Talk:List of converts to Christianity/Archive 5

message: As per the comments made by the mediator, I have archived all threads from before when the current mediator took on the case. If he, or anyone else, wishes to restore one or more of them, I think it might be best to place those comments here, and the mediator can then indicate whether he would agree to it or not. John Carter 14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevant comments might be available at Archive 4:May 22, 2007-June 7, 2007--T. Anthony 12:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: *Someone who changed their world view from a previous stance of faith or no faith. Drumpler 06:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I should add that "converts" means either the plural of "convert" or the action of converting. Kind of how "car races" can be the plural of "a car race" or part of a statement like "as the car races down the block"--T. Anthony 20:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Word "Convert" Means:

message: Repeating what I said in an earlier discussion (see above), the main argument for including "former converts," and people whose "current" faith is in doubt, is that it's very practical to confirm, through sources, that someone has converted at some time in their life, but it is not practical to determine the "current" faith, or faith at time of death, for the majority of people.  It's too problematic to try to keep tabs on the "current" beliefs of people.  This is why I believe having a clearly labled section, with clarifying notes, is the correct approach.  All information that we have is presented without distortion, and we don't have to try to enter the minds or souls of others to divine their "current" status.  I also attempted to explain in my comment here why I think maintaining a "current" time frame in an encyclopedia is very problematic, and should be avoided. zadignose 01:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly to the problems of trying to keep any such list "current". But would these be separate subsections within each main section (Judaism, Islam, what have you) or one separate main section? John Carter 01:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If this were a print encyclopedia or a reference book that would be a concern. However this is something that can and often is edited daily or weekly anyway. It's unlikely you'll ever need to be accurate to the hour of someone's conversion/de-conversion/reversion.--T. Anthony 01:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still a concern.  If some noted figure named X suddenly converted to Christianity today and publicly proclaimed their conversion, then we might choose to list them as "currently practicing" a Christian faith... and if they made no further pronouncement for a decade or more, or if they publicly renounced their faith but Wikipeidia somehow failed to note this, then in the year 2019 someone might read Wikipedia and see that it still lists them as a Christian in the "current" timeframe.  How much more problematic does it become, when we build the article now upon sources from years or decades ago, and want to limit the list to "currently practicing" Christians?  What about people who lived their final years privately, and died privately?  Can we make any claim to their faith at the end of their lives?  Inevitably, if we want to limit a list to "Christians" in a supposed current time frame, there will be arguements to exclude people for a lack of information.  There will be no need to say "I have proof that he abandoned Christianity," it will be enough to say "I'm removing him for a lack of citation regarding his current faith."  And this will be somewhat justifiable because we've overstepped the bounds of reason by trying to make a claim on a person's "current" faith.  Sure, such removals will be contested, but it's fuel for edit wars to come.  If, on the other hand, we limit our claim to simply demonstrating that a person made a conversion that can be verified through reference to reliable sources, without any claim to current faith, then we can easily maintain the article, and can be honest and plain in our presentation of available knowledge. zadignose 03:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote that after many hours without sleep. That said it's fairly representative to what I feel. True I suppose such a thing could be a concern. However I don't think it's a very realistic concern. What are the chances no one will notice the change in religious status for ten years? Or 5 years or 1? This sounds like a sensible concern, but it only works if this were an Almanac. If it really worries you we could just make a tradition of having it be "gone over" every 3 months by putting living names in a news search.--T. Anthony 14:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is possible that such periodic reviews could be set up, I believe that it is inherently dependent upon editors actually being available and willing to go over the list every predetermined period. That is far from guaranteed. Also, on a purely practical basis, I don't think we want to necessarily oblige editors to engage in such review, as it would be easily possible that an editor "requested" (or obligated) to make such review might feel imposed on for doing it, and that possibly negative attitude coming in would be potentially problematic. I also think that it is probably a bad idea to believe that each and every editor who might "help" engage in such activity would be completely and utterly free from bias. Having such bias would clearly impact that editor's selections regarding inclusion and/or removal. On those bases, I do think that trying to set up articles in such a way that "edit wars", or regular updating, are more or less prevented wherever possible is probably a good practical idea. John Carter 14:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Past voluntary professions of faith" is a practical standard, and our language is clear

message: This page is currently over 675000 bytes. Considering that a lot of this material is already on an existing archive page, does anyone think that that information could be safely removed from this page? John Carter 16:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think we should start considering archiving everything before Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Request for Comment? It wouldn't improve the lengthiness too much, but it might help it a little and I don't think the stuff before that is vital to the current conversation.--T. Anthony 09:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I just want the mediation threads to all be archived as a whole. Cleo123 09:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any chance of archiving here?