Talk:List of converts to Christianity/Archive 6

message: 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)
thread_title: Formers: The final battle, the Next day

message: ;Move former converts to a new list of former converts to Christianity:
*Drumpler 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what the above means. Drumpler 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I think it does. So basically, "From Judaism" > "Reverts" > list? Drumpler 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The votes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, noticed this was mentioned above. I'll make my final decisions now. Drumpler 11:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Closing the poll

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

message: *Drumpler 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: *Nick Graves 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: *zadignose 03:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No Contest

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits to [[Bob Dylan]] article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: T.Anthony is right here. 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)
thread_title: These are the type of things that do NOT belong on a talk page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Possible idea for resolving this voting thing

message: 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)
replies: text: No. My silence is not consent. It is just silence.--SefringleTalk 03:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Consensus to include former Christian converts

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

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: In addition see previous survey in the archives, That was just three weeks ago.--T. Anthony 10:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, unless things have changed, why don't we just go by that? Drumpler 12:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Poll: Did Dylan Convert?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: In addition see previous survey in the archives, That was just three weeks ago.--T. Anthony 10:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, unless things have changed, why don't we just go by that? Drumpler 12:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Dylan poll discussion