- although I doubt it's fooling anyone. You've attempted to convince me that John Carter may be a wolf in sheep's clothing; an editor who operates in a negative manner and should not be trusted or commended- and yet here you are, arguing vehemently for an editor who is in no way more commendable than John Carter, and has been drastically more disruptive and counterproductive. I've seen little wrong done on John Carter's part, and I acknowledge that he commits errors in judgment just like the rest of us have- and I'm not posting 7,000-byte comments in defense of him.

The remaining part of your comment deals mostly with 'law'-related things. I'm not sure why the case would be brought against Wikipedia before, say, Encyclopedia Britannica or any of the widely-published biographies, all of which contain explicit terminology regarding Dylan's conversion to Christianity. The legal buzz surrounding these well-known sources is mysteriously non-existent. Either way, I'm no expert, but it does seem that things like this make the possibility of bringing a suit successfully against Wikipedia rather remote, as has been argued before.

On another note, I find it unusual that you often point out the lengthiness of some of my comments (which in many cases is simply the result of direct quoting from the above comment), while simultaneously pumping out behemoths like the above. Please, try to keep your comments short. We've just cleared this place out, and there's no need to start breeding Mega-sections again.--C.Logan 08:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would appear that you have proven a point here. You seem to be discounting my statements and treating me with hostility based explictly (according to your own words) on the fact that you believe me to be Jewish. I have never said that I was Jewish. I have said that I was of "mixed ancestry". You know nothing of my religious upbringing or my current religious beliefs. For all you know, I am a Roman Catholic Nun. I believe you should be ashamed of yourself. My posting above was a sincere call for peace. Cleo123 09:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe your request to be rather unrealistic. The consensus seems to have been, many times, to include all Christian converts, regardless if they continued in their faith, with some indication of their departure if they later abandoned that faith. In reaction to the consensus, both you and Bus stop have resorted to reverting the article when it doesn't meet your own sensibilities; however, you have likewise violated and ignored the sensibilities of other editors, making appeals to "Jesus" (as demonstrated above) and making it seem "anti-Christian" to include a Jew on a list of Jewish converts. This is basically the "anti-semitic" accusation brought to a more personal level and is behaviour inconsistent with Wikipedia.

In my opinion, this request is unrealistic because your use of Biased or malicious content under WP:BLP contradicts your position. First, said policy states the necessity of reliable third-party published sources, of which there are plenty. Likewise, many editors have stated, several times, why they believe said event was notable -- notable enough for even the Encyclopedia Britannica to include it -- why must said event must be notable to only Christianity as a whole? Isn't his Christian conversion notable enough, as the article deals with conversions, not significant contributions to Christianity?

Presumption in favor of privacy is actually only part of the section I quoted in my response before this -- you are making a selective quotation of it, as "Well known public figures", the subsection I quoted, is included in this section[17]. Likewise, Dylan himself has never stated that he is "hurt" by his mention on this list on Wikipedia -- and even if he did, that's irrelevant, because "if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The only editors that I have seen who are arguing for Dylan's potential to be emotionally damaged by this article are both you and Bus stop.

Use of categories would only apply if we were listing Bob Dylan under a category of Christian's on the Bob Dylan article -- we aren't, we are only noting that he converted to Christianity at one time and left.

Again, I'm assuming in good faith that you have pure motives, but I do not see where they apply in this case. Likewise, I'm going to ask, politely, not to move around other people's quotes with the eidt summary "edit conflict" as there is no means of proving to us that you wrote first. As far as I'm concerned, whoever posts first gets first slot and I can see where your moving your quotation could place C.Logan's own comment out of context. Drumpler 09:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have not moved anyone's comments. I have reverted Drumpler's efforts to move my comments to another position on the page. There was an edit conflict with C.Logan. Regardless, I posted my direct response to Drumpler's message to me directly under his remarks. I would have placed my response in that position, regardless of any edit conflict. [18] He subsequently moved my remarks [19]. I later reverted his vandalism of my talk page comments, restoring my comments to the position I originally posted them to. [20] He has since moved my comments again. [21] Why doesn't Drumpler want my comment directly under his signature? Perhaps, that is because he does not want anyone, particularly an administrator, to notice the fact that I inadvertantly referred to him as johncarter. Seems like a very odd reaction to me... Cleo123 03:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You did move someone's comment, edit conflict or not. From what I can tell, the edit summary Cleo has provided is in order and actually supports my own argumentation. C.Logan posted first. C.Logan showed approval for what I wrote and stated his own opinion. However, Cleo screams "edit conflict" in her summary and inserts her post in before his anyway. If you look at the time stamp, this was done 23 minutes after C. Logan posted. So why is what Cleo posts more important then what John Carter posts? Both responded to my post, however, Cleo responded later, not before. Is it because you wanted people to read your own opinion before C. Logan's? What makes people better to move people's comments around anyway? I can understand if someone writes something to you (in particular this incident), but there have been times when someone has responded to something directly only to be "pushed aside" by someone who seems to think their input is somehow "better". Well, Cleo, no one's opinion is better and pulling my own MySpace page into it is low, very low. This is an action coming from someone who recommended we all act like Christ. Drumpler 07:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't "move" anyone's comment. I inserted my comment, which was a direct response to comments made directly to me, in their proper place. I have provided the diffs above to prove that. You have moved my comments - repeatedly. I did not "scream" anything by the way. It's interesting how you continue to ascribe certain qualities to me based on your own assumptions about my gender and religious beliefs. Please, stop refering to me as "she" - I have not disclosed my gender - you have made an assumption. As for citing your myspace page, I did so in order to refute misleading information you chose to post to this discussion. Oh, and BTW, the user known as "John Carter" hadn't posted to that section - I was refering to you. Sorry. Cleo123 08:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleo- I'm not really sure how any of your above response was gathered from my comment, but it appears that another point has been proven- one can read anything from anything if they're so inclined to do so. I think you've thoroughly missed the point, here. It's troublesome that you find your own presentation acceptable, while my simple response to something which I found offensive was 'shameful'. Before you turn the sacred beliefs of certain individuals into a simple caricature to be used as a wedge in your argument, have a little more consideration.

"Do they really think that Jesus would condone their behavior in this matter? Do they think that Jesus wants them to misrepresent facts and attack others who have the fortitude and spiritual strength to stand up to them?"

Whether you are Christian, a Jew, or of any other religion, the above statements are uncalled for. For your information, we're involved here as editors first, not as Christians. The individuals involved are genuinely concerned with improving the encyclopedia and following policies and guidelines in the process. And considering this, I don't really think Jesus would mind any more than he would mind how one librarian deals with the arrangement and presentation of books within a public library- this is merely presenting information, and that is a good thing. Additionally, though it's hard to see the other side when you fog up your own glasses in frenzy, the other users involved don't seem to believe anyone is "misrepresenting facts"- save, for instance, those who might prefer to tie OR knots hold their arguments together. And again, it would seem that an echo of hagiographic portrayal shines through near the end of the above quote. Yes, of course, Bus stop is a valiant knight, and we are merely villainous serpents. Thank you for your perspective.

Save yourself the trouble- leave religious 'guilt' out of this. You know that it hasn't worked for Bus stop, and this is because it is a very bad (and very risky) argument to make. You are playing "puppeteer" with the concepts that certain individuals see as being sacred, and you are, essentially, professing a greater understanding of the discussion, and even of the judgment of Jesus, than any of the editors involved. It is not acceptable to utilize these concepts in such a manner, regardless of what faith you adhere to.--C.Logan 10:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And with that being said, I sincerely hope that the discussion concerning Jesus ceases, so that we can argue about more pressing issues, accusations, and claims.--C.Logan 10:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also request that the originator of this thread be reprimanded for clear and obvious unsubstantiated violations of rules of civility, and that the thread be deleted as well on that basis. John Carter 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This may well be yet another filibustering attempt to disrupt the consensus that is being formed, and get the discussion off on a tangent. I'm actually glad this editor provided additional samples of his/her tendency to twist facts (do I even need to comment on this invention: "[Bus Stop] has a history of working successfully with others to reach a consensus"); not to mention the consistent ignoring of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DE--as I've been compiling evidence on submitting an RFC on user conduct for him/her, and these examples are illustrative (and unfortunately, typical) of the nature of her edits. I'll let everyone know when the RFC is submitted so the community can be made aware and be the judge. Tendancer 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, Tendancer, I can work successfully with others. What I do notice is that you do not ever engage in conversation, with me anyway. This is the Talk page. If we are ever to reach an understanding of anything on the issues that separate us, you would have to respond to something I say. You would have to engage in dialogue concerning the most relevant issues under discussion, not the constant hurling of charges of incivility and personal attack. Try talking with me if you doubt if I can work successfully with others. Please cease trying to build cases against other people to perhaps get them blocked. Please try to instead use your verbal skills to address the actual issues under discussion concerning this article. Isn't that what this Talk page is for? Bus stop 16:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us you can work with others, Bus stop. Clearly, no one else seems to think that based on your comments here. And, if you wish want people to talk to you, maybe first, as has repeatedly been indicated to you, you could try talking to them yourself? I think you would agree that constant repetition of the same points hardly qualifies as "talking", right? I think just about everyone else here has said that they would be willing to work with you provided you showed the slightest inclination of willingness to work with others. Maybe the reason so few people here seem to not think that you can work with others is that they have rarely if ever seen any evidence of your ability to do so? John Carter 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've been though a similar process on the Michael Richards page. I do believe you (at least usually) edit in good faith and believe you are doing the right thing when you perform your edits, which's more than I can believe about the intentions and tactics of your friend. As many editors have pointed out however, we'd all find it a lot more pleasant to converse with you if you can dial down the rhetoric in your edits and keep it to 1 or 2 paragraphs, please stop rehashing the same arguments and consider the possibility that others may actually have merit, and most importantly consider the merits of WP:NOR. It's possible your opinion is the only right one and everyone else is wrong, but none of that matters. To me your focus seems centered on your own interpretation of facts and nothing else, and that makes it impossible to converse with you in a forum for a fact-based encyclopedic article. Others would speak in terms of what sources explictly state, and you speak in terms of how you interpret these sources and embark on a tangent about your opinions--basically, we speak in a different language. Please consider the possibilities that other people's arguments may actually have merit and it's not you-against-the-world, I'm sure things would be a lot more pleasant for everyone and I for one would be happy to converse with you if we can converse on the same wavelength. Thanks. Tendancer 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this so I'll just plop it here. I think Bus stop might be a fine editor, of other articles, but I don't see he's been a good one here. I have apologized to him and will do so again if he thinks I'm still being hurtful. However the fact of the matter is he is not at all responsive. Maybe I did it wrong. Maybe I need to be more apologetic, but I've almost literally begged at him at points. In fact I've come closer to begging him than I've ever done with an editor. I respect Cleo123 and I'm disappointed with how this seems to have resolved. However, Cleo, I just don't see what you're seeing in Bus stop. Well at least not here. I think you might be right that he's a generally fine editor and I don't want him punished if it can be avoided. I hope to get along with him someday. However when it comes to here if he won't even try to be part of any effort at resolution, and continues to revert people, what are we to do? As for Moralis he is no longer mediator. If s/he's still getting respect for that s/he shouldn't be. S/he now clearly is just another editor with a position and should be treated accordingly. Saying that I'm not bothered by what Moralis says, either way, as it's just one editors opinion.

In any event I think has gone on long enough. I'll accept however the proposals go down. No matter what happens though I think I'm out of here.--T. Anthony 17:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What is a "good editor?" It is the value of our input that matters, and that is based on judgement, not on any rules whatsoever. Or else this encyclopedia would be better written by a robot.

The words "list of notable converts to Christianity" means "list of notable converts to Christianity." It doesn't mean anyone who ever flirted with Christianity.

Why don't you title this, Bob Dylan and other people who have ever been associated with Christianity? Wouldn't that actually be an apt title for the article that so many of you are trying to write? Why don't you just use that title?

That title expresses the entire thrust of all of the argumentation of one side in this issue. That title is at least an honest representation of the article that so many of you are trying to write.

All contrivances are for one end, and that is to get Bob Dylan onto this list. Bus stop 17:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I needed to make a couple things clear before I left. First: I think this section is trying to guilt people about their faith and that seems a bit ill-advised. Second: The whole issue of "that musician" is dead to me and even if I give in, meaning stay, I will not respond to anything referring to him again. Third: I'm for abiding by the concensus as that's the nature of Wikipedia and will bring peace. This does not mean I like it entirely, but I'm willing to accept what I can't change. I'm a bit irritated with this whole thing, but I hope for the best for all of you. Zai Jian.--T. Anthony 19:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I was not attempting to make anyone feel guilty. If people feel guilty, then they must feel that they have done something improper. I have reviewed the contributions and user pages of these individuals. They have painted themselves as deeply religious. I have merely tried to speak to them on their terms, in the hope that they might see the inconsistency in their projected images and objectives and their conduct. My remarks were made in good faith. The fact that they have elicited such emotional reactions only confirms, for me, that I have struck to the very core of the matter. Cleo123 04:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was succeeding at making anyone feel guilty. I'm just saying imploring people based on their religious faith can seem like a way to guilt them. Or it can seem patronizing. It depends on the situation. Also I'm not sure I agree with your reading on the matter. My categorization says I'm Catholic and my page has religious pictures on it. I favored removing the former converts before and still would. True I've accepted having them in, and I'll tolerate this one small step backward for consensus sake and after we apply the name change, but my personal opinion hasn't really changed. User:Ttiotsw is an atheist and favored keeping the formers in. I'm not sure what religion User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, User:JJay, User:Teapotgeorge, or User:Zadignose are of as they don't seem to say anywhere. User:C.Logan and John Carter are Christians. I think you've gotten a strong reaction not because you struck "the core of the matter", but because you seem to be balking at the consensus and making statements about peoples' religiosity which might be inaccurate. (Note I give free-reign for anyone to move this anywhere as long as you keep this note saying that this post is in response to Cleo123 04:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)--T. Anthony 06:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be the same old song. In one section, progress is being made, while in another, the same arguments are being turned over and over again.--C.Logan 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop rhetoric-ed: It is the value of our input that matters, and that is based on judgement, not on any rules whatsoever. Or else this encyclopedia would be better written by a robot. That mentality is exactly why this nonsense circle never ends. As one admin explained explicitly on Cleo' page due to her tendency to synthesize original research:

==Understanding wiki==

I think the only way anyone can understand how to work in wiki is to see what experienced editors do, because that is what will determine any outcome eventually. There are often two opposing viewpoints on controversial subjects. The outcome is then determined by the middle ground editors who tip the balance one way or the other. It is often a torturous way of arriving at a conclusion, but I have seen it eventually work. It is a living organism which has three non-negotiable policies: WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, with a strong emphasis on WP:CONSENSUS and a caution of WP:LAWYER.

Wiki does not aim for truth. It aims for what established sources say are the truth. When Einstein first came up with his theories they would not have been admissible on wiki, because they would not have been endorsed by a reliable source. Opposing viewpoints or interpretations from different reliable sources should not be judged or synthesised, but represented as oppositions that exist. We are not originators, but robots that replicate what other people say. This requires a very different set of parameters from those in, for example, journalism.

Tyrenius 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this for me. I appreciate your efforts to help me understand. You are quite right! LOL! It is a bit different! LOL! Cleo123 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost everyone here seems to accept that's how wiki works, except two editors. Bus Stop you refuse to accept it, and evidently neither does your friend after "LOL!"ing. To (unfortunately) quote a crude but true phase: "opinions are like you-know-what, everybody has one." An admin explained "We are not originators, but robots that replicate what other people say". If that concept is unacceptable to you and Cleo then you should not be editing wiki, you really should focus your efforts instead on writing blogs or on message boards where original thought and soapboxing is acceptable. Tendancer 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Tendancer -- "Soapboxing" is the problem. Bob Dylan is not a "convert to Christianity." Instead, he is a Jew. Wikipedia should not be used as a WP:SOAPBOX from which to pretend that Bob Dylan has anything to do with Christianity. His brief flirtation with Christianity, and sources that refer to his conversion in 1979 (nothing formal, in the way of conversion) do not label him for life as a "convert to Christianity." My argument is that Bob Dylan has no place on a List of converts to Christianity. Look at the description at List of notable converts to Judaism. You will find no "soapboxing," not only because Judaism doesn't proselytize, but because it asserts in no uncertain terms that only Jews are to be found on that list. It virtually invites you to remove any name that you feel is not Jewish. How come List of notable converts to Christianity claims for itself such flabby parameters as to include on its list people (living people) who are definitely not Christian? Bus stop 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This horse is beaten so dead the bones have decomposed. You have rehashed this argument at least 100 times and one could only wish "100 times" were a hyperbole. The consensus has already been formed. You asked me to converse with you, I told you I would be glad to if we converse on facts and avoid rehashing the same argument X times, then you ignore everything else I've written and look for a segue to rehash the same (anti-consensus) argument for the X+1st time then openly wonder why people don't want to talk to you. If you have something else to talk about unrelated to a certain musician (and preferably after you take WP:NOR to heart), then there's a point to talk again. Until then I won't encourage further filibustering by responding on anything related to this musician. Tendancer 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Tendancer -- Speaking of horses, one can lead a horse to water, but one can not make a horse drink. You say you want to "converse on facts." The facts are that the List of notable converts to Judaism does not contain non-Jews on it. That is a fact. There is a tag on List of notable converts to Judaism which reads:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

I am asking you why the List of notable converts to Christianity should have expanded parameters. Can you respond to that one question? Bus stop 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consider removing the numerous gentiles currently included on List of notable converts to Judaism. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions, and I think we should respect the distinctions between the two. According to that list's elaborate disclaimer:

most of these conversions (apart from the Biblical ones) are not recognized by Orthodox Judaism because the converted did not convert under Orthodox auspices, or by Orthodox and Conservative authorities because the conversions were not done in accord with halakha. In 2005, five present and former Chief Rabbis of Israel declared: Any such conversion, under its various names such as `Reform' or `Conservative,' has no validity, and anyone who undergoes such conversion is still a gentile in every respect." [22]

The editors of List of notable converts to Judaism do not have the authority to override the Chief rabbis of Israel on the question of who is a Jew. Are these editors all rabbis schooled in the Talmud? No, they are not. The editors of List of notable converts to Judaism should not contrive parameters in order to include as many non-Jews as possible on the list. Some might view that as a forced conversion of Christians and that is really not kosher. We should not portray Christians as Jews when they are still Christians according to other Jews. I am asking you why the List of notable converts to Judaism should have a lengthy disclaimer and contain numerous goyim? Can you respond to that question?-- --JJay 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- Could you please name the "gentiles" that you feel are to be found on the List of notable converts to Judaism? I notice a certain lack of specificity in what you are saying. Please name one or two names that you feel are not Jewish and should therefore be removed from the List of notable converts to Judaism. If what you are saying has substance, then let us try to resolve this by removing from the List of notable converts to Judaism those names that you feel are not Jewish. I think a good start would be if you name some specific names that you feel should be removed from the List of notable converts to Judaism. Or, you could just go ahead and remove those names yourself. I have the article on my watch list, so I will check out the changes you make, and if I have no objections, then that will at least resolve that issue. Bus stop 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that List of notable converts to Judaism is not a list of Jews. Which gentiles would you want to keep on that list? Have you tried getting the List of notable converts to Judaism to adhere to its naturally arising parameters? i.e. a list of people who came to Judaism by way of conversion, rather than a list of goyim rejected by leading authorities of Judaism. Have I mentioned that Judaism and Christianity are not the same religion and we should not portray Christians as Jews? Do you deny that Halakah is Jewish law? No, you do not. We should not make lists of converts to Judaism that contrive parameters in order to denigrate Halakah. Wikipedia, a fairly serious encyclopedia, should not be used as a WP:SOAPBOX from which to pretend that gentiles have anything to do with Judaism. That's just silly. My argument is that Gentiles have no place on a List of converts to Judaism. Reform Judaism proselytizes, and I can only assume that the flabby and ill-begotten template is part of an effort to mislead gullible people (living people, meaning not yet dead people) into believing in no uncertain terms that wikipedia supercedes Judaism. Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. That is a fact. If the editors of that list have not yet been replaced by robots, they would title the list, List of converts to Judaism and other people who are gentiles in every respect Wouldn't that actually be an apt title for the article that so many have on their watchlists? Why don't they just use that title? --JJay 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- That doesn't answer the simple question that I posed to you. You complained that there are names on the List of notable converts to Judaism that are not in fact Jewish, and so you would want to have them removed, but when I asked you to name them specifically, you did not. I don't think you are demonstrating a sincere effort to resolve this issue. Apparently you think making a mockery of this Talk page is preferable to actually discussing the issues at hand and even more specifically the issue that you yourself just brought up. Bus stop 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he's just mocking you. However see Polemon (Cilicia) or Uriel da Costa. Also questionable are Shyne, Marilyn Monroe (status after divorcing Miller is debated), and Jim Croce. (The source on Croce said he did convert for marriage but adds "He was an enigma: a non-practicing convert who was generally anti-organized religion...He respected the intellectual tradition of Judaism, yet sent a personalized Christmas card to a friend with an original poem about Christ and an illustration of Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem.")--T. Anthony 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop-- I am asking you why the List of notable converts to Judaism should have a lengthy disclaimer and contain numerous goyim? Can you respond to that simple question? You complained that List of notable converts to Judaism is a List of Jews when, in fact, it does not adhere to the natural parameters of any form of Jewish law known to god or man (living and dead). When I asked you to explain that, specifically, you did not. I don't think you are demonstrating a sincere effort to resolve the proselytization issue of a List of Jewish converts that contains gentiles. Apparently you think making a mockery of this Talk page is preferable to actually discussing the issues at hand and even more specifically the issue that you yourself just brought up above when you got back on your WP:SOAPBOX to make your daily recitation of the "Jewlist" template. --JJay 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- It is your prerogative to rant. But the fact that amidst your ranting you cannot follow up on your own assertions that there are names on the List of notable converts to Judaism that need to be removed, indicates to me that you do not really believe that any names need to be removed from the List of notable converts to Judaism. What remains is my clear and unambiguous and non-rant-like assertion that Bob Dylan and other non-Christians should not find a place on the List of notable converts to Christianity. Let that be noted for the record. Bus stop 23:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but several names were listed in the post above that. You did read that comment, right? Please respond to those names who are included on that list, who would very likely be removed from that list if the name of Dylan were removed from this one, for likely the same reasons. John Carter 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He may have missed it and I had meant to leave. Here's some of it again. I added a former section to the Jewish list because Uriel da Costa left Judaism. Later someone added Polemon (Cilicia) to that section. Also questionable are Shyne, as the link is a dead link, and Marilyn Monroe whose status at death is disputed. There's also Jim Croce, who might prove in an intriguing parallel. Now Croce did convert to Judaism, for marriage, but he was non-practicing almost immediately after conversion. Added to that years after his conversion he "sent a personalized Christmas card to a friend with an original poem about Christ and an illustration of Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem" according to his cousin. He's an interesting parallel as a singer, etc.--T. Anthony 23:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I still wonder if the dead even qualify, as they can't formally renounce their faith. Because as a non-Jew, non-Christian, irreligious individual, it offends me that my own sensibilities are not being considered. This is a list of Christians (and the other article is a list of Jews). Therefore, they do not belong. Why? We should list only living converts to Christianity and Judaism. If the dead were alive and could renounce their faith, they might be offended by their inclusion in said article. Practice within a religion implies that you are alive to practice the religion; therefore, according to WP:BDP, they should be removed. You can't be a Christian or Jew when you're dead. We should not contrive parameters to put dead individuals on a list with the living. ;) Drumpler 01:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As Christianity posits an eternal afterlife, where at least some of these individuals might have wound up, I suppose that if we wanted to get really theological we could say that technically they could renounce Christianity. This could be a really important question in religions which believe in reincarnation. And, in any event, can we really be certain, if Christianity is wrong, that reincarnation might not be reality and that potentially all of the dead on all of these lists might have converted subsequently? Who would we contact about such matters, anyway? Any ideas? John Carter 01:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been exactly my point. This article will offend people who want to be offended. Theology, beliefs, sensibilities, etc. should not get in the way of neutral reporting; although its equally important to state things in such a way that is less likely to offend an individual. If Religion X says not to put members of said religion on a list of former Religion Y converts then the neutral Wikipedia editor shrugs his shoulders and does so anyway because Wikipedia is not controlled by religious guidelines (otherwise, articles on such explicit topics such as pornography would either be heavily censored or not allowed at all). It doesn't matter if content offends people -- there's plenty on Wikipedia that offends. What matters is that a neutral encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge, both "positive" and "negative", and presenting both viewpoints fairly allows the reader to make their own assessment about what's "right" or "wrong". However, had Dylan been a Baptist, then exclusion of his name could possibly offend Baptist readers of Wikipedia, as many believe "once saved, always saved" (a similar argument to "once a Jew, always a Jew"). We are not accommodating either side as much as we are providing information. The article will provide information that Dylan was once a Christian and made a return to Orthodox Judaism which is actually a compromise between both positions -- a compromise that doesn't even need to exist, but indeed does. Drumpler 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith (RE: A Plea For Some "Christianity")

There's a little known technicality we're all overlooking here. Good faith extends only as far as the person is actually demonstrating it:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.

I think the evidence is pretty supportive and reasonable, doesn't anyone else? So why entertain them any further? Maybe we should just ignore them until they start talking to people and not just spewing out their opinions about how Wikipedia should run? This would mean skipping over their posts and not even addressing them because they've acted like vandals countless time and have disregarded Wikipedia rules for their own. No one should have to assume "good faith" with that. Drumpler 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My, it is certainly fascinating to me how someone so new to this long running debate has suddenly "popped up" and tried to take such a strong (and opinionated} leadership role! How fortunate for certain editors to have found a new spokesperson in Drumpler. I would think that most uninvolved onlookers to this debate would try to keep their distance - but Drumpler has not hesitated once to jump right into the frey. Indeed, his propensity for calls for sanctions and punishments against specific users is quite consistent with tactics previously employed by User:Warlordjohncarter. Do my eyes deceive me - or is the person who has repeatedly attempted to adjust my talk page comments in the last 24 hours (much in the same manner that User:Warlordjohncarter has in the past) called me a vandal? Is he accusing me of sock puppetry? Or lying? There is plenty of evidence of "maliciousness", lying, and other things - but not against me. I have every confidence that the truth will out in this matter. Cleo123 08:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never said you were a sock puppet, however, if you believe I am, feel free to file a report at WP:SOCK. I might even take a pretty picture of myself later to prove to you that I'm not. Drumpler 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, Cleo123, you have always demonstrated a rather amusing habit of being able to apparently jump to irrational conclusions based on insufficient evidence. I would like to remind you, however, that reality generally bears very little, if any, resemblance to the soap operas (sorry, "daytime dramas") you have stated that you have written, and that it may well be an unwise assumption to believe that there is much of a parallel between the two. And, like before, you see fit to post these irrational, unsupported accusations on this page, possibly trying to derail, or at least distract, from the fact that your own position has little if any support from anyone else. Thank you for so clearly showing once again the depths to which you are willing to plummet to try to distract people from the real discussions here. Or, alternately, how much you confuse reality with the scripts you write. John Carter 13:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how the various parties might feel about the issues relating to this page, can we please try not to escalate the personal conflict? Even if you think someone is bating you, you don't have to bite. zadignose 14:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My gender is artist. My religious identity is Wikipedian. (The preceding is just a joke.) I think some of you make a fetish of the religious categorization that these lists are ostensibly about. It is not me who makes this article and its accompanying Talk page a battleground. A list of converts should only contain clearly distinguishable religious conversions. A list is just a simple type of a Wikipedia article. Lists are dependent on their parameters. Their parameters have to be simple. And if the contents don't conform to the parameters they should be removed. This list is only a battleground because there is an agenda that does not quite conform to the parameters for this list. The much ballyhooed "compromise" is in actuality nonexistent. What has been portrayed as compromise are meaningless adjustments to the status quo. We've seen names moved around the list as though doing so represents some sort of concession. That is just sleight of hand. Editors here have taken polls as for whether the non-Christians should be listed in a separate section of the list or under the section for the religion that they presently belong to. That doesn't address the problem that those non-Christians don't fit the parameters for this list. This list is a list of converts to Christianity. It is not a list of former flirtations with Christianity. The agenda of some editors is to include former flirtations. The argument for former flirtations is that Wikipedia-valid sources exist for the use of the word conversion, and only from 1979. That, to me, does not confer "convert status" on someone in 2007. "Convert status" applies to Christians, as far as questions of inclusion on this list are concerned. I am objecting to what I see as the abuse of the parameters on this list. And it is my contention that there is an agenda that is anything but neutral in the presenting of known Jews on a list of converts to Christianity. The problem is that these lists, and especially this list, is a locus for abuse. The editors who fiercely guard this list are not content to confine their collection on this list to clear-cut conversions. Does anyone think that Bob Dylan represents a clear-cut conversion to Christianity? Twenty-seven years ago performing "sermonettes" from the stage makes him a "convert to Christianity" today? This is all about the fame and celebrity of Bob Dylan. It isn't about the logic of the person in question in relation to the parameters of this list. How does one come to disregard Bob Dylan's present practice of Orthodox Judaism, in order to label him a Christian, as in the phrase convert to Christianity? How does one come to overlook that Bob Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever in 27 years? How does one come to fail to take into account the absence of indication that any formal conversion ever took place, in the instance of Bob Dylan? I don't think we should be contradicting ourselves. Just because sources used the word conversion in relation to Bob Dylan 27 years ago does not qualify for his inclusion on a list of converts today. Sources do not have limitless applicability. Media representations of Bob Dylan's conversion 27 years ago hardly make him a Christian today. This list has logically arising parameters calling for only Christians on it. Logical parameters are found at the List of notable converts to Judaism. The List of notable converts to Judaism states in a tag at the top of that list the following:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

Those are simple and straightforward parameters. Those are simple and straightforward parameters that the List of notable converts to Christianity should be following also. Bus stop 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consider removing the numerous gentiles currently included on List of notable converts to Judaism. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions, and I think we should respect the distinctions between the two. According to that list's elaborate disclaimer:

:::most of these conversions (apart from the Biblical ones) are not recognized by Orthodox Judaism because the converted did not convert under Orthodox auspices, or by Orthodox and Conservative authorities because the conversions were not done in accord with halakha. In 2005, five present and former Chief Rabbis of Israel declared: Any such conversion, under its various names such as `Reform' or `Conservative,' has no validity, and anyone who undergoes such conversion is still a gentile in every respect." [23]

The editors of List of notable converts to Judaism do not have the authority to override the Chief rabbis of Israel on the question of who is a Jew. Are these editors all rabbis schooled in the Talmud? No, they are not. The editors of List of notable converts to Judaism should not contrive parameters in order to include as many non-Jews as possible on the list. Some might view that as a forced conversion of Christians and that is really not kosher. We should not portray Christians as Jews when they are still Christians according to other Jews. -- --JJay 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- Cite the names you feel should be removed from the List of notable converts to Judaism or stop complaining about vague things that you refuse to cite with any degree of constructive specificity. Bus stop 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My gender is my religious identity . (This just for the religion joke.) I think some of preceding is to make a religious fetish of these "sermonettes". Ostensibly, it is not me who makes lists. This article and its accompanying Talk page are a battleground. Converts should only contain a Wikipedia article. Clearly, lists are dependent on the much ballyhooed "compromise". A list is just simple. Their parameters have to be contents. They should be removed. The status quo is in actuality nonexistent. Doing so represents some sort of sleight of hand. Non-Christians have taken polls as for flirtations with Christianity. Wikipedia-valid sources exist for the use of former flirtations. That, to me, does not confer "only from 1979." I am objecting to Christians, as far as questions are a locus for abuse. And it is my contention that the artist is Bob Dylan. The List of notable converts to Judaism states that:

"This page is Wikipedian. Jews should be restricted to individuals, in accordance with original research policies."

Those are simple and straightforward parameters that should be following Christians. zadignose 16:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Having read the above post, I regret to say only one word comes to mind: "Huh?" John Carter 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that emotion. zadignose 00:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

These are the type of things that do NOT belong on a talk page

Its easy for these sort of things to get lost in the talk page, so I thought I'd provide this diff for all concerned. Another editor has jumped to the conclusion that I'm lying about my non-Christian identity. I'm not. I have no desire to be a Christian but am respectful toward other Christians who are respectful toward me. They believe I am now forced to explain such intimate details about my own life in order to protect my status as an editor. I'm not going to fall for such a childish ploy, but if you're trying to make me mad, good job, that'll do it. While you're at it, scour that page and find out why I'm not even religious at all, Cleo. Continue to make a mockery of what people believe or don't believe and I'm sure you'll see your way to ArbCom quickly as I won't put up with it. Drumpler 07:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that she did that. However I think we should give Cleo a chance to make things right by you. I mean I think she should apologize to you, but I think it's quite likely she will. I think she's acting out of frustration and in the heat of the moment went too far. I think she will cool down.--T. Anthony 07:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That might be so, but I'm not going to be manipulated either and I think this was just one of several manipulation ploys this editor has applied. Anyone who knows me knows that is a very low blow to me. Drumpler 07:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

T.Anthony is right here[24]. I was involved in "Campus Crusaders for Christ" briefly in my college years. It is only listed as that was the only student organization I was involved with at the time, not that I currently agree and support their tenets, doctrines and philosophies. Drumpler 07:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible idea for resolving this voting thing

Since we seem to be split on two options at present regarding the list organization, and the voting in one form or another has been going on for weeks now, here is a possible idea: how about if we list disputed or former converts under religion with an entry that says see below and links to a separate section at the end of the article. Something like:

Bob Dylan - Musician (see below)

This would seem to me to have the advantages of both ideas. --JJay 17:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought we'd basically agreed to a rename and keeping the section for former converts. What happened?--T. Anthony 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We did agree to rename, but I'm not aware we have agreed to the separate section. if that's the case, why the new vote? --JJay 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right we hadn't. I just meant that was the way the two was looking. I do think we're on the way to a resolution, either way the one vote goes down.--T. Anthony 18:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiebreaker (moved)

The proposed time limit of 36 hours (to which no-one raised objections) has passed. There are two options tied with 6 votes each. Please choose only one of the following:

Note I moved it down here for visibility--T. Anthony 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

List former converts in a separate section of this article

• Nick Graves 02:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Drumpler 03:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC) -- even though I think I voted for the second one in the last vote, I now can see where lazy people might get the wrong idea if they don't read the footnotes (I'm in that list).
• T. Anthony 03:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• zadignose 03:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sefringle^Talk 07:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (I don't think either option is good, as both are very pro-Christian propaganda, but this is the better of two evils)

List all converts under former religion. Use footnotes for any relevant information related to religious practice

• JJay 17:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Moralis (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC) -- I figure if I'm not mediating anymore I might as well throw my two cents in. Of the two solutions offered here, I think this is less cumbersome, and easier on the reader.
• John Carter 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC) - primarily because if you thought someone were a convert to Christianity from Foo, you probably wouldn't think to look in the separate reverts section, and thus might make duplicate entries. If that problem could be addressed, maybe by placing that section first(?), I wouldn't have any serious objections to the other remaining option.
• Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Ttiotsw 09:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC) - seems the easiest to maintain. Actually either option would be OK but this seems tidier. On other lists e.g. List_of_Indianapolis_500_lap_leaders, the current season drivers are highlighted. I see this as the same. A conversion has taken place and we flag if its still current or (in our case) if they have lapsed.
• Nick Graves 14:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)I really really don't like this option. But after a long deadlock, this one finally nosed into the front. I could hold out for Cleo or Bus stop to throw their support behind the other option, but such seems quite unlikely at this point. I place my vote here in the interest of strengthening consensus and moving on. Count me as a "convert." Nick Graves 14:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• C.Logan Though this may seem like a haphazard return to the state of the article which seemed to fuel this long-running debate, this option is, in actuality, the most common-sense and streamlined format for such information. I don't necessarily oppose the other option, but I find that this one is a sufficient format with which we can work to satisfy certain concerns, without having to make a jumble of new sections which may feel tacked on. Clarity in presentation is essential for this option to be viable.
• Tendancer 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Teapotgeorge 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiebreaker discussion

Ummm.... excuse me, JJay, but cutting and pasting four votes for other people is not an appropriate way to approach this. Should I put them back, or would you like to do the honors. They're certainly able to make their own judgment at this point. zadignose 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• The new vote is hidden in the middle of an endless mass of rehashing. The constant posting on this page is scaring people off from participation. I'll remove those votes if we set a new deadline for this vote and move this latest poll to the end of the page. --JJay 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes but some of these people had also voted for "List former converts in a separate section of this article" in the above vote. To list them as just for the alternate, now, is misleading if they haven't said that. That's why I removed C. Logan. However I'm moving this tiebreaker if that's okay.--T. Anthony 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So what exactly are we supposed to do? John Carter 18:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd guess see if the people placed under List all converts under former religion. Use footnotes for any relevant information related to religious practice want to be placed there. I'm thinking you are a "yes I do." The only one I removed was C. Logan as, in the earlier poll, he placed his name in both.--T. Anthony 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The following people had put their names behind List all converts under former religion. Use footnotes for any relevant information related to religious practice in the previous poll/vote.

• C.Logan (though this is a return back to square one, it's worth credit- I place my vote here cautiously.)
• This page lists people who converted to Christianity not people who are now Christians which is something Bus Stop never understood. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• John Carter 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Teapotgeorge 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do any of you four wish to vote/support that on the tiebreaker?--T. Anthony 18:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't support the idea of it being in footnotes, although a short description after the name would be more than sufficient. I can't actually support the other possibility either, though, because of the confusion it might cause. So I guess I get listed as favoring neither option. John Carter 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A short description after the name plus footnotes is what I had in mind. The phrasing for the Bob Dylan entry was being discussed and had support prior to the latest round of mediation. The discussion is here: Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity/Archive_4#Potential_phrasing_of_Dylan_entry. --JJay 19:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. John Carter 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be placing a vote, but I'd like to consider a few things before I make my decision- I feel that one decision may make more sense, but might not settle things as well. I'm a little pressed for time, so I'll vote tonight when I have some time to weigh it out.--C.Logan 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I move that this poll be closed 36 hours from now. I also encourage those who voted for the losing option to express their consent to implementing the winning option, even though it was not their preferred option, in the interest of making the consensus as strong as possible. Nick Graves 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I second the proposal by Nick above. John Carter 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. On another note I am very disappointed by what seems set to win. I have said I will tolerate whatever is approved come what may, and I will, but I fear it has an element of "punishing" to Cleo and Bus stop. That's probably going to harm resolution, and Cleo seems back to being annoyed, but still I hope they can tolerate it and learn from the experience. (Namely learn that sometimes you can actually hurt your own side in a discussion)--T. Anthony 17:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

T.Anthony is it it really helpful to make statements such as the above? It has absolutely nothing to do with "punishing" Bus Stop and Cleo123. The majority just disagree with what they are saying. I get the impression that you like to avoid conflict and perhaps you think that giving in to a small very vocal minority'S demands will make life easier for you? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to be wrong about the reasons. However no I'm not saying "give in." I was hoping for some kind of compromise that could be acceptable to all. I realize now that was naive. What's set to win essentially says that past concessions or compromises were a mistake and shall now end. One thing that mollifies that is the name change and I'm glad I suggested that at least. Also the minority has maybe been intractable so maybe dismissing them and undoing concessions to them is the only way to bring peace. That just strikes me as "peace through sufficient firepower", which I find a bit disappointing. My hopes were extremely naive though. They won't happen again and I'll try to quit thinking about this place as soon as I can.--T. Anthony 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I regret that you feel obliged to have said many of the things you said above. I hope that, wherever you go when you leave "this place" (and hopefully don't abandon wikipedia entirely - most discussions are actually a bit more rational than this one has been), you don't leave permanently or with the belief that we are all unbending, opinionated (deleted)s. Your input has been a very valuable factor in this discussion. Regarding the naivete you allege having, I'm sorry to say that, as someone with (maybe?) a bit more experience in the world than you have, there are and always will be people you have to work with for whom opinion is the be-all and end-all of everything, who will accept no evidence, however overwhelming, against them and continue blindly following a fixed idea. Personally, I believe just about everyone involved in this discussion would say that applies here, though we might disagree about who it applies to. At the very least, you have seen here a bit of what is the worst the world has to offer. I sincerely hope that you don't have to deal with such things to often hereafter. John Carter 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'd said I was leaving Wikipedia, in general, before I came here. I meant it and still intend to do so if I get the willpower. This is a more contentious discussion than most I've been on, but I've actually been on ones I consider pettier and more meaningless. (Religion is at least a major issue) Although to be honest my problem with Wikipedia is not really about arguments. I think the basic idea of it is flawed. Articles I worked on two years ago are fairly often no better, and even slightly worse, than when I came. To think that Wikipedia will "evolve" articles into something better seems like something that has to be taken on faith and I'm not really seeking a new religion right now. In addition to that I think the nature of Wikipedia skews things toward men under 25 in a way that makes the whole project fairly juvenile. Hence Stan Smith (American Dad!) might be a more detailed article than that for Richard Helms of the CIA. I've occasionally been worried my disdain for Wikipedia would spill out and ruin my efforts at trying to achieve a compromise. However despite my disdain I think there are good things here too and in general I want to be a peacemaking kind of guy if I can.--T. Anthony 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In a related concept, see Wikigroaning. I'm a reader at SomethingAwful, and as a Wikipedian as well, I find the concept hilarious, and sadly true. For example, note the size of the Voltaire article in comparison with the Voltron article.--C.Logan 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a strong consensus. We have always had a strong consensus. It's time to end this now. --JJay 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with the first two sentences of the above statement, I think that it might be best to wait the additional now 31 hours, in the event someone who might be interested in the discussion has not been online recently to take part. And my thanks to Nick Graves for having contacted those parties who have not already voiced opinions in this follow-up discussion. John Carter 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can wait as long as is needed. My point is that the time for ending the madness and abuse of this talk page by a vocal, obstructionist minority has long since passed. --JJay 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll bid my support on whatever wins, even if I didn't vote for it. Its all about consensus as is. Drumpler 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On a related note should we put in former converts on the Muslim list for consistency? The Muslims have not liked that idea so far as I can tell, but it seems worth asking now that things seem agreed on.--T. Anthony 07:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I oppose that idea. Former muslims shouldn't be on the converts to Islam list and former christians shouldn't be on the converts to Christianity list. But consistency is important nontheless. This is the only list that goes against this consensus, so it is a big POV move.--Sefringle^Talk 08:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sefringle. Cleo123 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can make a move to convince them on the appropriate talk page when convenient. I know at least one editor there believes as we do. Drumpler 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean we kimosabe? I suggested it for consistency, but I don't like formers being here either. I accept it, but that's not the same thing. True I added most of the formers in List of people who converted to Catholicism, but most of that was when I was new and hadn't thought out the matter.--T. Anthony 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying if people want this to be a site-wide policy, those who are in favour can take it the appropriate talk pages after this discussion is over. When I said "we", I didn't mean all of us, only those who were in favour. Sorry if I wasn't clearer. Drumpler 08:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I (and I am not the same person as the above, despite comments to the contrary) would also agree that there is the possibility that, if this does go to ArbCom, as I and some others seem to think is maybe likely, that there is at least a very real chance of establishing some sort of coherent, across-the-board policy for who is and is not on these lists, and which lists they should be included on. That discussion has been started here, but it has to date always been sidelined by other matters. I can acknowledge the points that "former" Foos shouldn't be on these lists. The fact that other such lists don't have such people listed yet is no indication that such individuals can and will not be included in the future. However, no one has yet worked out what the criteria for making that determination are. Certainly, in at least some of the cases in question, there is evidence that they practice another religion more than Christianity, but that is not the same as saying that no longer adhere to some variety of Christianity. Messianic Judaism and other syncretions are, and always have been, options in which people embrace tenets of more than one faith, and can thus be seen as being, in at least one sense, adherents of both. Until and unless we have clear and unambiguous guidelines which can be applied across the board, I personally would think that erring on the side of not disqualifying someone from inclusion on the basis of what might be original research (like determining what someone's current religious beliefs are without clear statements to that effect from the subject) is, at least marginally, the better of two bad options here. John Carter 14:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop abusing the word compromise. Moving a names that do not belong on a list around on that list represents no compromise at all. It is just a stratagem for retaining the status quo. This is a list of converts to Christianity, meaning non-Christians should not be on it. Just look at the parameters at List of notable converts to Judaism:

This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately.

The List of notable converts to Christianity should be adhering to similar parameters. Bus stop 18:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consider removing the numerous gentiles currently included on List of notable converts to Judaism. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions, and I think we should respect the distinctions between the two. According to that list's elaborate disclaimer:

most of these conversions (apart from the Biblical ones) are not recognized by Orthodox Judaism because the converted did not convert under Orthodox auspices, or by Orthodox and Conservative authorities because the conversions were not done in accord with halakha. In 2005, five present and former Chief Rabbis of Israel declared: Any such conversion, under its various names such as `Reform' or `Conservative,' has no validity, and anyone who undergoes such conversion is still a gentile in every respect." [25]

The editors of List of notable converts to Judaism do not have the authority to override the Chief rabbis of Israel on the question of who is a Jew. Are these editors all rabbis schooled in the Talmud? No, they are not. The editors of List of notable converts to Judaism should not contrive parameters in order to include as many non-Jews as possible on the list. Some might view that as a forced conversion of Christians and that is really not kosher. We should not portray Christians as Jews when they are still Christians according to other Jews. --JJay 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- Which names are you of the opinion should be removed from the List of notable converts to Judaism? I may very well agree with you. I've asked you before to be more specific. If you are not naming any specific names, then your above argumentation seems to me to be little more than a smoke screen. There is nothing constructive in vague allegations such as above. Cite some specific names that you feel are not Jews that are found on the List of notable converts to Judaism, or stop posting such un-constructive criticism. Bus stop 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe that the individual who earlier alleged some sort of "Christian conspiracy" and complained that "nothing he said mattered" complains about others making "unconstructive criticism" (the word isn't hyphenated). Anyway, User:T. Anthony named a few above. Search for Marilyn Monroe and you'll see them. Anyway, you have still refused to answer his fundamental point, that the list of Jews does not specifically exclude those individuals who are explicitly described by several rabbinical leaders as not being Jews. Before your next unconstructive cut-and-paste job, maybe you could actually do some constructive commenting yourself? John Carter 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the fundamental point is that it is your right as an editor to go to the List of notable converts to Judaism and remove those names. That is the fundamental point. That ability on your part is spelled out in the tag on the List of notable converts to Judaism saying, "This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately." Please take careful note that it says, "Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately." That refers to you. Go right ahead and remove those names. Use the edit summary to cite the above justification for doing so. Bus stop 19:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As I'm unsure whether Bus stop is intentionally or unintentionally missing JJay's point of argument entirely, I'll add a supplement. JJay is explaining to you that many could argue that non-Orthodox Jews are not 'Jews', but Gentiles, when considering their laxity in following Jewish religious law- and indeed, many do argue as such, authoritatively, as JJay has quoted several times. Now, if one were to understand the point JJay was making, which I believe is a point I've brought up before (to which you gave the same response), one would not continuously ask for 'specific names', especially when a few names have already been given. Did you somehow miss those names?

Anyway, for an example, you can consider Elizabeth Taylor. She converted to Reform Judaism. Thus, by JJay's argument, she does not belong on that list, as the lengthy disclaimer makes it a major point that many Jews would not consider some of the individuals listed as 'Jews', but Gentiles. The point of this argument, of course, is to parallel your own, and it is being presented as an exhibit to how ridiculous this line of reasoning is in the first place.--C.Logan 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

John Carter, JJay -- Don't complain about things that you refuse to correct especially those things that are readily available to you to correct. That is merely the throwing up of a smokescreen and an attempt to frustrate progress in these discussions. The List of notable converts to Judaism contains on it a tag that almost invites you to remove names. Of course you should have a reason for doing so. You would want to be prepared to argue that according some reasoning that you should be prepared to present, the name being removed is not a Jew. But the ludicrous thing is that neither of you are even making the effort to remove those names. Apparently complaining about it is as far as your interest in such an endeavor extends. Therefore it seems like a smokescreen to me. It seems like little more than a diversionary tactic. Bus stop 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that no direct answer was given to the points raised. Bus stop does not deign to answer questions, after all, demonstrating the best example of a "smokescreen" I have recently seen. Or maybe he doesn't have an existing comment he can cut-and-paste in as an answer? :) John Carter 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- That is fine. The same still applies: remove the names. You certainly should cite that reasoning if that is your rationale for removing those names. As an editor of Wikipedia you are called upon to use your judgement to make appropriate decisions. The problem is we are talking in the abstract. One can speak in the abstract interminably. Concrete steps have to be made to move this issue forward. I have the List of notable converts to Judaism on my watch-list, so don't worry about me. If I disagree I will speak up. But if any of you are lodging the complaint that there are names that represent non Jews which are found on the List of notable converts to Judaism then you have to take the step of removing those names. I am not willing to talk in circles in an interminable abstract argument. Bus stop 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the names here in a minute.--T. Anthony 19:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here?--C.Logan 19:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No "here in a minute" is maybe a regional expression. It means "within a moment" and I'm referring to what I'm removing from the Jewish list.--T. Anthony 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay I removed the former section from the Jewish list and also removed "Shyne." I've kept Marilyn Monroe and Jim Croce because I'm not sure if they left Judaism or not. I'm fairly certain Monroe did, she wasn't buried in a Jewish cemetary so far as I know, but I'll let the editors there decide on those two.--T. Anthony 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the suggestions where intended to be taken seriously- they were merely for the purpose of argumentation. That's why Bus stop's response is so saddening: the suggestion JJay is putting forth is intended to demonstrate the weakness of Bus stop's argument, and is not an actual, serious suggestion for the removal of names. That is to say, JJay believes those names should stay, as do I. The issue is that the situation on that list is equally as 'contrived' as Bus stop claims this article to be, as it has to include a lengthy disclaimer to explain that many individuals on the list are not considered Jewish by some as they are affiliated with the Reform or even Conservative branches. Therefore, the list does not employ the 'strictest parameters', as Bus stop claims, but employs a more useful arrangement. With that being said, the argument that the 'strictest parameters' are the 'best parameters' is wholly deficient, and such an argument would tend to make encyclopedia articles less useful on the whole.--C.Logan 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but essentially I was calling his bluff. Still what it's saying, if I understand it correctly, is just that it accepts various kinds of conversions to Judaism rather than those standard to Jewish law. This is necessitated by the fact some ultra-Orthodox Jews consider Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism to be essentially invalid in themselves. The equivalent to this list would concern non-Christians who converted to Mormonism or the Church of Christ, Scientist. I'm not sure if we have a position on that matter or if we have any non-Christian converts to those faiths on the list. I've considered asking about that, but I fear that would bring up another argument in an already contentious atmosphere.--T. Anthony 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That kind of comparison would happen if the list was converts to Catholicism - we wouldn't add Anglicans to such a list. Problem with Bus stop's claim is that he hasn't shown that being a Jew as an identity that is automatically bestowed on someone through birth (in Orthodox, Conservative or Reform Judaism) is mutually exclusive from being a Christian. Given we can have Atheist Jews - it seems reasonable to allow for Christianity given (to me) that plugging in this extra layer of myth and legend doesn't detract from neither identity. OK - specific religions may still be itching to throw-you-down-the-well but we need not promote such racism here. Ttiotsw 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with Bus stop he hasn't clearly stated he opposes the entire From Judaism section, which seems to be what you're implying. I've asked him pointblank about it, but he didn't really answer me. He just sort of "talked over me." What I gather is he believes Jewish people shouldn't be counted if they returned to Judaism or may have returned to Judaism. (He seems essentially uninterested about reverts from other religions) I gather he would accept every convert from Judaism listed as such by the Jewish Encyclopedia, but that might be a false assumption.--T. Anthony 23:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the various Christian groups whose "Christianity" is contested mentioned above, like Mormonism and Christian Science, my personal opinion would be that the best thing to do would be to list them here, as they do self-identify as being in a sense Christian, unless there is already an existing list of such converts to those individual faiths elsewhere, in which case linking to that list might be best. It would depend on the structure of the other list, I suppose. But I can't see any real objections to placing them here. I recently started an article on some Arian saints for the Saints project, and if we in that project can count such contested groups as Christians, then I think that they should be counted as Christian in general, barring opposition from the Mormonism project or something similar. John Carter 01:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no list for converts to Mormonism, so far as I know, and I think most of them were other kinds of Christian before converting. Still if I find a pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, etc who became Mormon I'll consider adding them.--T. Anthony 03:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Found some already. Chieko N. Okazaki was Buddhist before converting to LDS. There's also another I found, but he was excommunicated.

Yes, well I never said anything about contrived situations or employing strictest parameters. C.Logan is playing fast and loose with language. Nor, of course, did I ever say anything about strictest parameters being best parameters. C.Logan's idea about what would make a useful article is my idea about what would make a disparaging article. C.Logan may like the idea of putting a Jew on a list that in its most basic understanding is simply a list of those Christians who have come to Christianity by way of conversion, but I feel that putting a Jew on such a list represents a disparagement of a Jew. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. Judaism rejects much of what Christianity is built upon. Please respect differences. And please spare me the agita about assuming good faith, and about no personal attacks, and so on and so forth. This is not a personal attack on C.Logan. I am simply being concise in my description of my position: It happens to represent a disparagement of a Jew to include that Jew on a list of converts to Christianity. Please use the Bob Dylan article to elaborate on your contentions that Bob Dylan's flirtations with Christianity rise to a level that you consider to be a significant level. A list has parameters. The parameters of this list should be comparable to the parameters of the List of notable converts to Judaism, which are as follows:

This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately.

Please use similar parameters for the List of notable converts to Christianity as are used for the List of notable converts to Judaism. Bus stop 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop please stop this disruption to this talk page. You have repeated the claim "This page is a list of Jews..." 10 times so far and yet have not clearly answered specific questions on mutual incompatibility of Jewish race and Christian religion. Answer our questions; not repeat your answers and use indents properly.Ttiotsw 07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Um...

"Every disclaimer exclaims loud and clear: contrived parameters. When you suggest putting Dylan and 2 or 3 other people in a separate section of this article, that act exclaims loud and clear, contrived parameters. The List of notable converts to Judaism uses the simplest parameters. They are not only the simplest of parameters, but they are the most restrictive of parameters." (Bus stop, May 27, 2007)

As I'd said.--C.Logan 09:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I might like this idea, but I don't think it's likely to happen and I think you need to tolerate that. Also a problem is that no other conversion list really spells out that it is a "List of Xs" in that way. The List of notable converts to Hinduism says "The following is a list of people who have converted to Hinduism from non-Hindu religions", which doesn't specify current status. It also does not say it is "a list of Hindus." The List of notable converts to Islam just says "The following is a list of notable converts to Islam" and doesn't specify if this means the plural of "a convert" or just anyone who converted at one time. (Admittedly I don't see how "converts to Christianity", or Islam, could be anything other than a description of a person's religion. However I've been outvoted) The List of notable converts to Buddhism is essentially the same as the Islam list. The Jewish list is somewhat unique in specifying it is a "List of Jews."--T. Anthony 03:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus to include former Christian converts

It is clear that the overwhelming consensus is to include former Christian converts. The poll, which has just been closed, resulted in 9 out of 13 votes for the following:

List all converts under former religion. Use footnotes for any relevant information related to religious practice

If there is still any question about whether consensus exists, I would point out the following:

• There has been ample opportunity for everyone to make a case for their preferred resolution, and to discuss the relevant policies.
• There was an initial approval voting-based poll, in which everyone had abundant time to nominate, consider and vote for as many different options as they deemed acceptable.
• All current participants at this talk page (save two) voted in the tiebreaker between the top two options from the approval vote. The remaining two editors (Cleo and Bus stop) had an opportunity to vote, and were asked individually to do so, but chose not to.
• Of the four who voted for the option that lost in the tiebreaker, three (T. Anthony, Drumpler, and Zadignose) have explicitly stated that they will respect the majority-supported option as the current consensus. The other (Sefringle) has so far remained silent on that issue, and can be presumed to consent to this option unless s/he expresses otherwise.
• Even if Cleo is correct in asserting that Drumpler is a sockpuppet of John Carter, that would not have changed the outcome of the poll. (I do find this claim dubious, as Drumpler has a fairly extensive editing record, and s/he also happened to choose a different option than John in the latest poll).

Personally, I still believe that ex-converts should not be on lists of converts, and I will oppose any effort to extend that standard beyond this list. However, I do not believe a strong case has been made that including ex-converts goes against policy, and that's the only thing (besides a ruling from "on high") that could possibly override the consensus that has been formed on this matter.

So, former Christian converts will be included in this list, and they will be listed in the body of the list, not in a separate section. Those who have supported this option have said that they will make it clear in the list entries if someone is no longer a Christian, a lapsed Christian, or if their current status is questionable according to reliable sources. Furthermore, it appears to have been resolved in a separate poll that the name of the article will change to reflect the fact that former Christians may be included in the list. With this name change, with an explanation in the lead of the article, and with explanations in each relevant entry concerning current religious status, I think there can be little cause for confusion about what the sources say about someone's religion, and there is sufficient respect shown for a person's current choice of religious identity.

Nick Graves 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No. My silence is not consent. It is just silence.--Sefringle^Talk 03:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I based my assumption on the phrase "Silence equals consent" found at WP:Consensus. I do believe this is the general standard, but I will respect your view that your silence is just silence. Nick Graves 04:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will concede I find this result disappointing, bordering on awful. and although I accept it I will state my concern. Essentially people are lazy. What happens when you "explain things in a note and footnote" is that it often leads to, "we'll remember to explain things for a week or so, but if those explanations are erased or we move on to other things..." Still I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they will be firm in their position. Also the name-change will help things some and as it got a much higher consensus I presume it will be done.--T. Anthony 05:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreed with you, T. Anthony, in the sense that I think people will be too lazy to read footnotes, but I think the name change will reflect this more clearly. I do believe that former converts do belong, as I mentioned countless times on this talk page, and so I will support this decision as it is the closest to what I believe the article should be. Drumpler 05:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure. Well I really have to get back to my thesis. I've been working on it for years and it's embarrassing I'm not even near done yet. Maybe if any of you know good sources on the political/historical impact of Scientific Romances you can drop me a message. Ciao!--T. Anthony 05:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Did Dylan Convert?

Please disregard this poll. Consensus was already well established on this long ago. Nick Graves 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

With the inclusion parameters now thoroughly settled (and resettled) by consensus, I propose we move on to settling the issue of whether Bob Dylan ever converted to Christianity--or, more pertinently, whether it has been reported in reliable sources that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity. Notice that this poll is not about whether Dylan is still a Christian, or whether he is/was a Christian according to the strictest possible parameters, or whether you think he ought to be included in the list according to your own preferred parameters. It isn't even about whether you agree with the sources that reported that he converted. Wikipedia articles must be based on verifiability, not truth. That's policy. Nick Graves 04:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your name below the option with which you agree:

Yes: It has been reported in reliable sources that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity.

• zadignose 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Nick Graves 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Drumpler 04:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• C.Logan 09:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No: It has not been reported in reliable sources that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity.

Dylan poll discussion

I have no opinion at present concerning Dylan's conversion, because I haven't even looked into it yet. I withhold my vote until I do some research and can make an informed decision. I do propose that this poll be closed 72 hours from now. The issue of what the sources say about Dylan's alleged/confirmed conversion has already been hashed out amply by others, and I'd wager that most of the current editors already have a firm basis on which to make a judgment within this time period. Nick Graves 04:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just think this poll and discussion is a little superfluous, personally. The best of sources state that he converted so it shouldn't be a matter of discussion -- to me (and I say this out of all due respect to Nick Graves), it is the equivalent of voting whether or not the moon is made of cheese. I think an attempt to try to interpret the sources goes against WP:OR, especially WP:SYN. Let's just go by what they say -- Dylan converted to Christianity. Drumpler 04:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to establish the strongest possible consensus, in the interest of moving on. I really do want T. Anthony to get his Wikibreak, and feel a little guilty for dragging him back into this. There's really no need for you or anyone else to discuss further--as I said, it's been discussed amply already. I take it you're a "yes" on this. Just go ahead and sign your name under "yes." It'll make you feel alright. Nick Graves 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's been gone over many times, and doesn't seem highly disputable, but I can see why one would want the various parties to declare the conclusion they've drawn after all the preceeding discusion. I would be shocked if this turned out any different from the last poll on the subject. I've posted my conclusion above without further argument, though I considered this a resolved matter, because once again I didn't want my non-participation to be misinterpreted. I hope we can at least put this matter to rest without need to return to it in the future. zadignose 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirming Dylan's conversion was easy enough. I'm sure everyone else is already well aware of these sources. Encyclopaedia Brittanica's article on Dylan: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows." And then there's Kurt Loder's 1980 Rolling Stone article: "Of all Bob Dylan's public personae over the past nineteen years, none has more confounded his long-time admirers than his latest incarnation as a born-again Christian. Unveiling his new and obviously heartfelt beliefs on last year's Slow Train Coming, Dylan was a perfect caricature of a Bible-thumping convert..." Both are reliable sources. Both reported that he converted to Christianity. That settles it for me. Nick Graves 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There are also the biographical sources, which would seem to be the most reliable sources on the subject at hand. Ages ago, I transcribed some of the text to this page. I put a little more weight into these biographies, and they go into more detail. Additionally, the individuals are all Dylan experts, and Howard Sounes even happened to uncover Dylan's second marriage, which was previously unknown to the public. I'm assuming these guys know their stuff, and so that's all I need to see.--C.Logan 09:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think discussing this is sort of just beating a dead-horse and I'm uncertain if it's even a good idea. Although I think we can say he did as reliable sources agree. That's all I'm saying on that.--T. Anthony 04:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved." That doesn't sound like a dead horse to me. A gasping horse, maybe. Is there or is there not a dispute? If not, we should petition to have the page protection lifted. Nick Graves 04:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. However, Isotope is usually on this page like a hawk. I wish there had been some discussion as I see no violations of WP:3RR or anything similar in the history page. Drumpler 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. What I mean is the opinions on this issue are even more set and unlikely to change due to discussion. I think discussing it further may just harden opinion more and simply cause a bunch of fights, insults, hair pulling, feelings of persecution, etc. At this point I'm almost tempted to say that people here care more about his religion than he probably does.--T. Anthony 05:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition see previous survey in the archives, That was just three weeks ago.--T. Anthony 10:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, unless things have changed, why don't we just go by that? Drumpler 12:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. However, I think there's a deeper issue here also and that is the importance of Wikipedia rules and protocols. It has been a tremendous learning experience for those who have chosen to make it such and I justify it on those grounds. Drumpler 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)