Jump to content

Talk:List of converts to Christianity/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

New Mediation

Greetings! After reading through the more recent sections of this page, it is apparent that you require further mediation- in fact, it would appear to me that you require a clean slate. I therefore offer my services as mediator. Some restrictions apply, see store for details:

  • The Mediation Cabal does not allow me to mediate without the consent of at least several of the parties concerned. I can't force it on anybody, so you've got to acknowledge your agreement to participate.
  • Everyone will assume good faith at all times, or they will be Squished(tm) beneath my ego.
  • It looks like a lot of you have been taking shots at one another for a while, and more importantly that a lot of you have been firing back. This is not a good way to conduct a discussion. So effective immediately, all previous arguments and spats will be ignored, and we're going to start fresh. This page will be archived once the discussion begins, and we'll enjoy a productive discussion free of the baggage of the last one.
  • This page has become extremely long and cluttered. This has made it difficult to discern exactly what we're all arguing about at this point. I'd like everyone to begin by describing what you consider to be the problem here, and what you think we should do about it. Consider that I'm just coming into the conversation and need an idea of where everybody stands.

If that's all agreeable, we'll start ASAP! I'm about to leave the house for four or five hours, but I look forward to your responses upon my return. If, at any time during this process, any of you feel the need to contact me privately, I can be reached at chance@macolytes.com or on IRC in #wikipedia. --Moralis (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have only one slight request to make. I would propose that the first section of the existing page, which contains the list of names which we removed from the list as it wasn't sourced, be permitted to stay on the non-archived page, so that we can more easily try to find sources for those names which we all agreed to be removed pending finding specific individual sources for their conversions. Also, I clearly and explicitly agree individually to the mediation. Based on what I understand, there are two basic questions here:
  • (1) The criteria for inclusion in this list, and other related lists, in general, particularly relating to individuals who have converted to a specific faith and then converted again to something else, and
  • (2) more frequently, the specific inclusion or non-inclusion of Bob Dylan. I'm not sure exactly how you want us to go about setting up the "position" statements, though, so maybe setting up separate sections below might be the way to go with this? And thank you for having taken on the case. John Carter 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading the moderator's bio page, may I also ask the moderator to first expound on his affiliation with the Universal Life Church as an ordained reverend. Even though its wiki page clarified it: "[The ULC] accepts all peaceful religious beliefs, holds no views of its own, and is therefore not a 'true' church." which should sufficiently convey its neutrality. This way, all parties are made aware upfront of the moderator's affiliation and can raise objections now rather than later; so we don't have another case afterwards where one side cries bias and throws accusations against the moderator if the rough consensus goes against their way. Tendancer 18:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would make too big an issue out of that. My cat is an ordained ULC minister. Seriously.--Isotope23 18:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Those services I would like to see. Unfortunately, there is at least one party here who seems to believe that religious bias motivates just about everyone who disagrees with him/her, so, it might be a good idea, in addition to waiting for that party to agree to the mediation, to maybe define it so that the issue can't be used as a reason for rejecting or questioning whatever mediated outcome may arise later. John Carter 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually trained her to meow if I say "testify" too... I obviously don't want to speak for Moralis, and perhaps given the history here it would be helpful to hear Moralis explain his affiliation, but my experience with ULC is that most of the "clergy" as it were are more interested in appending "Rev" at the beginning of their name or looking for a way to make some easy money officiating weddings on weekends than in espousing a specific doctrine. I don't think it is necessarily a big deal when it comes to mediating this particular set of issues should this round of mediation be accepted.--Isotope23 19:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think most reasonable folks here would agree, that the notion an ULC-affiliated moderator would be biased for this discussion borders on comical, and in fact it would be difficult to find a moderator with a more neutral affiliation. However, I think it's a realistic concern we're again going to spend days working towards a consensus, and as soon as it starts to go against one side's way folks may throw accusations that he's an "ordained reverend" and insinuate bias. This should be a facetious/cynical expectation, but it's actually quite realistic in this case with past precedents (after all we already had accusations of bias, and suggestion the previous moderator had been "bribe"d because one side put a barnstar on his page). Personally of course I have no objections, perhaps we can just ask everyone to read Universal Life Church, speak now or forever hold their peace, and then move on and forbid that to be an issue then. Tendancer 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, given the history here I understand why you brought it up.--Isotope23 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this Johnny-come-lately consents to a new mediation and a clearing out of the old discussion related to this issue. The ULC affiliation is no cause for alarm, as it is a creedless religion open to all. I see no reason to suspect mediator Rosenthal of having a pro-Christian or anti-Jewish bias. Nick Graves 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are we going to mediate? What did we just do? Are we going to probe consensus on a weekly basis here? This is becoming somewhat absurd. --JJay 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The last mediator withdrew before officially closing because I mistakenly thanked him for his work "before" the case was closed. Cleo challenged any decision he might make on that basis, claiming possibly bribery. You have my apologies for thanking the old mediator for getting involved in this mess in advance, by the way. I won't do it again.
There are avenues to challenge mediation. Users are free to pursue those avenues. But the important thing is that consensus , once again, was convincingly demonstrated during that process. Persistent, vocal opposition from a minority can not override that consensus. Therefore, a new round of mediation at this stage seems misguided to me. --JJay 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

New Mediation, and what the mediator said, sounds like a good idea. I may or may not be involved, but that's for personal reasons. I had intended to be gone for Wikipedia for months now and I hope to make good on that someday.--T. Anthony 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a nonsense. As soon as Moralis makes a tiny mistake are we going to have to get another one and then another one and then... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I took this as meaning that this is going to be a bit more of a "tough love" mediation. As in there's to be no accusing or backbiting of each other and if we slip up on that nuts to us. I'm going to refrain from criticizing this mediator at all come what may.--T. Anthony 23:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Possibly. Remember, however, the former mediator withdrew before closing the case. I don't think that will happen again this time. John Carter 22:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A few clarifications:

  • You should always feel free to criticize one another, and especially to criticize me. My condition is that you can't be nasty about it. It won't be nuts to you- I'll just let you know in a very polite and embarassing way that you're stepping out of line and should check your temper.
  • My involvement with Boy Scouts of America makes me uncomfortable about explaining the specifics of my personal beliefs- while they do fall in line with Scouting requirements, some people have disagreed with me on that point, and it's just generally bad juju. However, I will say this, to help ease your minds:
    1. I was born and raised in a Jewish household, my father being a Jewish apostate. I am not a bar mitzvah, but that is a situation I one day hope to rectify. If I am biased with regards to Judaism, it would be a pro-Jewish bias.
    2. I consider my religious beliefs a mix of Judiasm, Christianity and the adherence to science that some consider a purely atheist thing. There is no organized religion at present that fits my beliefs, being a cross as they are between two major religions and skepticism.
    3. As far as I know, I hold no prejudices. Though Jewish (at least from the reformed perspective) I do sympathize with both Israel and Palestine. Though proud to be American, I find nationalism dangerous. Et cetera.
    4. I am ordained with the ULC for two reasons: it provides me a channel to other people with bizarre religious beliefs that I'm interested to speak with, and it allowed me to officiate a friend's wedding. There is no religious connotation there.

I hope this helps.

Because some of you seem to feel that certain information should not be archived, I am going to leave the task of archiving old discussion to User:John Carter, simply in the interests of keeping everything that's been asked for. Please let me know if that's a problem. --Moralis (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to to work with the mediator. I believe that Moralis will make a sincere effort to be a neutral and impartial moderator for the discussion. Understanding that Moralis is new to the conversation, I realize that he/she is probably unaware that this talk page has recently been vandalized by User:Warlordjohncarter, who removed an entire section pertaining, in part, to his own editorial conduct.[1] The section in question, which Carter contributed to at length, is a discussion pertaining to the "This is a list of Christians" tag that Carter placed on the article. It is an article related discussion and as such must be retained.
It also contains a rather thorough record of personal attacks and compalints Carter has made against other users during the course of the discussion. The section should be restored prior to any archiving. Contrary to what Carter has claimed these are not "unsubstaintiated" claims; the thread contains dozens of links which substantiate statements. I wil not speculate as to his motivations for wanting to "deep six" that section of the discussion. I note that he has not deleted any other sections of this talk page that contain what he has defined as "personal attacks" against User:Bus stop or myself. Carter has expressed a desire to become an administrator, and I believe that the detailed, sourced record of his conduct in this matter should be maintained for possible future review by the community. That thread should be restored and a neutral third party should be responsible for any archiving. Cleo123 03:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I have opposed the removal of any comments, as is being discussed above, and I have now restored the text of the removed thread, within archive3 here. I placed it in the same place within the order of threads where it originally resided, and tried to keep the format the same. zadignose 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering the hour, and the fact that some of the involved people haven't responded yet, I think I'll hold off on the archiving till tomorrow. I'll probably do all but the first existing thread and this one, and any subsequent threads. Follow-up question, though: What format should the "position statements" take? Individually, collectively, maybe "pro" and "con" regarding certain issues, or something else. John Carter 00:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Behold: --Moralis (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation: Opening Statements

Please post your own, personal explanation of the dispute in the appropriate section below. Explain what you think is wrong with this article, or that you don't think anything is. Explain why. Why are you participating in this discussion, and what do you hope to see happen? Please remember that you're writing this for someone who's just coming into the conversation, who knows very little about what's going on, and who has little patience for accusations and finger-pointing, so be thorough and polite.

If you don't feel that your views fall into one of these categories, please feel free to create another.

Dylan Should Be Included

  • Reliable sources indicate that Bob was baptized. This, coupled with his speeches from stage during two tours and his recently published collection of those speeches, all of which seem to have been annoyingly prosletyzing Christian speeches, seem to me to make his inclusion almost unarguable. There is the matter of his subsequent possible "reconversion" to Judaism, but while there is definite well-sourced information to indicate that he has recently been much more active, maybe almost exclusively active, in "Jewish" religious affairs, there are no unambiguous statements which indicate that he has actually turned away from Christianity, and some which indicate that he still accepts at least some of the specifically Christian beliefs, such as the Apocalypse of John. On that basis, it is my personal belief that he should be included, possibly in a section indicating that he is now more a practicing Jew than a practicing Christian. The details of phrasing there remain to be worked out. John Carter 01:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Devil's advocate time! (I love this part) Would Dylan's Jewish behavior make him a convert -to- Judaism, despite it being his religion of origin? Why does there need to be a separate section- couldn't we just put a note after his entry reading something like, "returned to religion of origin?" Can any secondary source be considered reliable on the subject of Dylan's religious beliefs? Mustn't we restrict ourselves to statements made by Dylan himself, lest we be guilty of trying to read his mind?
    • I'm going to do a lot of this, it helps move discussion. Please don't think I'm actually opposing any given position. --Moralis (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Weirdly I wondered this about Larry Flynt, but in a different way. Are we sure he wasn't raised Christian at all, not even nominally, before baptism under the auspices of Ruth Carter Stapleton? You could say "well it wouldn't matter as he wasn't baptized before." Well I don't think that's proof in this case. Flynt was born in Kentucky and many Southern churches don't baptize until adulthood.--T. Anthony 07:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No problems with the questioning. The reason I object to calling him a "convert" back to Judaism is that such a statement isn't clearly sourced as per WP:BLP. I personally think phrasing like "is now an active Jew" is more clearly verifiable as per those standards. And, his own recent statements (can't find the source) is that he considers both Judaic and Christian Bibles equally "valid" (I think that's the word), although he doesn't specificy what that means to him. I personally argue for calling him a Christian based on the multiple reports of his baptism into Christianity, and his published speeches. The reason for creating a separate section, if that remains, is that doing so provides additional information on the subject, and personally, given that these lists are among the few articles that really explicitly deal with "cross-religion" matters, I think the more details we have, and the easier things are to read and find within these lists, the better. Regarding statements by Dylan as primary sources, I agree. That's why I would argue for putting in a reference to the quote regarding the validity of the Old and New testaments in the text following the name. Not sure if I answered your questions or not, though. John Carter 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree for reasons which I will elaborate upon later (probably in this same comment, so it may expand in a little while). To address the 'Devil's advocate' section:
Would Dylan's Jewish behavior make him a convert -to- Judaism, despite it being his religion of origin?
Well, I believe the term is 'revert'. In the primitive age of this discussion, I believe it was mentioned that we might settle things by including Dylan on this list and the converts to Judaism list, but (predictably) some were concerned that such phrasing would be offensive.
Why does there need to be a separate section- couldn't we just put a note after his entry reading something like, "returned to religion of origin?
Well, in fact, that's how it was phrased in the article- since the day it was created. Apparently, it was the simple inclusion of the individual which sparked the discussion rather than the terminology used. Indeed, we tried to elaborate further on the issue, but such attempts have made no progress.
Can any secondary source be considered reliable on the subject of Dylan's religious beliefs?
As we shouldn't be considering Dylan's own statements (as they have become fuel for the OR fire), I can say that we should attempt to hold to high quality secondary sources (as is the standard). In its current state, the article includes (as citations for conversion) 3 reliable sources- biographies, all composed by individuals who are considered experts on Dylan (one of which even uncovered information which was previously unknown to the public). In the past, the article included many more sources for conversion- in addition to the above, the Encyclopedia Britannica, the New York Times, a Jewish Newsletter called Jewsweek, and many Christian-affiliated sites. Most of these were curtailed because it was a bit of an overkill, and the biographies were more than sufficient. Concerning his return to Judaism, I have not yet seen any reliable sources- we do have sources from a Jewish affiliation, but as the opposing party has denied validity to any sources related to Christianity (claiming conversion), it would only make sense to apply a similar standard to the sources for reversion. In actuality, the reliable sources which we do have tend to lean to argue the fact that he has never actually renounced his Christian beliefs (and at some points, the sources even discount the idea that he has 'returned to Judaism'- as do some of the explicitly Jewish sources, as well). However, it would seem best to make his universal approach to religions explicit, as though we can clearly claim his conversion, he never seems to make another clear transition afterward, and continues to find validity in his old beliefs (as his own statements reinforce).
Mustn't we restrict ourselves to statements made by Dylan himself, lest we be guilty of trying to read his mind?
Well, actually, we should only be citing what other individuals state about him. Making assumptions based on tenuous evidence or pushing a personal interpretation of Dylan's words is inadvisable. The superior and WP-compliant action would be to simply work almost solely from secondary, reliable sources, and preferable from individuals who are well knowledgeable about Dylan.
I enjoyed your 'Devil's advocation'. It helps us to cover all potential questions as soon as possible. And as a note, I believe we might all want to sign with Agree under the appropriate heading.--C.Logan 02:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree Only current Christians should be included on the list. Also, I question the factual accuracy of claims that Dylan formally converted to Christianity. I suspect there are no statements regarding a "reconversion" to Judaism because he never actually abandoned Judaism, only embraced some Christian beliefs. Cleo123 06:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Cleo, your vote, which essentially summarizes the argument you have already presented in this section, belongs in the "Dylan Should Not Be Included" section. It makes little sense to vote if you're not going to place the vote in the proper section; additionally, I find it unusual that when I moved your misplaced vote (which doesn't hold any necessary place in the above position) with a cautionary note about my reasons, you cry: vandalism. Once again, you need to assume good faith- actually, how could you even construe my action as vandalism? I made the purpose good and clear, and I stand by it: the sections are presented for a purpose. --C.Logan 08:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In response to the mediator's question, I believe that Dylan's words must be considered. It should be noted that no source has ever been provided in which Dylan says that he “converted” to Christianity. There is no question that Dylan explored Christianity during the early 70’s, and he made several vague statements about being “touched by Jesus” and the like while promoting a series of Gospel albums. I do not question the fact that there are reliable secondary sources that claim he converted, I question the factual accuracy of those sources. In reference to the Bible study program in which he was allegedly baptized, Dylan said the following:
“I went to Bible school at an extension of this church out in the Valley in Reseda, California. It was affiliated with the church, but I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing…. The media make up a lot of these words for the definition of people. I mean, who's a person anymore? Everything's done for the media. If the media don't know about it, it's not happening. They'll take the littlest thing and make it spectacular. They're in the business of doing that… Spirituality is not a business, so it's going to go against the grain of people who are trying to exploit other people." [2]
In another interview, he communicated the following to the reporter:
"Despite his spiritual preoccupations, he insists that he's no prude ("I think I had a beer recently") and that his religious odyssey has been misrepresented in the press.”[3]
As a formal conversion seems to be disputed by Dylan himself, Wikipedia should heir on the side of caution in accordance with WP:LIVING. During the course of this discussion, numerous editors have claimed that WP:BLP dictates that as long as there are reliable secondary source for the material, the “truth” of media reports should not be scrutinized. I contend that is not the case. WP:BLP says:
“Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we.”
The vast majority of the sources that have been provided seem to hedge regarding Dylan’s conversion, making statements like “Mr. Dylan's record has been preceded by months of rumor as to whether he has or had not converted to fundamentalist Christianity. The new record may give no guarantees for the future, but it does attest to the fact that, for the moment, Mr. Dylan is very definitely and overtly dealing in just that imagery.[1] Rumor? Since when does Wikipedia report rumors?
Regarding the categorization of living people, WP:BLP states:
“Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: 1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question 2. The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources”
Bob Dylan has not publicly identified himself as a Christian! Yes, he has talked about Jesus – but to the best of my knowledge he has never said, “I’ve left Judaism. I’ve converted to Christianity.” It seems to me that without such a clear-cut statement from Dylan himself, it would be a breach of Wikipedia policy to list Dylan’s religious persuasion in this manner. One of the two criteria has not been met.
Thirdly, WP:BLP contains an entire section titled “Presumption in favor of privacy”. It states, in part: “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.” I have no objection to sourced statements regarding his alleged conversion being included in his biography. I see a list as something altogether different as lists tend to “label” people quite definitively. I believe that we are doing harm, not only to Mr. Dylan, but also to his children and grandchildren, who are apparently practicing Jews. Many of the available sources discuss Dylan’s desire for privacy regarding his religious beliefs. I believe we, as editors, have an ethical obligation to respect this person and his family’s right to privacy. His personal religious persuasion is not relevant to his overall notability as a musician. WP:LIVING states: “This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding.” I do not think that Mr. Dylan and his descendents should be haunted forever by what many sources refer to as a mere “flirtation” with Christianity, which he obviously rethought. Cleo123 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I advice any reader to analyze the sources from which the quotes are cited in their full context. Also, Cleo: shy away from the OR habit. You (again) misquote Dylan by stretching a 'disdain for labels' to intend a 'total alienation from a faith'. Now let me just point out the fact that half the readers may agree with me on the interpretation of those statements, and half may agree with you: this is the problem with citing text as such and concocting an exegesis from primary text. This is why primary text is best used to reinforce secondary text- and the secondary text, as it seems, claims that Dylan did indeed convert to Christianity. I could respond to your quotes with similar quotes torn from their context, but I've done this several times already.
Additionally, your citation regarding 'gossip' refers explicitly to newspapers and magazines, and not to the biographies which are the actual sources- in fact, as I have already previously scrutinized these biographies point by point in accordance with WP:BLP, it would be problematic for you to challenge these sources using that policy: the sources are reliable, they comply with WP:BLP, and they are written by men who are veritable experts on Dylan (some of the text was made available by me here). As far as I'm concerned, you can continue to cast aside the 'zine'-style sources, but as a few of them, in particular Jewsweek, explicitly cite the biographies mentioned, there are some elements of reliable sources within these second-tier citations.
Regarding your misunderstanding of the 'Category' issue, please remember that this is a list, not a category. Please note the preceding sentence, as well: 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. This means that the category which is placed upon an individual should have cited reasoning and explanation within that individual's article (i.e. do not put a 'Murderer' category on an individual with no mention, or an unsupported claim, of the actual cause for the tag). The body which you cited deals entirely with the addition of category templates. And (just for kicks) concerning the matter of a 'profession of faith', you can note Dylan's comment in an interview with Bruce Heiman: Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. (Of course, this sort of thing is called "OR", so I prefer to simply stick to what the secondary sources say.)
And indeed, concerning what those sources say, your last argument is problematic. The very same section which you cite, "Presumption in favor of privacy", goes on to 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." Please keep this in mind when making the 'privacy' argument. Ironically, the action of pushing personal interpretations of primary sources with the fuel of presuppositions about the situation is more at odds with the policies you cite (and policies such as OR) than the issues and actions which you are arguing against.
While I appreciate your general concern for Dylan and his family's privacy, you betray an opinion of the situation as being inherently 'bad', and this seems to provide at least some of the heart behind your argument, and it may seem to be the reason why some of your statements indirectly echo Bus stop's own cries of 'Christian imperialism on a Jewish man' (although you have often been a voice of reason on Bus stop's side of the argument). It would be more profitable to the discussion if you were to shed this notion and merely view the event in a neutral manner- as, perhaps, you might treat a wedding/marriage or an album, or any other aspect of the man's life and career. Despite my affiliation, I attempt to neither elevate nor denigrate the occurrence and situation, but I instead treat it as any other fact of life- this is why I've found the involvement of extraneous issues in the discussion to have an effect of retardation on progress (although it admittedly makes the whole thing a bit more colorful to observe).
Anyhow, it's late (early?), so if I might have overlooked or mistook any of your statements, I may fix or expound upon my comment later. Additionally, let me just say that I hope we can work together on this, rather than turning this into a 24-hour debate class (not your fault, but everyone's).--C.Logan 07:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I consider some of C.Logan's remarks above to border on a lack of civility. I have commented on policy and content. He has commented on other editors. Cleo123 07:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Of course, you are free to consider things however you'd like. Personally, I don't really see it; the most direct reference I've made to another editor (namely, you) is basically an entreatment to you, out of actual care for your presentation, to cease interpretation of primary sources (and more specifically, those taken from context). It is not arguable that you have used primary source quotes in an authoritative manner, and recently. Although we are always certain of our own interpretations, any exegesis you present is quite simply original research on your part. I'm really not saying this to be a jerk, or anything of the sort. I'm simply reminding you that you are, in fact, committing an error, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It should be said: you could be correct in your interpretation. Then again, so could I be. That's why we need to refrain from presenting personal statements with our own view of them as an authoritative contribution. Dylan is a rather ambiguous fellow, and quite honestly we could have quote wars for another 2 months presenting interpretations of Dylan's statements which can cater to either side. --C.Logan 07:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion would flow a lot smoothly here if editors who habitually accuse others of impropriety please refrain from doing so, as that itself is against WP:ICA. Please also note the other WP:CIVIL example of civility violation: "Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute." Tendancer 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Agree. Reliable sources as noted above (including Encyclopedia Britannica) stated that he converted to Christianity for a short time in his life. He is notable and he was a Christian. Placing the lists in two separate articles, I think, would be unnecessary, especially when they can be addressed in one. Past discussions with editors who are largely opposed to his inclusion in this article, even on a separate list, have been based more upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:SOAP and less so upon WP:Verifiability, even though it is already clear in the article's text that they are no longer practicing Christians. Drumpler 06:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Regarding religious & sexual preference WP:LIVING requires more than verifiable sources. "The subject must publicly self identify with the belief or preference." No source has been brought forth, to date, in which Dylan states that he converted to Christianity. Conversion, as I understand it, implies abandoning one religion in favor of another. There is no evidence that I have seen in which Dylan says he left Judaism, only that he briefly embraced some Christian beliefs. Indeed, I believe that any and all individuals contained on this list who have not publicly stated their conversions should be removed from the list. Cleo123 07:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - As stated, the above section of WP:BLP only pertains to the application of category templates to an individual. In short: the above mentioned policy is in reference to categories, not lists. --C.Logan 07:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I see no significant difference between placing people in a religious "category" and placing them on a "list" which categorizes their religion. The policy I have cited appears to be the only place in which Wikipedia policy specifically addresses the proper handling of the religious and sexual preferences of living people. It seems that the spirit of the policy is quite clear. Cleo123 07:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - See it or not, the difference is real. The entire section which you stated discusses only one thing: don't place a category template onto an individual's biography unless reliable sources attest to it, it is mentioned in the article, and the individual has self identified with the title. For example, one might be tempted to add an "Anarchists" category template to the biography page of a revolutionary. However it may seem to the individual, a category should not be added unless the criterion mentioned have been satisfied (for example, the revolutionary stating "he is an anarchist". The dilemma with categories arises from the fact that they are often slapped onto articles with no support within the article whatsoever, and often with no factual basis. Categories are simple 'titles' which allow no explanation of their meaning, which is why the individual's article should do so. This is the gist of the section you cited. Lists, on the other hand, do allow for a detailed explanation of the 'criterion', and additionally, they permit space for an elaboration on a person-by-person basis. Allow me to cite the guideline for list content, and I'll make sure to include it's discussion of WP:BLP:
The verifiability policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references." The responsibility for providing a citation rests "with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In the case of edits lacking citations, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Also in that case it may be helpful for your co-editors to leave a clarifying note on the talk page, for instance indicating which sources you already checked. You can also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding <!-- before the section you want to comment out and --> after it, until reliable sources have been provided. When using this "commenting out" technique it is usually best to leave a clarifying note on the talk page.

However, in lists that involve living persons, the following policy related to Biographies of living persons applies:

Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.

The listing of Dylan satisfies the criterion presented here. The 'Category' issue would be relevant if the argument were "Whether or not to add a 'American Christian' category template on Dylan's bio". Remember: although rules and regulations may seem to apply to any situation when you loosen the terms, they (in fact) do not. --C.Logan 07:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I believe that you have misinterpreted policy here. Clearly, WP:BLP has set forth the more stringent criteria of "self identification" for religious and sexual preference, because these are essentially "private" matters. I interpret the special provisions regarding religious & sexual preferences as a sincere effort on Wikipedia's part to mitigate potential Invasion of Privacy litigation, which has become so common place against Internet media outlets. Clearly, the special exception for “private matters” exists to protect the subject of biographies, such as Bob Dylan, from being portrayed in a “false light”. We are all volunteers here and I understand that most editors do not view these matters through the prism of journalistic liability. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is liable for the actions of its amateur staff, which is why we must interpret all policies concerning living people in the most conservative light, in order to protect Wikipedia.

For everyone's edification, the law states:

"One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability for invasion of privacy, if:
1. The false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
2. The actor acted with malice -- had knowledge of or acted with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. See Section 652D of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
The tort of false light involves a "major misrepresentation" of a person's "character, history, activities or belief." See Gannett Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 2006 WL 2986459 at 3 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 20, 2006.)

In this particular situation, we know for a fact that

1. Bob Dylan has never publicly stated that he “converted” to Christianity. Nor has he ever stated that he left Judaism. Others have, but he hasn’t. There isn’t the legally required “self-identification” of a formal “conversion”.
2. He has publicly complained, on the record, that media outlets have “misrepresented” his religious journey.
3. It has been established that he is a practicing Jew. To place him on a list of converts to Christianity could create a “false” impression for readers.
4. The biographical subject has a history of litigation against media outlets that he believes have “misrepresented’ him.

Considering not only the above facts, but the very lengthy debate that has ensued over this matter in which multiple editors have objected to this publicly practicing Jew's inclusion on the list - there is some potential argument to be made for legal malice. Wikipedians do not have the excuse of ignorance or a detrimental reliance on secondary sources, because our own policy requires a “self identification”.

If one were to rely on User:C.Logan’s interpretation of policy, an editor could not place a Homosexuality tag on the biography of a married Christian Evangelical preacher without a public self identification from that preacher. According to his interpretation, it would be perfectly acceptable, however, to place that living person’s name on a list of homosexuals, as long as there was some secondary source for the information. (Like say, an interview with an alleged lover in a reliable source.) Clearly, this is completely illogical and a misinterpretation of the spirit in which WP:LIVING was crafted. I contend that the special requirements for self-identification regarding religious and sexual preferences are applicable not only to categories but to lists. I believe that Wikipedia policy dictates that not only Bob Dylan but any and all individuals who have not personally publicly identified themselves as converts to Christianity must be removed from this list.

Please, note that the preceding commentary is a discussion of law aimed at protecting Wikipedia from potential liability. It is not a legal threat of any kind and should not be mischaracterized by any editor involved with this discussion as such. Cleo123 04:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, 'Categories' are not the same as 'Lists'. The 'Categories' policy does not apply to 'Lists', not matter how you may believe it does. There are fundamental differences between the two arrangements, one of the most important being the fact that a category tag itself does not allow for any elaboration on the reasoning for it's placement. A category tag cannot tell someone what criterion was used when determining whether someone counts under a specific 'classification', while a list- which does not 'classify in the strictness of a single 'title'- can group by concepts and actions as well; that is to say, a list does not have the limitations of a category. As such, applying 'Category'-intended rules to a list is a bit like someone attempting to apply WP:BLP to the Edgar Allen Poe article. Anyone can inadvertently (or deliberately) stretch favorable policies when they believe these policies can support their argument, but this does not mean that the individual's exegesis is correct or even sound.
Again, I'm not entirely sure that your concerns about 'legal problems' are well placed- with Dylan being a public figure, WP:BLP says:
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.
As far as the above states, we should have far more concern about claiming that Dylan has 'returned to Judaism' then about any of the claims regarding his conversion. Additionally, Wikipedia makes it pretty clear that it guarantees no validity as to its content, and it would seem that the law is actually on Wikipedia's side, anyway.
Regarding your numbered points, these too are problematic.
  1. First, this does not apply to lists. Second, Moralis has explained below that you are holding to a definition of 'self-identification' which is far too strict to function. If this were the case, categories would be largely absent from 'living people' on Wikipedia.
  2. From what I've seen, he has continually rejected the 'label' of 'Born-Again'. He also rejects the label of 'Orthodox Jew', in the same response. This says little about his religious identification, and much more with his rejection of media categorization- namely, 'tabloid'-style terminology. Considering that we are working from reliable sources from Dylan experts (all of which he has add ample time to 'bring a case against'), I don't think we have any problems, especially considering that our current source status satisfies WP:BLP in general, and also for it's specific prescription for 'Lists'.
  3. When was this established? Is this in regard to the loose knot tied with tenuous strings of evidence? We're not sleuths, here. Please hold to the RS. Additionally, if this were even the case, it is the reader's responsibility to understand the criterion laid out within the introductory paragraph. Assuming, for a second, that you were to agree that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity back in the late 70's, what would be the 'false impression' presented by including him on a list of individuals who converted to Christianity, especially considering that his status is made clear in his description, and much more so considering that he is even placed in a separate section than the rest of the individuals in the list, with like individuals.
  4. Considering the above article, it would seem Wikipedia has little to fear from printing even deeply libelous material concerning public figures. Of course, this doesn't mean we should print such material, but again, we are relying on strong, reliable sources- which satisfy WP:BLP. I'm surprised that Dylan's 'media outlet' lawsuit fiasco hasn't yet extended to the works of his biographers, which have done more to spread these 'libelous accusations' than any Wikipedia article ever could.
Additionally, as your example does not quite parallel the current issue, the logic therein does not fully apply. However, as far as I'm concerned, the individual should be included on the list, with an appropriate placement given the conflicting nature of claims. For example, he could be placed within a controversial section with a sufficient elaboration on his situation. However, it would seem that your example would only extend in analogy to the 'early stages' of such an event occurring; in contrast, we are utilizing sources which look back twenty or so years and unwaveringly call his 'experience' a 'conversion to Christianity'. The matter, it would seem, is long past 'settled', whether you choose to believe the conclusions or not. Additionally, recall: 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.
Concerning your final statement, I wouldn't worry- I don't believe the policy against legal threats applies to your assertions. I believe they are mis-thought arguments, but they are made in earnest concern.--C.Logan 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
On the first I believe Moralis has also said if there is sufficient reason to doubt his conversion he should not be on, I think Cleo's position is that there is sufficient reason to doubt he converted even if you disagree with some phrasing she uses. I lean toward thinking he probably converted, but I'm not 100% certain. In addition if the claim of reconversion to Judaism is invalid I think that could just as easily support excluding him entirely from the list. If there is sufficient reason to doubt his conversion or reconversion then it might be safest to just not place him any conversion-related list. However I'm uncertain on the matter, I'm even uncertain about my uncertainty.--T. Anthony 07:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Despite my arguing points and my commitment to them, I too admit that we can't know these things for certain. However, the same could be said about many other historical and biographical claims, and these matters are hardly as contested on Wikipedia as this simple assertion about Bob Dylan which, as a matter of fact, has fairly universal acceptance among all the sources I've seen. That is to say, I've never seen a source which denies his conversion- even the Jewish sources which claim a 'reversion' acknowledge that a conversion took place. As far as I can tell, Bus stop has been the main contester of the claim, and despite his strong stance on the position, he has provided no sources to support his own assertions. I don't mind discussing the details, but it's hard to take his assertions seriously when it is simply 'his word' against the reliable sources being presented.
This is really not as controversial a claim as some editors make it out to be, and I've always assumed that this has partly been motivated by their own dislike of the listing rather than any relevant, reliable opinion on the matter. Our individual doubts about the claims of reliable sources realistically hold about as much weight on Wikipedia as that of a conspiracy theorist who believes the US President to be in cohorts with alien overlords bent on world destruction. If there is seriously no doubt from third party sources on the matter, at what point do our own criticisms begin to dictate the 'factuality' of sources and the article content derived from them (to which, it should be noted, Wikipedia makes no claim of validity)?--C.Logan 07:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
These are some good points. However as Encyclopedias and most media outlets I find on the matter say he converted, for a time, from 1979 to the early 1980s I think it's fair to say the notion is mainstream and not some kind of libel created by Wikipedia. Plus I think some of you are assuming that saying someone once "converted to Christianity" is inherently libel, but is that always so? Lastly WP:BLP states
  1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
  2. The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources
On 1 there is a man who states he was his pastor[4] and also
"Hilburn (LA Times) interjected, 'But you had already accepted Jesus in you heart?'
'Yeah, but I hadn't told anybody about it because I felt they would say, 'Aw, come on,' Dylan remembered. 'Most of the people I know don't believe that Jesus was resurrected, that He is alive. It's like he was just another prophet or something, one of many good people. That's not the way it was any longer for me."(Reprinted in Jewsweek[5] and Studio A: The Bob Dylan Reader)


On 2 Slow Train Coming being in CCM Presents: The 100 Greatest Albums in Christian Music could be taken as a sign the subject's belief in that period, even if half-Christian or whatever, was relevant to his public life.--T. Anthony 05:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope the above didn't sound too critical to you Cleo. I think in many ways you make a valid case and have a unique perspective worth thinking on.--T. Anthony 05:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
T. Anthony, although we do not always agree, I am very confident that all of your remarks are made in the best of faith and I do not interpret anything you say as criticism. With that said (LOL!), in pointing out the amiguity regarding his conversion (refering to him as half Christian) you prove my point. I do not, nor have I ever had any issue with statements regarding his alleged conversion being included in Dylan's biography. In that extended format Wikipedia has the editorial opportunity to mitigate and attribute statements directly to secondary sources. We do not have that same luxury on a "list" - which is definitive by nature. My point is that it doesn't matter what "secondary" sources have to say, where legal privacy matters are concerned. We must have a clear cut "self" identification. Sure, he said all kinds of things about Christ, but it is original research to extrapolate a "formal conversion" from those statements. Unfortunately, he never said "I've left Judaism. Now I'm a Christian." Haven't you ever heard of "Jews for Jesus"? Has anyone involved with this argument considered the notion that perhaps he only incorporated some Christian beliefs into his Judaic practice? The point is - we don't know - we cannot establish this as fact. I see the notion of a "formal conversion" as media speculation and interpretation that we cannot rely on with regard to something as definitive as a list. It's like that old game of telephone. The pastor, who may have an agenda says "he converted". He falls short of saying where and when it happened and denies being present - but he knows it happened. No one who was present will come forward as a witness, probably because it didn't really happen. If it did, there would be no fear in coming forward with such claims. The NY Times reports "rumors" that Dylan converted. Multiple media outlets report that "he said" or "she said" he converted. The next thing you know the Encyclopedia Britannica is saying he converted. The question is did he? He hasn't said so. Indeed, he appears to be saying the opposite. This is a living person. We must respect his right of privacy, plain and simple. If we care for Wikipedia, we will do our utmost to abide by its policies and take a conservative stance, protecting the best interests of this encyclopedia. Cleo123 06:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone involved with this argument considered the notion that perhaps he only incorporated some Christian beliefs into his Judaic practice?
Um, yeah, actually, I've mentioned this in a manner several times before. My argument, however, was based in the idea that Bus stop's assertion that "Judaism and Christianity are completely incompatible" is entirely false. Many individuals who come from a Jewish background who undergo a conversion to Christianity still find all old beliefs and concepts just as valid, in addition to rituals and practices. I've argued many times that Dylan, as far as I can see, is one of these individuals, and it would seem that the "Jewsweek" article pushes this idea as well. I've also made this argument many times in opposition to Bus stop's fallacious assertion that 'participation in Jewish rituals must mean Jewish'- it doesn't, and there are many "Jewish-Christian" groups which can attest to that. For the record, Jews for Jesus is a Christian group, so I'm not sure what you're saying. In fact, Jews for Jesus, Jewish Christians and Messianic Jews are all considered 'Christian' groups. Involvement with these groups would render an individual to be, essentially, a 'Christian' (that is, speaking in general, non-denominational terms). In fact, I believe we've even quoted a national panel of Rabbis on this before, who made it quite clear that despite any 'Jewish' labels found within the name, these groups are clearly 'Christian'. I'll see if I can find this reference in past discussions.
Additionally, keep in mind that you are still riding on the non-applicable 'Category' guidelines. Your intense criticism of the sources here could be harbored by any individual concerning any claim about a subject. However, all the edits and issues pertaining to this article have taken WP:BLP and all other relevant policies into consideration, and therefore I find it odd that non-applicable policies are being scraped along the bottom to find anything which might seem to remotely apply. If you honestly feel the need to do so, continue to bring up any policy which fits the flavor of the day, and I will see if there any issues related to it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not so sure you've considered the 'why's behind the participation of other editors, and I'm afraid that misconceptions might be fueling your participation.--C.Logan 07:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That is where the beauty of WP:V comes in: It doesn't matter if one's 0% certain or 100% certain Dylan converted and there's no need to debate it. It only matters if it's 100% certain reliable sources said he did. If some editors are truly concerned about self-identification and categories, personally I don't care for but would not if they wish to remove the "Jewish Musicians" category [[6]] from the Bob Dylan page on that basis: last I checked there hasn't been any self-identification on Dylan's part in 2007 that he is a Jewish Musician (as opposed to Dylan's status as a convert [which the WP:LIVING rule doesn't even apply here anyway and is detracting from the discussion, because we're not talking about a category] per http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/dylan_bob/artist.jhtml "At the conclusion of the tour in late 1978, Dylan announced that he was a born-again Christian, and he launched a series of Christian albums that following summer with Slow Train Coming." certainly seems like a self-identification assuming WP:LIVING even applied here) Years later he might've decided he no longer believes in the born-again thing, but that does not change history--Wikinews for up-to-date status on current events is the other way. Tendancer 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree per WP:RS, Encyclopedia Britannica states explicitly "he converted to Christianity in 1979." http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9031669/Bob-Dylan Numerous other sources christian, jewish, or neutral confirms a conversion did occur (e.g. http://www.bobdylan.com/etc/ajacobs.html, http://www.rockmine.com/BobBooks.html ...ad nauseum). It seems many editors here haven't read/don't follow WP:OR and frequently try to conduct original research, and insist on taking Dylan interviews and try to synthesize/interpret whether or not he converted--that willful neglect of WP:RS and WP:V contributes to this argument going round and round. Tendancer 20:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. Confirmed by Encyclopedias, press reports, leading biographies, Jewish sources, Dylan interviews, etc. etc. --and Dylan has never renounced that conversion:
  • "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." [[7]
  • 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[8]
  • 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 [9]
  • "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 15:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dylan Should Not Be Included

Dylan Isn't the Problem

  • Before we decide whether Dylan ought to be included, a larger question must be answered. What are the parameters of this list? Is it to include only those who have remained converts to Christianity, or should it also list people who are no longer converts to Christianity? I think the former. A "convert to Christianity" is a Christian. That's what this list ought to include, and no more. It's all in the name of the article. This is not a List of notable former converts to Christianity. Nick Graves 03:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That is right. The list needs to use simple parameters. As I see it, this is the list of those notable Christians who arrived at Christianity by way of conversion, as opposed to by way of birth. Bus stop 08:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this seems to be a point of debate and might be part of why people have occasionally argued at cross-purposes. I think for many editors here this is not a list concerning notable Christians who happen to have become Christian by conversion. Instead I think some take the position this is a list concerning notable Religious conversions with Christianity just what they converted to. Put more briefly I think you are emphasizing the "Christian" aspect alone, others are emphasizing the conversion aspect alone, and a third group is probably sort of placing both aspects equal.--T. Anthony 10:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I would agree to Bus stop's contention that birth should not be a qualifier for inclusion in this list. However, if we were to be fair and nonjudgemental, we would have to use the same parameters for inclusion in the lists of Jews as well. If Bus stop would agree to that, I think that at least part of the problem might be resolved immediately there. John Carter 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The renunciation or waning interest in a religious belief to which an individual had converted does not undo one's own conversion (if this were the List of Christians, the argument would be entirely valid; however, this list is concerned with the act of conversion, rather than continued participation).
There are other examples of lists on Wikipedia where the continued qualification of the parameters is not required, and the past tense is satisfactory for inclusion (essentially, though an individual did not continue in the endeavor which he initiated, the initiation and attempt/participation is as notable as another individual's lifelong participation). As long as it is made clear the current status of an individual (so that no confusion can arise), I don't really see the issue with including such individuals.
Dylan has been on this list from day one (with 'former' status noted), and no matter how some individuals would like to paint that fact, I believe it makes it quite clear that from the list's inception, it endeavored to note individuals who'd converted to Christianity. Dylan, in fact, was one of them, along with Duleep Singh (added shortly after Dylan) and Larry Flynt (from what I can see, added relatively recently). I can't quite figure out 'why' the current arrangement of the page hasn't resolved the discussion much. Essentially, it satisfies the arguments of both major parties.--C.Logan 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with much of what C.Logan said, in that, since Dylan was a Christian in the past, his name should be included on this page as a former convert. You can put it on a separate former convert article, but I think that would just be unneccessary and would cause an unneeded workload. Drumpler 06:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of language or maybe language ambiguity. The phrase "converts to Christianity" can be kind of a verb-preposition-subject whatever phrase as you seem to view it. In that case converts is the action with Christianity the subject. (Or maybe object, I'm weak on grammar) In that sense it's like "explorers in Antarctica." It's not necessary in such a description for the explorer to be actually in Antarctica now, although even there the phrase has some ambiguity, but that they were someone known for exploring in Antarctica. However "converts to Christianity" I think can also be seen as a description of a person. I say that my Dad is a convert to Catholicism because, although he no longer attends Mass, he still identifies as Catholic but was not one before age 20. If my Dad became Russian Orthodox, this wouldn't happen but I'm making a point, I would no longer call my Dad a "convert to Catholicism" or a Catholic convert. Possibly a rename could even help. Maybe "List of people who made notable conversions to Christianity." Then you can add anyone whose conversion was noted upon by reputable sources.--T. Anthony 07:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree with much of what Nick said, in principle. In practice I'm not sure this can be agreed to. Plus when I removed former converts from List of Catholic converts I started having a few doubts. For example take Ammon Hennacy. He rejected Catholicism in rather strong terms and said he only converted as solidarity to Dorothy Day. Still as a convert he was a significant writer for Catholic Worker. So a part of me was a bit uncertain if taking him out made sense as his conversion was historically significant to a Catholic movement. (Granted I can't remove him now because every edit on the list says something about spam blocker) Halldór Laxness was another, largely because Catholics are rare in Iceland so his conversion was newsworthy to them after a fashion. However I'd go for moving them all to "former Christians" over keeping them all as I think including former converts could lead to meaningless additions. Still, even though inconsistent, I'm almost tempted to include former converts if they were significant to the history of the faith they converted to. Lastly I think Dylan probably is the problem, but I think he should not be the problem.--T. Anthony 07:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Problems will, of course, arise when we apply standards which require a good measure of personal judgment. This is the main reason why I disagreed with the suggestions you had made earlier. Judging individuals by contributions or sincerity is essentially OR, and doubtless there will be disagreements with who stays and who goes. As far as I see it, the only possible situation would be all-or-nothing, i.e. include all the individuals who satisfy a parameter, indiscriminately, or do not include them at all. And seeing as to the fact that this is an encyclopedia, with the ultimate goal being to transmit information which could be relevant to others, I would rule in favor of inclusion- with clear delineation between the two groups, of course. We don't have real space concerns on Wikipedia, and the information is quite relevant to the subject, so the primary opposition to inclusion seems rooted in the 'motivations of editors' department. Any way, I should note that I find your mostly-neutral stance to be very helpful and conducive to discussion.--C.Logan 07:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I said I was tempted to think that. I realize it wouldn't work in practice for OR reasons. Still I don't think a more restrictive view has to be based on suspicion of motives. I took a more restrictive line for what I think were practical considerations and also because of how "convert to Christianity" is used as a term in itself. (Rather than a phrase regarding an action, see above)--T. Anthony 07:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The scope of this list was only broadened during the course of this dispute so that Bob Dylan’s name did not have to be removed from the list because as an editor pointed out, he's a practicing Jew. [10] The revised parameters are inconsistent with the more strictly defined, clear-cut criteria connected to the convert lists of other religious denominations on Wikipedia, that include only lasting conversions. I see no valid editorial reason why the Christianity list should receive special treatment not afforded to other religions featured on Wikipedia. I really do not understand why editors would not want this list to be as straightforward and clear cut as possible. What is to be gained by including individuals who ultimately left Christianity? To my mind, the potential harm of invading a person's privacy or presenting something potentially misleading about them far outweighs any benefit here. Can someone, please, explain what the benefit is to including controversial or fleeting conversions? I don't see it. Cleo123 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - On the contrary, seeing as to the fact that Dylan has remained present on the list throughout the course of it's existence, it would seem that the article's parameters have remained the same until a particular editor brought his problem with them to everyone's attention. Issues do not have to be dealt with and elaborated upon until a serious dispute over a matter arises, and it is stressful to me that the improvement and fleshing out of the article in response to the arguments raised is portrayed as a deceitful operation, in which the participants 'know' their guilt.
What is not straightforward about the arrangement of a list which displays individuals who converted to Christianity? Dylan is certainly among such individuals, and in concession to the opposing party, editors have even created a separate section so that no confusion may arise over the status of the individual (even though the description attached to the name has always noted the same). And you ask a good question: What is to be gained by including individuals who ultimately left Christianity?
Well, certainly not 'proselytizing points', as some editors may seem to believe. Considering that it is actually a pretty negative display for Christianity, the 'motivations' argument is pretty weak when you think about it. What is to be gained is the presentation of 'information', the long-forgotten gem of humanity's glory. We operate on this 'encyclopedia' to transmit 'information', and relevant information at that. What is to be gained by listing counties in Iowa? I'm afraid the answer is fundamentally the same.--C.Logan 08:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem that would be encountered if this list were to use simple parameters, or, to be more specific, were to use the existing parameters used by the Jewish list, is that pretty much every person in the Western world between the fall of the Roman Empire and, maybe, the beginning of the 1960's, would qualify as being from a Chrsitian culture. If we were to "cut and paste" the parameters for inclusion as a "Jew" in the Jewish lists, they would thus qualify as "Christians". I think that such lists would be basically useless, useless on the basis of length, and probably misrepresentative of several of the individuals included. On that basis, I think that trying to set roughly equivalent parameters for all the lists would be the best way to go. I also note that, right now, the lists for the two most directly similar lists, those of Christians and Muslims are more or less identical. This makes sense to me, as those cultures have and have had slightly more historically varied populations than Jewish culture. I acknowledge that there is cause for differentiation for the Jewish list, and have no objections to allowing that list some greater leeway than the others. But it is I believe a fundamentally flawed and counterproductive argument to try to compare lists which, by the nature of the people listed and the varied natures of the religions and cultures being discussed, will have at least potentially inherently different parameters. John Carter 14:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
How come when an user modified the parameters to placate the opposing camp's concerns that former converts weren't been made clear; some from the opposing camp--rather than recognize that as a concession and good-will gesture to find a consensus, took the approach that it must be a diabolical ploy to keep Dylan on the list? Also I wasn't privy to the early parts of the discussion, does anyone know where is the WP:OR and WP:V-conforming sources that cite Dylan is in 2007, currently, a "practicing Jew"--which has been presented as fact here? I suspect it's probably true, but just want to see the source for peace of mind--as some of us here seem very adamant about WP:BLP and libel concerns, and we wouldn't want to make that claim he's Jewish if the most recent (albeit dated) secondary source described him as subscribing "to no organized religion." Tendancer 21:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Good question- seeing things like that being 'spun' against those who were doing to to be generally helpful can be distressing (and it makes individuals like myself overly cautious of our actions, as it is easy to 'misrepresent' or 'misinterpret'- for example, see the recent accusation of 'vandalism' against me, below). And concerning the sources, there are, as far as I know, no 'reliable', 'non-biased' sources- I've seen two or so sites which claim as such, and every one of these sites is a Jewish youth or culture page. This doesn't mean that they're 'lying', but that was the response from 'the other side' when Christian sites were presented with mentions of the initial conversion- which, thankfully, was a helpful scrutiny, as it led me to transcribe the biographies which satisfy policy. It should be noted that one of the apparently 'Jewish' sites, upon closer inspection, actually argued against his return to Judaism. As far as I can see, there are no 'third-party' sources which claim his reversion, but I welcome them. While John Carter generally believes Dylan to be a practicing view, I see no strong evidence to suggest such. I picked up a Rolling Stone about a month ago, and they'd interviewed him again, and it seemed fairly clear that he ascribes to no particular religion- at least, that's how it seemed to me.--C.Logan 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Whether it means reconversion or not it seems true that he did play harmonica at some Lubavitcher telethon according to the New Yorker and Beliefnet Although Martin Sheen and Whoopi Goldberg I guess also appeared on it[11] and neither is Jewish. (Granted Whoopi might have some vague Jewish ancestry, and I believe she expressed some closeness to the Jewish community, but she is not of any religion) Trying to find his religion on sources outside Wikipedia makes me more sympathetic of confusions here. Many other sources seem to have people arguing "he is still Christian; He is no longer Christian; He never was Christian; He is a mix of religions but never belonged to any of them; He has decided against saying anything clear on the matter (this seems to be common); His religion is music; I don't know what he is."--T. Anthony 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

C. Logan: That ex-converts had been in the list for a long time does not set a binding precedent for continued inclusion. My argument is a purely linguistic one: That the contents of an article ought to match the name of the article. The name of this article is "List of notable converts to Christianity." Would someone who converted to Christianity, but who then left the faith call themselves a "convert to Christianity"? Of course not. That's why I don't think they belong here.

T. Anthony: Your suggestion of changing the name to "List of people who made notable conversions to Christianity" would address my linguistic objection to including ex-converts in a list of converts. The name change would shift the natural focus of the list from a current identity as a Christian convert to the act of conversion, . My objection to this is that it's a rather convoluted name change made for the sake of including just 2 or 3 additional people. It is also inconsistent with other convert lists. Nick Graves 15:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some valid points here. I do see a few questions.
  • (1) Would be better off adapting the terms of other lists, which are sometimes questioned as much (if not as frequently) than those of this list, or would we be better off trying to decide on possibly the "best" terms for inclusion in all such lists and alter them all accordingly?
  • (2) If we were to do adopt terms of other lists, which list would, by the nature of their subjects, be most directly comparable to this one?
  • (3) This may be seen as being subjective, and I can see that opinion. However, I personally do not see that the word "convert" necessarily includes not only a specific, somewhat unarguable, "conversion" in the past, but must also mean that the person is still notably an adherent of that faith. I guess what I'm saying is I have never seen a specific definition of the word "convert" which uses the word "IS" in a sense which explicitly and pointedly demands that the "conversion" must be ongoing. Particularly in terms of living people, I can see having such a parameter being potentially hugely problematic. Would someone was described as a Jain and then found to have committed an act of violence, or even eaten a hamburger, necessarily be removed from the list of Jains, on the basis of his having committed an act which is clearly out of step with that faith's stated beliefs? If the answer is yes to that, and any other questions regarding observance of religious principles, wouldn't the lists become hugely problematic? Also, I regret to say that I think it is possible that many people, particularly those who embrace one or more of the new religious movements, will often see themselves as still believing in the "god" they worshipped before, just in a "newer" or "more updated" way. Many members of the Unification Church, for example, might still describe themselves as Christians. Certainly, the majority of Christianity would see Mormonism as being "other" than Christianity, despite that church's own claim to the name. In the case of Bob Dylan in particular, while his more recent actions have indicated more active involvement in Judaism, he has never (that I know of) made a statement specifically denying any Christian belief. I think we would be violating WP:BLP to make such a statement which is not clearly supported by evidence. And, again, his stated belief in both the "validity" of the New Testament, and apparent citation of the coming of a second, possibly false, Messiah, maybe as per the Antichrist in the Apocalypse of John, can be seen as reasonably calling into question whether he has abandoned Christianity, or has maybe created a personal syncretion of it and Judaism, which might not qualify as "leaving" Christianity. John Carter 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (1) I'm not sure. 1 and 2 also seem directly related to all skip to 2
  • (2) I would guess that List of notable converts to Islam is the most analogous. It's also concerning a large "root religion." (Rather than a denominational or "branch" one like say List of Catholic converts) It's also dealing with a proselytizing/universalizing religion. (Universalizing is not the same as Universalist, I've noticed some confusion on Wikipedia about this. Universalizing basically just mean it deems itself applicable to any culture, not that everyone can go to heaven/Nirvana/whatever if they convert) It's had a fair share of controversy though in its own right. Not to be controversial but it does not include former converts, you won't see Mathieu Kérékou on it for example, so far as I can recall.--T. Anthony 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (3) I understand your position, but "convert to Christianity" is used as a describer of a person. It's like what "immigrant" is to "immigrate", "convert" is to "conversion." If you put someone who moved back to Mexico in Category:Mexican immigrants to Canada I could see some confusion even though categories often don't differentiate past to present situations. As for cases where a person claims a dual religious outlook I would say that this is, so far, only an issue with the Confucian section and I added that fairly recently. Traditionally Christianity is exclusive and does not believe you can be Christian plus some other religion. When you get into Chinese philosophies, like Confucianism and to a lesser extent Taoism, it gets a bit murkier. Several Christian denominations, including even Catholics, believe you can be Confucian (to an extent) while being Christian as Confucianism is deemed to be primarily a philosophy. (This is similar to how there are Orthodoxers, Catholics, Evangelicals, etc who can claim to be libertarian even though this wouldn't entirely seem to fit the religion)--T. Anthony 20:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
To Nick: I'm not arguing that the long-running state of the article has any binding power over the possibilities of future changes. I'm simply elaborating on the situation to dispel the illusion that a group of editors waltzed in and changed everything simply so that they could stuff a few more names on the list. 2 of the 3 individuals (sans Flynt) have been on the list for quite some time, and there was never really an issue with the inclusion of such names, despite the fact that Dylan and Duleep's entries clearly noted their later faith situations. There was general acceptance for such names to be included on the list, and right or wrong, the listing has not been a serious problem, as far as I know, until the beginning of this discussion.
Concerning the list name, I believe that a few users are considering the grammar of the list almost biblically. The grammar and title of a list is not the be-all, end-all determining factor in deciding what is on the list. Concerning the naming of lists, the list guideline has this to say:
Stand-alone lists are a type of article. All articles should include a lead section, and stand-alone lists are no exception. Even when the meaning of the page's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes the list, as well as the criteria for inclusion in the list.
If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."
Therefore, it would seem that the title itself does not necessarily have to sum up the contents of the list to a tee. The introductory paragraph holds such a duty. Indeed, many lists have a series of rather complex parameters listed in the introduction (for example, the oft-cited List of notable converts to Judaism; the titles of these lists do not have to make the parameters explicit- that is, as long as the title generally describes the listing criterion to a point, the introductory paragraph can further elaborate. I don't see as much of a problem with the title, because I believe it is referring to the occurrences from a 'timeless' position, not from a 'retrospective' standpoint. That is to say, when determining an individual, the consideration is this: "Did he convert to Christianity?"
This consideration arises from the fact that life events are not merely overwritten by later decisions. I believe that we should treat 'historical' events (i.e. events deeply rooted at a point of time, in a persons life) with permanence when considering a list which intends to transmit useful information (the goal of an encyclopedia, anyway), and therefore we should not assume a position in which an event might be 'erased' from record because of a change of conditions at a later time (and in the case of Dylan, it is apparent that his situation post-conversion is not even clear), especially when such a position is not necessary, or is based on tenuous considerations.
It should be noted, though, that I do believe your issue with the title is a relevant one, but it should not be a hinge to any sort of argument we're going to have here. The format of the title is a minor issue in comparison to the community's opinion on the criterion itself. If we were to consider a 'title change', I would see List of people who have converted to Christianity would be a good 'rephrasing' of your above suggestion, although it's very wordy- and that's another reason why I believe the title should work in favor of brevity, as the text within the article can flesh out the concept when the title does not.--C.Logan 16:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit wordy, but that sometimes seems to be needed to avoid dispute on religion lists. See List of groups referred to as cults or List of people who have been considered deities. (Both are very poor lists, but you get the picture)--T. Anthony 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks Nick for presenting a reasonable (and concise) anti-inclusion argument (compared to e.g. "Dylan shouldn't be included because he never said explicitly "I converted"). This discussion unfortunately dwells more into subjective interpretations--but encyclopedic writing is understood to take on a historical perspective. Creating e.g. a "former" list (and I understand such lists already exist, whether or not they should on WP) and hence requiring editors to constantly pop one off and stack onto the other and monitor the current beliefs of each individual on each list just seems not-so-encyclopedic. And why are the options mutually exclusive--Bob Dylan is a well-known convert to Christianity and as a well-known former convert, then maybe he belongs on both. Just my take. Tendancer 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Saying that Dylan shouldn't be listed because he never said "I converted" is a nonsense as do you think most of those people in this list or other list ever explicity said that? No, reliable sources indicating conversion are what must be relied upon and unfortunately we have no reliable source that Dylan "reconverted" to Judaism as this source is clearly not a reliable source. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm dealing with this here rather than at the vote as that would be inappropriate. Please do not accuse me of bullying that was not my intent. I just want a bit more of a wait, maybe less than a day or two, before solidly including the formers section in full. If you don't agree with that okay, but I'm not attacking you or bullying you and I find that an offensive suggestion. Also anyone here who wishes should see the bottom of the page. Thank you for your time.--T. Anthony 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed on that. Everyone should take a five-minute break and come up with a few ideas for improvement. You know I've supported inclusion since the very first edit (and I believe I was the first person to argue for inclusion, anyway), but there's no need to bust out of the gates with this. There's really no satisfaction in resolution if we're going to be drastic about it. T. Anthony is trying to be reasonable about this, and I find his treatment of the issue to be mostly in order.--C.Logan 12:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I archived a bunch, which I found was already in the archive, I hope that's okay.--T. Anthony 12:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Dylan was born Jewish. There is no such thing as a Jew reconverting to Judaism. Bus stop 09:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You're half right- the process is most objectively (and more favorably) called reversion. However, the meaning of the two is pretty much the same- reversion simply sounds better. Observe:
  • reconversion - To undergo or cause to undergo conversion to a previous state or condition.
  • reversion - A return to a former condition, belief, or interest.
The two terms mean, essentially, the same thing, but far more people would call Dylan's experience (if an actual return to Judaism did, in fact, occur) a reversion. I, too, favor the term. --C.Logan 09:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Just catching up on the discussions...I can agree with T. Anthony's suggestion of e.g. changing the name to "List of people who made notable conversions to Christianity". Other lists aren't named the same way but perhaps they should be so: I think that would shift the emphasis/ambiguity from the individuals to the act of conversion itself, and then this would be a useful list/cross-reference for other articles such as e.g. religious converts and Christianization. Tendancer 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd actually think you might even be able to drop the "notable" part. Lists really aren't supposed to have notable if you can avoid it.--T. Anthony 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's a thought - rather than trying to change the article's title, manipulate its parameters and place disclaimers all over it - why not simply do the right thing here? Take Dylan and any one else who does not belong off of this list! It's obvious from all the manipulation of the article that has occurred during the course of this debate, that User:Metzenberg and User:Bus stop have presented a valid argument in the case of Bob Dylan. Since then, several other editors have come forward objecting to many other names included on this list. The fact that editors on the other side of this argument continue to engage in discourse as to how they can "change the article" to make the offending material fit is an acknowlegement of the problem which clearly exists. Now it seems that editors are contemplating changing the parameters of other convert lists on Wikipedia to somehow mitigate what I see as the wrong doing here. I see that there has been edit warring in the last few hours over the "This is a list of Jews tag" on the List of notable converts to Judaism list. This is completely unacceptable behavior. The debate on this page has caused more than its fair share of disruption to Wikipedia's community. Now it seems that editors plan to extend the battle outwards to all other religious denominations on Wikipedia. It is time for this nonsense to end, as it is disrupting Wikipedia as a whole. It is time to stop trying to change the article so that certain individuals can still be included. Such behavior is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. We do not change parameters for this or any other article so that our point of view can prevail. Policy dictates the immediate removal of misinformation about living people. This is unreasonable editorial behavior. It's time to give it up, take anyone who doesn't belong off the list and do the right thing by Wikipedia. Cleo123 06:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure if any individual who has been seriously considering the chain of events surrounding this article and viewing them through neutra-vision goggles can take the presentation given in the above comment seriously. The arguments and happenings can be 'spun' whichever way the commenter would like to 'spin' them, but this does not make any of it 'true', save for those who are willing to gobble up biased, non-AGF-ified accounts of the discussion. If this is truly how you view the state of the discussion, then I am very truly sorry.
Though it may be hard to believe, you and those who agree with you have no monopoly on 'truth'. In fact, I believe the discussion has gone on for such a long time because one side is only assessing encyclopedic considerations while the other side prefers to argue a case of tampering and proselytization, along with similar concerns. With this in mind, the former group sees the latter's arguments as baseless, fruitless and biased, and the latter group tends to characterize the opposing editors as the 'proselytizers' by the simple fact of their disagreement with the concerns of the latter.
As such, any earnest attempts by the former group to improve and address the concerns of the latter group while maintaining the integrity of the article's presentation seem to have been misrepresented (possibly a result of misunderstanding) by the latter group as being some sort of 'knowing admission of guilt'.
When, for example, a neighbor harasses you by claiming that you are playing music at a high volume during the evening "out of spite" of him, the fact that you would then be more mindful of his concerns and would lower your listening volume in the future is not an admission of guilt on your behalf, but merely a consideration of another individual's opinion- and at the very least, such concession is also done for the simple hope of resolution.
Indeed, just as there is no 'right' or 'wrong' concerning the determination of parameters and article content, it is merely a matter of two opinions meeting in a discussion; there is not one side which is 'right' and another which is 'wrong', though I've seen it continually portrayed in this manner (and by both sides, for that matter).
The fact that users who are opposed to you actually consider your concerns is, in fact, far more of a testament to their goodwill and willingness as editors to work with others than a cry of 'guilty conscience' concerning their actions. As such, it would be a much better show to assume good faith about the concerns and motivations of other users.--C.Logan 08:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • THis is a list of notable conversions. The historical validity and import of the conversion remains unchanged. Dylan obviously qualifies. We can verify that a conversion took place, but can not verify day-to-day religious beliefs or practice. That would be OR. Of course, if verifiable later information arises, footnotes can be used. In the Dylan case, there is no evidence that he renounced his conversion and/or adopted another religion. --JJay 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
He need not renounce anything. And there is no source for formal conversion. There are sources using the term conversion, and they are relative to 1979. That allows Wikipedia to use the term conversion in relation to Dylan, in relation to 1979. Those sources do not establish factuality. As we see at WP:VERIFY, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The terms convert and conversion lack sources relative to Dylan, relative to 2007. Bus stop 09:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
When one moves from a point A to a point B, one must certainly move back to point A to be considered at point A. One can not move to point B and be assumed to be at point A without evidence of him moving back to that point. 1979 or 2007, if he converted, there must be a sign or an event which signifies real renunciation of his conversion- we can not say he is back at point A without evidence of the transition back from point B.
If a source claims that he converted to Christianity (and this is not merely an if- the sources do say this), then he is essentially considered to have converted to Christianity until a form of renunciation has taken place. We can not simply speculate based on ritual involvement, because as common sense dictates and as the sources themselves state, many Christians from a Jewish background hold greatly to their Jewish roots and participate regularly in Jewish ceremonies.
The sources which we have at hand do not, at any point, express in convinced terms that his involvement with Jewish organizations was any more than mere 'study', and at that, the sources claim it to be from a Christian perspective (and honestly, I would be rather interested to study with such a group myself, if you don't mind my opinion).--C.Logan 10:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rockwell, John (1979-09-02). "Dylan and Morrison in a Religious Vein". New York Times. p. d20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Removing or altering other people's comments

For the third time now comments of mine on this talk page have been removed, moved or altered by editors on the other side of this dispute.[12] I believe I've made it very clear above that I do mind people altering my remarks. I consider it very disrespectful and I would appreciate it if this sort of behavior would stop. Cleo123 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleo, your vote, which essentially summarizes the argument you have already presented in the section in which you had placed it, belongs in the "Dylan Should Not Be Included" section. It makes little sense to vote if you're not going to place the vote in the proper section; additionally, I find it unusual that when I moved your misplaced vote (which doesn't hold any necessary place in the above position) with a cautionary note about my reasons, you cry: vandalism. There's a difference between 'moving a comment to be an ass', and 'moving a comment because it belongs in another section'. I can assure you that I was not trying to piss you off; rather I was setting things in proper order. --C.Logan 08:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I placed my comment where I placed it quite deliberately. I did not want my remarks to be seperated from each other. I do not see any place where the mediator sets forth the format you describe. Had you asked me, rather than simply moving and rewriting my comment, I would have gladly explained myself. It's nice to hear that you "are not trying to piss me off". An appology would be more effective in convincing me, rather than the criticism you have offered above.Cleo123 08:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well of course I apologize for moving your comment. I noted that I had moved it with a clear explanation as to why, so I would very much appreciate it if you weren't so quick to openly accuse me of 'vandalizing' it, as I was acting in good faith.
It would seem that the creation of the headings entitled Dylan should be included, Dylan should not be included and Dylan isn't the problem makes the format of the mediation discussion clear: A vote of "agreement" under the heading which describes the editor's opinion. By this logic, "disagreeing" to Dylan should be included is the same as "agreeing" to Dylan should not be included- save that it can be a little more confusing to tally, and it lumps all the discussion into one giant section, while there remains a sub-section which has not received any support (and one in which I felt your vote properly belonged). Therefore, I believe we should feel free to comment in all the sub-sections, but we should vote (in agreement) only under the headings which reflect our argument/stance. --C.Logan 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I would also reming Cleo that the repeated use of prejudicial language, one of that user's possibly strongest weaknesses, is itself a violation of the rules of discussion. To repeatedly use the word "vandalism" to describe removing comments which, by the guidelines of talk pages, should never have been there in the first place is a clear abuse of the term. If the user wishes comments to remain intact, I strongly suggest that they follow the guidelines of comments for talk pages, so there will be no reason to remove them. John Carter 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there is plenty of vandalism. What is wrong with the use of the word vandalism to describe vandalism? And it is not Cleo123 who is committing the vandalism. Bus stop 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and there is also a great deal of use of intentionally emotionally loaded language. In that regard, Cleo is probably one of the most regular and frequent abusers of talk page guidelines. John Carter 14:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No, those who vandalize Talk pages, or other parts of Wikipedia, are the primary problem, not those who protest acts of vandalism. Bus stop 14:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I would only note that your failure to restore all of the content you rather clumsily, and apparently unthinkingly, removed when you restored content from the archive means that, according to your own comment above, You are at least part of the "primary problem". John Carter 16:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
How about this... everyone refrain from refactoring/editing each others comments and someone (perhaps the mediator) can go through this page and archive some of the older threads that don't have comments this month... just to keep things easier to read. I would also remind everyone to comment on the edits, not the editor. There is quite a bit of commenting here that is frankly doesn't belong on an article talkpage.--Isotope23 14:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

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)

Relevant comments might be available at Archive 4:May 22, 2007-June 7, 2007--T. Anthony 12:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral, sloppy restoration of content of recently archived page

I note that User:Bus stop has just acted against a proposal made by the mediator, that all content which was related to threads begun before his start, be archived. He specifically made this request to give everyone a "fresh start" as it were and to greatly reduce the length of the page. Bus stop has not only unilaterally decided that his own wish to have all the archives still active took priority over the request of the mediator which at least one person, myself, specifically agreed to, he has also problematically removed any comments made since the archiving by his rather slapdash restoration of content. I believe this sort of action is very specifically against the expressed wishes of Isotope23 above. On that basis, I am formally requesting Bus stop to undue the damage resulting from his rather poorly thought through unilateral action. As the person who made the action, it is I believe incumbent upon him, and him alone, to undue the damage resulting from same. John Carter 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A "fresh start" is by mentally committing to a fresh start. The material above is there for reference purposes only. Bus stop 16:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
A link to the archive of it should be all that's needed for reference purposes. In addition to that this talk:page is too long and is need of an archive anyway.--T. Anthony 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine. I note however you have still to reverse the effective deletion of comments made subsequently. Please address this issue, created by your own actions, by restoring the content you effectively deleted. John Carter 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Good work so far on undoing the damage you caused. However, it isn't complete yet. John Carter 16:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Archives exist for point of reference. What is the serious argument about the text being moved to an archive? Seriously, so much of the above text is useless about 99.9% of the time, as we primarily focus on the currently active sections. What is the the harm in moving these dead sections into an archive, where anyone who needs to 'reference' them can feel free to do so? It seems to be more of a hindrance than anything- the page is currently over 500,000 bytes in size. Is this really necessary?
We need to clean house and put most of this stuff into storage. When you need it, you can find it there. --C.Logan 16:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Out of charity, and I admit impatience, I have restored the three additional comments User:Bus stop evidently didn't think were worth restoring after he unilaterally "restored" earlier content. I strongly urge that user to think before acting, as his actions in this case cast him in a far from beneficial light. John Carter 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
John, you may have missed the edit in which Bus stop actually restored the comments he had deleted. You re-added the comments, when they were already present. I've removed them, and you should note the oversight. --C.Logan 17:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
So noted. I have restored the comment relating to my having archived the page, which he did not restore, and the link to the newly created fourth archive, which he also removed. I sincerely hope that this sort of impulsive, self-motivated activity on the part of all editors becomes something that we see less of from this point forward. John Carter 18:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the archiving of this page, I have decided not to touch it, for the sake of remaining neutral and uninvolved in that little... dispute. However, due to some issues which have been made known to me privately, I would like to point out the following to User:Bus stop:

The terms "contrived" and "vandal" both carry very negative connotations. Whether you believe yourself to be correct or not (and you very well may be correct) the use of those terms in reference to other members of this discussion is not really assuming good faith. I haven't seen any obvious vandalism here- keep in mind that I started at Wikipedia fighting vandalism, and only later ventured out into other parts of the community- but, if you feel that another user is out of line, it would be more productive toward our goals to approach the situation carefully and assuming that the other user had made a mistake, rather than assuming that they're acting out of malice or spite. Or, if you're really concerned, talk to me privately (my email address, to reiterate, is chance@macolytes.com, and I can often be reached on IRC as Moralis in #wikipedia).

The reason I bring this up: reading through backscroll, and this is after the archive, I see the phrase "contrived parameters" a lot. Now, when I see that, what I think people are being accused of is inventing reasons to include Bob Dylan on this list. I can't imagine why anyone would invent a reason to have him on the list. Why would someone want to include him on this list if they didn't believe he belonged here? What could that accomplish? Meanwhile, when people are accused, they tend to react defensively, which raises the overall tension level and makes it harder to proceed with discussion overall. So... yeah, please remember to WP:AGF. Behold, my signature: --Moralis 05:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought - instead of unilaterally buying into the "private communications" eminating from one side of this dispute, I suggest that you carefully review the history of harrassment in this matter. User:Bus stop is entirely correct in calling vandalism, vandalism. I assure you that User:C.Logan was not attempting to "do me any favors". If he were he would have pointed out what he seems to see as "my error" politely on the page, rather than re-writing and moving my comments. He knows, full well, that I have objected to such behavior in the past. You do not know the history here and you should assume good faith on User:Bus stop's part. He was only trying to defend me, as he has watched me be repeatedly victimized by certain editors, simply because I share some of his views. I believe you have misjudged him. He may speak a bit to dramatically at times, but given the fact that he has endured nearly two solid months of harrassment - for sticking to his principles, that's somewhat understandable. I would suggest that you review the history more closely before passing any sort of judgement. I will also point out that personal insults made by User:Warlordjohncarter such as referring to other editors as the "Mad Hatter" the "Dead Head Duo" and "Bus stard's" have far more negative connotations than User:Bus stop's use of words like "contrived" and "vandalism". Next time you scroll, don't scroll too quickly. You may also want to take a gander at User:Bus stop's and my own talk page before jumping to any conclusions about who the aggressors are in this situation. Cleo123 08:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I would be enlightened to know how the movement of a vote, which did not hold any context within its placement, to the proper position for votes against Bob Dylan's inclusion is an act of "vandalism". Additionally, before I'm given any more business about 'changing' your comment, it would make little sense (and would be more harmful to your original intention) if I moved the comment which stated "Disagree" under the heading with which you are obviously in agreement without changing it.
I'd pointed out your error in placement when I'd boldly made the change (and in polite language, I believe) and, of course, you reserve the right to undo any changes made. However, the cries of vandalism, even considering the reasoning which I publicly presented to avoid any confusion regarding my actions, is apparent evidence of a lack of good faith in the editors involved.
Indeed, I would encourage the moderator to examine as much of the dialogue as possible- a frightening proposition, considering the volume- and to scrutinize all the text accordingly. I doubt that anyone can honestly be considered 'innocent' of misdoings in the argument, save for more recent individuals such as T.Anthony. As such, users such as Cleo should keep this in mind before calling the kettle black. I'm pretty tired of the whole 'incivility' issue, because it's something which everyone shares a little bit of guilt in. A quickness to accuse others is more of an offense than any harsh words that were spilled weeks ago. Can we please focus on the discussion?
As far as I'm concerned, you should realize amidst the pleas for Bus stop's innocence in the discussion, that we have just as much reason to doubt the goodwill of Bus stop's motivations and actions as you do to doubt ours. Therefore, if you're really going to be so outspoken for such an editor, then it should be natural that you would practice the same concerning editors who are opposed to your points. Let's all try to be fair with our recommendations, shall we?
How about this: from this point forward, when an individual feels an offense has been made against him/her, they can politely bring it up in a response to the user's comment, while assuming good faith on the part of the user who has done offending action. In this way, possible mistakes of phraseology, misunderstandings of tone, and simple absent-minded entering might not be construed as a calculated offense.
If we do not begin to assume good faith, we will reach a point where typos are angrily tossed around as evidence of an editor's wickedness, and this will soon turn into a witch trial of sorts. Lets remember: everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Let's think that way.--C.Logan 09:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Next Topic of Discussion

Having read your responses, I believe I have a fairly solid understanding of what's been going on here and of what we're trying to sort out. That said, there are a few things I would like to point out right now that I believe are common-sensical, but are being pointed out by one side in ways that the other does not seem to understand. I hope that nobody will consider this partisanship; I'm still sitting pretty uncomfortably on the fence. Maybe somebody could build a chair up here? Posts are pointy.

  • WP:LIVING requires that the subject of an article or statement self-identify with a religion. Dylan would not have to explicitly state, "I am converting to Christianity" in order to be self-identifying himself with Christianity. Self-identification merely means demonstrating that he subscribes to the ideas of the religion. If we require every minute detail on Wikipedia to be supported by a very specific source, the encyclopedia will probably have to be wiped and started from scratch ;-)
  • WP:LIVING, when it refers to Categories, is referring to Categories with a capital "C", as in Wikipedia categories that articles can be added to with the [[Category]] feature. This is probably because if an article is added to a category, it's impossible for your everyday reader (i.e. non-Wikipedian) to ascertain why that article has been added to a category. In the instance of this list, it should be possible for a reader to determine at least a basic set of criterion that all the folks listed have met, beyond simply having been Christian at some point. This brings me to my next point:
  • WP:LIVING demands that we err on the side of caution. While it is true that the "categories" argument probably doesn't apply here, it is also true that if there is any reason to doubt that Dylan ever really converted to Christianity, it is inappropriate to have him on the list for policy and liability reasons. Now, in order to avoid becoming policy-centric, and in the interests of coming to an overall consensus, I think it's time we started building some concrete parameters for this list. Before we can do that, we need to recognize that we aren't all operating under the same definitions of "Christian" or "convert." So:
  • Below, I'd like everyone to briefly define those words for the group, in their own words. Please refrain from just endorsing somebody else's definition. This isn't a vote. The ultimate goal is to come to a compromise definition for those words. Here, have some sections. --Moralis 05:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Word "Convert" Means:

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)
  • Someone who left one faith in favor of another. Cleo123 06:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As a noun, someone who has made a shift in personal beliefs from one position to another position. As a verb, the shifting of one's own beliefs from one position to another position. --C.Logan 07:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As a noun, someone whose beliefs have or had previously undergone a change such that the generic term which used to describe them (Christian, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, etc.) is later no longer adequate to describe their beliefs. As a verb, the incidence of such a change in beliefs. I should note that I would myself only use such a word provided there were some generally clear outside evidence of such a change, like attendance in services, organizations, and the like. John Carter 17:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In the subjective sense, all of the above. In the wikipedia sense, a verifiable WP:RS secondary source used the word to describe an individual.--JJay 20:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone who, according to reliable sources, was once irreligious or had identified themselves as adherents of a particular religion, who latterly identified themselves as adherents of another religion, and remained in said religion until the present or the time of their death. Nick Graves 04:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • To take up a new faith. We use it colloquially e.g. "Linux ? - I'm a convert" and I feel the key factor is that it is a matter of faith. Thus it is hard to say "Converted to Atheism" as there are few if any articles of faith in Atheism but we can easily use this for religions. We would have to know what they were to start with to recognise that a change had taken place e.g. "Convert from Windows in 1997", though they may not have said that they used Windows before that date that they claimed to use Linux (in my example). Ttiotsw 08:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoever reliable sources called a "convert", so it's beyond subjective interpretations and definitions per one of three non-negotiable policies WP:V (which of course states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.") This in turn avoids use of "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories" prohibited by other non-negotiable policy WP:NOR. Tendancer 16:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In the context of this article, a "convert" is a noun, and it refers to a person who converted from one religion to another... that is, they changed their religious faith. There is, and should not be, any "present" time frame for this definition, however. A "List of Kings of England" does not require that all members are currently ruling at the time the list is compiled, or at the constantly changing "current" time frame that might apply at the time a particular reader looks at the page. We are documenting historical occurances, not the "present" state of afairs. Clarifying note: I think a religious "convert" (which is what this list is all about) must be a person who has turned away from a previous religious faith, which casts serious doubt on the inclusion of former "athiests," "agnostics," or "irreligious persons" on the list. Presumably all humans are born without faith or religion, so if we include all people who came to Christianity from a state of "no faith," then we would have to include everyone who ever embraced Christianity, even if they did it at the age of two, in a household led by a Baptist Minister. I'd say, if a person once identified themselves as a member of some religion, then later embraced a different religious faith, then they are the clear and classic case of a "convert." zadignose 04:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Word "Christian" Means:

Any group or individual recognized by such due to belief in certain fundamental creeds, beliefs and mode of practice: the teachings of Jesus, the Bible, identification with similar Christian sects, etc. Likewise, those who are popularly recognized as such (for example, many Protestant Christian groups may not recognize Catholicism or Mormonism as being Christian, as they do not agree with essential Protestant creeds; however, scholars and even the group itself might identify itself as such because of what they do have in common with the rest of Christianity. This would also include even "cultic" religious groups). Drumpler 06:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The more I think on it, the more I think this is going to be exceedingly difficult. Who even is Christian has been a subject of debate for over 19 centuries. In the case of some "former converts" we have temporary conversions that may have just been to get ahead in Western society like Singh. We also have people like Dylan who said they believed in Jesus's resurrection and that he was greater than any prophet, but also tended to reject the idea he was "a member of any church or synagogue." I think this might be part of why I leaned against including former converts. (Although personally I think Dylan was Christian for a time I can't "prove it without a shadow of a doubt" and there's good reasons for having that high a standard)--T. Anthony 06:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Even the debate "who is a Jew" is difficult, as you have not only Orthodox Jews, but Karaite Jews, Messianic Jews, Chasidic Jews, etc. This shouldn't be a matter of polemic and the difficult is in ascertaining what one group says about another. I learn more toward a scholarly classification of "Christian" and "non-Christian" and even "Jew" and "non-Jew". It makes it easier that way. Drumpler 06:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I did the above before I realized this was a function of the mediation. Now before I start on what Christian means I'm going to have to admit that on a personal theological level I have a stricter view of who's a Christian than what I'm going to say. I'll "hide" that. For the purpose of WP articles I say Christians are those who recognize Christ as either the sole messiah, the only son of God, or "the Word made flesh" i.e as part of the Trinity. I emphasized "sole" and "only" because there are non-Christian religions that deem Christ to have been one of many avatars of God or as one in a line of prophets.--T. Anthony 06:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In brief, for the purposes of this discussion, a Christian is one who accepts Jesus Christ as the Messiah and son of God. A Christian also believes in the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. In order to "convert" to Christianity, I believe an individual must participate first in a formal baptism. Said baptism, should be followed, in time, with a first communion, confession and most importantly a confirmation in which the convert formally professes his/her faith in Christianity, disavowing themselves of any former religious beliefs (a key element of the sacrament of confirmation.) It is my understanding that confirmation, not baptism, is the sacramental ritual that formalizes one's formal acceptance/ conversion into Christian religions. Cleo123 07:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, there are some groups that call themselves Christian that don't believe Jesus is the Son of God and yet others disavow the Trinity (Jehovah's Witnesses fall into both categories, as do some Messianic Jews). And right, not all Protestant churches practice the formula you outlined above. In fact, there are many churches that don't even place emphasis on baptism. Drumpler 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think confirmation doesn't really apply in most Protestant churches. I don't want to really comment, I did above my mistake and was going to erase it, but I'm just saying check that for me as I'm kind of going to bed soon. Also you do have groups like Oneness Pentecostals who insist that any threeness in the New Testament refers to names or offices and reject the idea of the Trinity. On a personal level I don't think non-trinitarians are Christians, but for the purpose of Wikipedia they're counted. See Category:Arian Christians--T. Anthony 07:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)-->


Cleo, the above criterion most certainly only applies to Catholic and Orthodox Christians (although Orthodox Christians, like myself, deal with the rituals slightly differently). An entire third or so of the world's Christians do not get 'confirmed', although the simple 'acceptance of Jesus Christ' is a comparable concept, if only vaguely so.
Additionally, most of the other rituals or significations you described have mixed understandings among different denominations. 'High' Protestants such as Lutherans certainly practice communion, and practice confession as well (I think), but there are no comparable concepts within most Evangelical or non-denominational divisions of Christianity.
Now naturally, the idea of 'defining' a Christian becomes a bit more complicated when it is realized that the majority of denominations see their brand of Christianity as the only 'valid form' of Christianity (my own included). It is distressingly common to see Baptists and other such groups speaking of Catholics as if they were 'non-Christians'.
Considering these conflicting definitions, we must consider the general scope of belief among all denominations when attempting to concoct a simple definition.--C.Logan 08:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
"Christian" means any group or individuals who either (1) self-identify as such and/or (2) members, followers, or peripheral adherents of a defined group or ill-defined group of like-minded people which contains comparatively prominent individuals who during their time involved with that group have either specifically self-defined as Christian and/or are frequently externally described as Christian. I use the ambiguous language because there are several people who would describe themselves as "nondenominational Christians" who are not specifically members or followers of any defined group, but are self-identified Christians. There are also the so-called Christian "seekers" who would self-identify as being followers of Christ, or Christians, who are not clearly members of any sort of even roughly identified group. And there may be specific individuals or groups who for whatever reason object to the word "Christian" itself, possibly for some sort of political or social reason, but whose actions and beliefs(either individually or collectively, as appropriate) is so similar to others who do identify themselves as Christians as to make the term clearly applicable. Long-winded, I know, but the best answer I can come up with, and one trying to not "rule out" any groups with would themselves try to perhaps describe themselves as Christian, even if that defintion is opposed by others. John Carter 17:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For purposes of Wikipedia articles, a Christian is anyone who, according to reliable sources:
    • calls themselves a Christian, or
    • is a member of a church, sect or denomination that calls itself Christian, or
    • someone who has expressed a belief in Christ as the sole messiah or sole means of salvation, and
    • has not subsequently said they are not a Christian or converted to another religion or philosophy that scholarly consensus generally agrees is incompatible with Christianity. This latter caveat may be overridden if convert has explicity indicated that they find no incompatibility between Christianity and their new religion/philosophy. Nick Graves 04:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour." (And I'm a Atheist so this is kind of a distillation of the many religions, churches, temples, mosques and pubs I've visited). People may use "Christian" in a kind, loving semantically overloaded meaning but if someone starts talking about "Jesus" then I know they are a "Christian" with a capital 'C' as opposed to just some me-too hanger-on. Ttiotsw 08:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Whatever WP:V-conforming sources described as "Christian". Care must be taken per WP:NOR that synthesis is forbidden, so we do not infer if one is Christian from their practices/behavior--i.e. if source 1 says person X practiced habit A, and source 2 says practicing habit A suggests a person is Christian. That by themselves is not sufficient to synthesize a conclusion "person X is a Christian"--even though it's logical, but WP:NOR is non-negotiable and we can only repeat like robots: that person X 1) practiced habit A and 2) according to source 2 practicing habit A suggests Christianity. Same rules of course apply for all other religions. Tendancer 16:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediator, on the Definition of a Christian

By now I hope most of you have noticed what I'd hoped to point out with this business of definitions. We all have slightly different ideas on what constitutes a convert and who exactly is a Christian. That seems like the main issue here, and indeed if we were able to agree on clear definitions for those terms, the parameters of the list would most likely write themselves.

We can't afford to become too specific in our definitions for the reasons some of you mentioned above: what one denomination considers "Christian" may or may not be involved in another denomination's ideas. For this reason, we need to leave our personal beliefs out of this article. From a theological perspective, baptism, communion, or any of a number of other traditional practices and beliefs may be critical to some of us as pinpointing a Christian. However, for the purposes of scholarship and study, much broader definitions seem to be the norm.

If we go for the most literal definitions, we turn to dictionaries, which prove particularly useless in producing any sort of broad definition- Dictionary.com more or less instructs the user to see Christianity ("a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity"). Christianity instructs you to see Christian.

However, Dictionary.com does produce this, as well: "of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ." It also defines Christianity as "the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches."

It looks to me as though this particular dictionary is producing a similar sort of contradiction. So we turn to Wikipedia, which defines a Christian as "a person who adheres to Christianity," which is the term we actually use in the title of this list. Christianity, according to us, is "a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." It goes on, but our definition is understandably broad to accomodate various exceptions to any rule that might be set down.

What I'm leading to is this, for the purposes of Wikipedia policy: in defining a Christian, we must be fairly liberal, in order, again, to accomodate people who consider themselves Christian or whose beliefs are widely considered to be Christian, unless their beliefs are so obviously separated from mainstream Christianity as to render denial of that categorization mostly uncontroversial. However, in labeling someone as Christian who has not obviously done so themselves, we must be fairly conservative, both for the purposes of WP:LIVING and to avoid confusing our readers. I'm not trying to tell you guys how to define the term, but keep this in mind as you go about it.

I invite anyone who's interested in doing so to try to provide a more broad definition of the term here, to help us in reaching a compromise. --Moralis 06:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

For the purpose of the list "Christian" as "one who believes in a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth" sounds mostly fine. It seems like there might be some problems in that I'm not seeing, but at this moment that makes sense.--T. Anthony 07:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not within the purview of this list to establish a definition for Christianity. This is a compilation of notable conversions based on WP:RS and per WP:LIVING, which states: The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject. In the case of Bob Dylan, every major reliable source documents his conversion, including the recent major bio by Howard Sounes, Down The Highway, (Grove:2001). Sounes describes in extensive detail the process leading up to Dylan's "extraordinary full-blown conversion to Christianity" (pg. 324), based on interviews with the people involved. Furthermore, he specifically attacks the idea of a Dylan return to Judaism. --JJay 13:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's acceptable though to use a definition Wikipedia already uses.--T. Anthony 13:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
As do I. In specific instances, however, I can see that, if an existing definition has been challenged as POV, and explicit seemingly good reasons for that challenge given, then I could see trying to use something less potentially POV. I do not believe that this instance is necessarily such a case, though. John Carter 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

All sources for conversion relate to 1979. No source exists for formal conversion except for the suppositions of one man who knows not the time or place of the Baptism that he refers to. Clearly he was not present, and this "Baptism" which he says "probably" took place in the ocean is nothing more than his conjecture of something that might have occurred. Isn't anyone else curious as to the absence of witnesses to Bob Dylan's supposed conversion? But more importantly, Bob Dylan was born a Jew. That has lifelong applicability. In the absence of active negation of his Jewishness he is a Jew, therefore he shouldn't be on a list of Christians. That contradiction has been at the heart of this list since its inception.

Assuming good faith is not a rule, and if it is a rule, it has exceptions. I see a small group of dedicated editors intent on knocking Judaism down a notch. I defend my right to say that. We don't assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Wikipedia should not be in the business of defaming Jews, or of contradicting itself. There have been a long string of changes made to this list by the editors who defend the status quo of this list. They've been forced to change in order to stay the same. Their overriding concern has been to link a Jew to Christianity. I don't have to assume good faith in the face of the evidence, piling up by the day, of the clearly articulated need to give the impression that a Jew is a Christian.

All of the above discussion about renaming the list is explicitly articulated as geared to retaining Bob Dylan on the list of converts to Christianity, when he in point of fact is not a Christian, therefore not a "convert to Christianity," and of equal importance, is a Jew. When the contradiction is removed from this list, the editors can go about compiling a list of those notable Christians who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion.

The List of notable converts to Judaism does not pretend that "this is the list of all notable people who ever converted to...," as does the List of notable converts to Christianity. The mediator may not like the word contrivance but that happens to be a contrivance, like it or not. We should not be in the business of maintaining two sets of parameters for one list. Simplest parameters are unassailable as representing special interests. More complex parameters are vulnerable to attack as pushing points of view. I may be the only one stating it but List of notable converts to Christianity as presently configured clearly pushes a biased point of view. That biased point of view is eliminated by sticking to straightforward parameters.

For straightforward parameters, look at the List of notable converts to Judaism. It states that "This page is a list of Jews." It states that "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 couldn't possibly hang such a tag, because it would be in blatant contradiction to the presence of Dylan and the two others who do not conform to those clear cut parameters.

Why is the List of notable converts to Christianity apparently playing fast and loose with parameters for lists such as these? I only assume good faith when it is reasonable to do so. Single-minded insistence on contrivance and a very curious tolerance for contradiction should raise anyone's suspicions as to whether or not good faith should be assumed in this instance. Bus stop 15:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, you have said this over and over again, Bus stop, and editors in the past have disagreed with you and your proposal for a separate article. Why not just work within the parameters that have been set up through consensus? Drumpler 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The clear and repeatedly stated response to Bus stop's question about not using the straightforward parameters used by the {{Jew list}} is that the definition of Jew linked to, the page Who is a Jew? is clearly and explicitly challenged on the basis of POV. We are hoping to avoid creating a dependence on an external source which has already been challenged as POV. Also, I note once again that Bus stop seems to be ignoring the more directly relevant similar list, List of notable converts to Islam, which does use substantially the same format as this list. John Carter 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop what you are saying is perilously close to an attack, please ease off. True JJay may have been too strong on his own, but I think what you're saying is worse. Please do not assume people want to "knock down" Judaism. You say we can not assume Dylan converted without sufficient evidence. That's fair I think. However by the same token you shouldn't assume editors are hostile to Judaism without sufficient evidence. Please everyone stay calm.--T. Anthony 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There are some other points you make I feel need to be addressed. One is "Bob Dylan was born a Jew. That has lifelong applicability. In the absence of active negation of his Jewishness he is a Jew," Respectfully I'm uncertain anyone is denying he is a Jew as that's a matter of ancestry and culture as well as religion. The discussion is about his religion, whether he stayed in Judaism or became Christianity at some point. If you mean the religion of Judaism remains unless you actively negate it, I should inform you many Christians feel that way about our faith. For many Christians baptism has lifelong, even eternal, effects. It is fairly well attested Marilyn Monroe was baptized so Christians could argue having her listed as "Jewish" only works if she renounced Christianity to the end. The other is that your objections seem to be that this is out of compliance Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Introductory sentence in that it does not say a variant of "This is a selected list of Xs. Xs listed here should be (selection criteria)", but if that's so I think that can be discussed in a calm fashion.--T. Anthony 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay: While it is not necessarily our purpose to define a Christian, it would be greatly helpful toward coming to a consensus in this instance. If we can decide who is a Christian for our purposes, it will be much easier to decide who belongs on this list.

Bus stop: My problem is with the allegation that users here are trying to defame Judaism by attempting to include Dylan on this list. While you (and, who knows, maybe I) may believe that Dylan's birth into Judaism makes him a Jew, what the editors here are trying to ascertain is whether or not Dylan's experiments with Christianity constitute a conversion. The opinion that some editors hold is that if Dylan's Christian dabblings constitute conversion, he belongs on the list because he has at one point converted to Christianity. Their position is that this list should contain people who have converted- not necessarily limited to those who have remained Christian.

This does make a certain degree of sense, from a logical perspective: Robert E. Lee, while obviously a prominent Confederate, did at one time serve with the United States Army, and excluding him from a list of United States soldiers would be an obvious oversight, and including him on the list would not by any means constitute an attack on the Confederate States. While Joe Lieberman is currently an Independent, there is no question that he was at one time a Democrat, and excluding him from a list of Democratic US Senators would again be an obvious oversight. His presence on a list of Democrats would not be an assault on Independents, especially if it were noted that he is no longer a Democrat.

Similarly, the notion that users are attempting to take shots at Judaism by including Dylan is most certainly a dramatic reaction. Is it true that Dylan is Jewish? Yes, that much can clearly be seen. But it is also plainly true that he has at least had some experience with Christianity- it is not an assault on his character, his heritage, or his religion to say so. What we are trying to do now is this: we're trying to determine 1) if his Christian experience was enough to qualify as a conversion, and 2) if people who are no longer Christian qualify for inclusion on this list. Nobody is trying to conceal Dylan's Judaism- I'm given to understand that Dylan was always listed with a note explaining that he is no longer a Christian.

Now, the larger issue of whether Dylan ever qualified as a Christian convert remains unresolved. But as someone who was born Jewish, raised Jewish and still identifies with Judaism, it hurts me to see these editors so frequently accused of anti-semitic efforts. I'm not sure why you believe that this constitutes defamation, but your repeated allegations do nothing to further this process, and this discussion would run much more smoothly if you'd keep an open mind and refrain from beating that horse, which is very thoroughly deceased. --Moralis (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this has been the "problem" on the article this entire time: "Is it anti-semitic?" I am very grateful for your response, as Jewish input on the matter is very helpful to making a decision in this regard. I don't think any of the editors here really have an agenda to promote Christianity over Judaism or any other religion and I'm glad this was finally addressed. Drumpler 23:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Even when accusations are unsubstantiated, the damage is hard to undo, no matter how well you argue against it. When your first impression of a discussion involves an editor being accused of various biased actions (proselytizing, anti-semitism), it is likely that you would treat that editor-- and his argument-- with suspicion and undue scrutiny. That, I believe, is what has propelled this argument along for so long. The arguments of certain editors are undermined by an accusation of biased motivations-- accusations for which evidence has yet to be shown.--C.Logan 00:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If anti-semitism is the issue it'd be maybe more sensible to look closer at List of notable converts to Christianity#From Judaism to assure all those people count. Personally I think the former section is potentially more insulting to Sikhism. The Sikh section has only two names, but with the former section you get a third in. Sikhs are still insulted by things in France and some by Dera Sacha Sauda, then this. Maybe we should contact Category:Sikh Wikipedians. (jk or am I?)--T. Anthony 04:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Moralis, the general precedent has been that in lists of people by belief, only those who currently hold that belief, or held it until death, are listed. So you won't find Antony Flew in List of atheists, or Charles Templeton in List of Christians, no matter how notable they were in their former faiths or belief systems. (Incidentally, you won't find Joe Lieberman on List of notable Democrats either.) List of notable converts to Islam is an exception to this pattern. I think this list should follow the generally followed standard of listing people according to their current beliefs/nonbeliefs, for three reasons: (1) Styles for parallel Wikipedia articles ought to be as consistent with each other as is practical. It's more encyclopedic that way, and easier to follow. (2) The article contents will more closely match what is described in the article title. Again, it's more encyclopedic, and easier to follow. (3) Finally, and most importantly, it errs on the side of caution by giving the greatest possible respect for a person's current choice of self-identity. I would support creating a separate article listing former converts to Christianity, if there were ever enough persons found to justify such a list. Otherwise, I think such persons more properly belong in List of notable former Christians, where they can be noted both as converts and deconverts. Nick Graves 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I agree with you, but I do think Moralis's statements have some validity. Take List of Lutherans, which does include Jaroslav Pelikan (became Orthodox Christian) and Linus Pauling (became U/U). So there is some precedent in including formers on a "list of Xs." (Although Pauling left Lutheranism early so should maybe be taken off) Another is List of Jehovah's Witnesses#List of former Jehovah's Witnesses, which is an entire section of "formers." So there is some precedent, but I'm not sure it's a good precedent. I still kind of lean more toward not including any former convert. Also to not obsessing on Dylan.--T. Anthony 04:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

True to form, Nick Graves has hit the nail right on the head, once again, with impeccable logic and a truly neutral journalistic stance that is also mindful of Wikipedia as "an entire" publication. I agree with him 200% - and some! LOL! I would only add that although Moralis's analogies about notable "Union" (or United States) soldiers and Democrats are poignant and interesting, Wikipedia's policies have made a special exception in the case of religious beliefs and sexual preferences. Because religious beliefs ‘’’require’’’ self-identification, the argument isn’t quite applicable to this situation.

I would also note that the parameters of the List of Muslim converts is atypical of all other such lists contained on Wikipedia, which contain only currently practicing participants in those faiths. Like this article, the Muslim convert list has been the subject of numerous editorial controversies and has been previously nominated for deletion. Some of the same ”cast of characters” arguing on this page can also be found participating in the discord on that page. This article should not be granted “special treatment” inconsistent with the body of lists of this type contained on Wikipedia. To do so, is to exercise an editorial bias in favor of one religion over all others.

Moralis, it should be noted that Bob Dylan's entry on this list did not always include a notation explaining that he was a "former convert". Any progress that has been made (and believe it or not there has been some progress! LOL!) has been made as a result of this bloody debate! At the time that User:Bus stop made his first edit to this article [13] on April 22nd, the introduction read : “The following is a list of people who have converted to Christianity from non-Christian religions” next to Dylan’s name it said only : (current religious status disputed). It should be noted that although the earliest version of this list, did mention a “re-conversion” to Judaism, all mention of his “re-conversion” to Judaism was removed by the second editor to work on the list. [14] Considering the parameters of the article and the text as it existed at the time of User:Bus stop’s first edit, it would appear that his actions were more than reasonable. Yet, the fact is, he was slapped with a motion for a community sanction against him within days of his very first, and seemingly quite logical edit, attempting to bar him from participation in not only all Dylan related material, but articles that he had never edited at all.[15]

Moralis. I am sorry that you or anyone else involved with this discussion has been “hurt” by User:Bus stop’s remarks. I have privately discouraged him from pursuing that particular course of dialogue and I will continue to do so. So many people have entered the discussion late in the game, that they are unfortunately seeing us all at our very worst. User:Bus stop’s initial good faith edits to this article were greeted with an inordinate amount of hostility that has been instrumental in coloring his perspective on this debate. Considering the fact that Dylan was one of only three names included on the “article” at the time of its creation, it is somewhat understandable that an editor might think that Dylan is part of the article’s raison d’être.

As for your other points 1) I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to assume that Bob Dylan formally “converted” to Christianity. As for point 2) people who are no longer Christians cannot be included in lists of this nature as it is potentially misleading to readers, and qualifies as an invasion of personal privacy that could be construed as defamatory or libelous. I, honestly, do not believe that any editors have any “nefarious motives” where Dylan is concerned. Unfortunately, this has become personal and I suspect that the argument now has little to do with Dylan and everything to do with winning at this juncture. How sad, because in the end - it is Wikipedia that looses. Cleo123 08:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(Directed to Cleo, I'm not meaning to "cut in line", I'm just placing it next to hers for clarity of who I am talking to) Appropos of nothing I guess, but you caused me to look through the edit history. I was a bit surprised how recent this argument, and its main players, are to it. I've edited this, mostly just a little, since about Summer 2006. I can be seen on Talk:List of converts to Christianity/Archive 1#Jewish people born Christian. (Odd that this was the list where I argued that a few Jewish names should be removed as inappropriate.) The current debate, and the debaters, pretty much all arrived after early March with the argument starting little more than a month ago. (An exception being User:Ttiotsw, but I don't think s/he's been as active in this debate) Not sure if that means anything or not, but interesting.--T. Anthony 09:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Cleo, a few things:
  1. Once again- Categories = Lists as much as lemons = oranges. They share some traits, but they are not the same, and the same rules do not apply to both. A Category has limitations which must be considered prior to application. A list does not share these same limitations. Your unwillingness to note the difference between the two only makes me wonder when one might start applying WP:BLP standards to deceased individuals.
  2. Concerning the List of notable converts to Islam, I'm uncertain as to what the parameters are as it is. I do know, however, that the article previously included individuals who later left the faith (during the time in which the categories went by occupation/career, rather than previous religion. Also, I'm unsure if you're indirectly referring to my involvement on the page, but as I've noted at a recent 3RR ANB entry, there needs to be an agreement made about the acceptability of the descriptions used. That, as far as I can see, is the only real issue.
  3. Again, I'm not sure how any outcome here would favor 'this religion' over any other, considering that any changes are intended to be applied on all relevant religious pages, as far as I know.
  4. "...it should be noted that Bob Dylan's entry on this list did not always include a notation explaining that he was a 'former convert'." Who's arguing that it did? I said that the article has always elaborated his current status. Most certainly, unless one allows a bit of OR, or uses less-than-reliable sources, no claim can be made about his current status. That is why his status was changed to the disputed status by the second or third edit to the article. The RS claim that he has a complicated religious situation, but they also attack the notion that he returned to Judaism. I've seen some sources (like the community sites you've shown) claim he did return to Judaism, and other sites claim he's remained a Christian. Additionally, Dylan's own words prove to be most ambiguous. Reading more recent interviews, it's pretty certain he's nothing in particular in terms of belief. He affirms the validity of many different religious concepts. Therefore, with consideration to all these sources, RS or not, it is safe to say that his current status is disputed. Holding to any one particular possibility is a POV decision which tends to foster OR tendencies. That is why I'm unsure why you felt the need to point that out, as a notation claiming a return to Judaism would not represent reliable sources and would be a more abusive and libelous listing (hard as that may be to believe).
  5. “The following is a list of people who have converted to Christianity from non-Christian religions”. I don't see a conflict in this with the listing of individuals who later left their converted faith, but this could of course arise from the ambiguity of the statement. As far as I can see, Dylan most certainly converted to Christianity from a non-Christian religion, so I don't see any warning signs or flashing lights here. You may find his edit logical, but at the time, I saw it as rather nonsensical, and a little questionable- more like an individual with a simple agenda to get a name off of a list rather than an individual who considers sources, provides his own and makes compromises that consider the interests and arguments of others. Unfortunately, Bus stop has done little to disprove that impression- he has shown little to none of the latter traits.
  6. I don't entirely agree with the Sanction, and I feel it may have been premature, but a look at the text is a little telling of future issues:
Maybe this doesn't belong here, but I don't know where else to take this. The above user above has been blocked from editing three or four times now for three reversions of content on pages related to Bob Dylan [note: John counted the block notices on the page rather than the block log, so the actual number of times was twice.], specifically regarding his conversion to Christianity in the late 1970's-early 1980's. Sources for that conversion include the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times and a published book of his own Christian statements from the stage. He cites "absence of a high profile publication is clear proof that no conversion took place." Evidently none of the above qualify, and in his eyes absence of evidence is clear prove nothing happened. User seeks to see some evidence of a formal sacramental initiation into Christianity, evidently not knowing or caring that several branches of Christianity do not use such practices, or perhaps believing that those Christians should not be classified as such. User has also questioned the good faith of editors seeking to insert such sourced material, using phrases such as "His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979", Request user be blocked from editing the pages Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity, and List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians [An article he never edited, so I question this, but John can defend this if he wants], as those three pages would seem to contain the only content which causes him to engage in these repeated reversions and other POV matters, that being questions about Dylan's conversion to some form of Christianity. John Carter 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The unfortunate thing about this description is that, regardless of whether the sanction notice was appropriate or inappropriate, the description still largely describes Bus stop's behavior and arguments, which have apparently remained identical despite nearly two months of continuous argument and discussion. While other editors have attempted to resolve the issue and have generally made good effort in trying to compromise the state of the article to a position where both parties can be satisfied, it seems that Bus stop has little hand in the argument beyond reinforcing many of the points lined up in the sanction ages ago. I dare say that in retrospect, the sanction does not seem unreasonable- rather than 'hushing opposition' (in keeping in line with the unusual portrayal of the editors here as a sort of conspiracy), it would have saved the pointless AfD and countless hours of repetitive arguments which could have been transmitted more effectively by Cleo, or any other editor so concerned, in the first place. The only thing which has resulted from this discussion as it is is stagnance.
Concerning your other points:
  1. "I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to assume that Bob Dylan formally “converted” to Christianity." You can believe whatever you'd like, but these beliefs have no effect on policy. This is very likely the most strongly-supported listing on Wikipedia, and that's the ridiculous thing about it. Functioning from reliable, WP:BLP compliant secondary sources is apparently no longer sufficient in the view of one editor. Additionally, I would far greater question any return to Judaism, and without a reliable source which supports such a transition (and preferably one of comparable quality), then the entire argument concerning Dylan is essentially based on speculation.
  2. "People who are no longer Christians cannot be included in lists of this nature as it is potentially misleading to readers, and qualifies as an invasion of personal privacy that could be construed as defamatory or libelous." I'm not quite sure how this is misleading to readers, more so considering that the information which is being discussed is relocated to a separate section with a clear description as to it's purpose. If an individual were to be misled in this set-up (or even in the original set-up), the problem is one of faulty comprehension on their part. We shouldn't have to dumb things down when things are clearly explained already. Considering that the issue of libelous misinterpretation you mention here is quite simply a case of misunderstanding, there is hardly a fault on the part of the article. I see it unlikely that any legal issues would arise once one actually takes a look at the description provided (which could be comprehended by an 8-year-old).
  3. "I, honestly, do not believe that any editors have any “nefarious motives” where Dylan is concerned. Unfortunately, this has become personal and I suspect that the argument now has little to do with Dylan and everything to do with winning at this juncture. How sad, because in the end - it is Wikipedia that looses." I would have to agree with you on this. However, as you seem to construe acts of compromise by the editors involved as, essentially, 'admissions of guilt', I'm unsure if I can truly believe that you don't let your presuppositions take precedence when assessing the changes made by editors. Compromise, when attempted, is portrayed as a strongly negative act. How can any one truly make progress in this discussion when the choices are either to participate in a stagnant discussion, or to be vilified for making changes in hopes of resolution by compromise?--C.Logan 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Nick: Well, that's sort of like comparing apples and oranges. The simple 'List of...' articles, such as List of Christians, obviously endeavor to list just that- those who currently (as far as we know) practice Christianity. As there is a List of notable former Christians, any individuals who are no longer Christian can be placed there. Such individuals would also be placed on the respective "converts to..." list (if one applies), and would be placed on a "List of (insert new faith)s". As it is, there is a redundancy of information working between lists and articles alike.
The necessity of this redundant listing arises from the fact that one cannot really expect an individual to discover remote information when it is absent from a page on which it is relevant. Therefore, all entries should be placed on every applicable list. As that is the case, a crucial element in a 'journey of faith', specifically one with multiple destinations, is the act of conversion. Dylan could not have been a 'former Christian' without the act of conversion. Now, without elaboration as to his situation (i.e. no description), one unfamiliar with Dylan might assume he was born as a Christian. So of course, we place the relevant description which explains his situation and prior history. Such is the case with this article as well.
Dylan, prior to this whole mess, has always been listed with the elaboration on his current status (although this itself has fluctuated between Judaism and nothing-ism due to lack of sources in the past). Essentially, his relevance to the list's criterion was noted, and therefore he was listed, but with an explanation regarding his current status. Concerning the entire 'process of religious mutation' which occurs in some people's lives, one cannot place importance on any one aspect of the whole thing. If Dylan is a former Christian, then of course he should be listed as such. However, Dylan converted to Christianity- he was not born into it. Therefore, there is reason to list him on a list of individuals who converted to Christianity.
One cannot determine a listing based on past events in terms of 'recent changes'. The listing criterion which is in effect is not based on current status, as simple "List of..."s are, but on action. That is to say, the individuals listed here are listed because they converted, without consideration of status past or future occurrence- such things are noted, but they do not affect inclusion.
On another note, I'm uncertain by what criterion you are gaging the encyclopedic value of this article, or its 'difficulty' to follow. Of course, these are simply your opinions- but still, I would like you to elaborate a bit more if you could. As far as I'm concerned, the article's proposed state is the most useful arrangement. The list, as far as I see it, endeavors to list individuals who converted to Christianity. Dylan converted to Christianity, as did Flynt and Singh. They later had independent experiences which led them all to renounce or lose interest in the faith. This, however, erases the noteworthiness of their action as much as the reformed, new life of a murderer erases the act which precedes the current status.
Concerning your number 3 point: no one is imposing on an individual's current self-identity. As I've said, the list does not endeavor to label individuals as current Christians. Obviously, the conversion and the faith go hand in hand, and therefore the main body of text lists normal entries. Individuals who later reverted or renounced the faith, though once listed in the main body (with a clear description), are now- as a result of this eternal discussion- being listed in a separate section entirely. I don't have much of a problem with this, and I feel it works well as a compromise of opposing interests.
Additionally, if one were to think that past events and occurrences should be removed in light of an individual's current beliefs/status, WP:BLP makes the issue fairly clear when considering public individuals- "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."
We are not delving into someone's private life by mentioning their past actions. We are simply relaying information- and widely publicized information, as well. We are not attempting to be sleuths or psychologists, and attempting to dictate what an individual believes. We are bringing together information for an encyclopedia. The reliable sources at hand say that Dylan converted. There have been absolutely no sources that doubt this claim, only the opinions of editors. We can, of course, scrutinize the sources, but we shouldn't be presenting our own analysis as being weighty or of any real value.
If three sources meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:RS and WP:BLP, and these three sources, widely published and accepted, all agree on a particular fact, it is a tough sell for any Wikipedian who wishes to doubt this, and in light of the dearth of sources which conflict with this claim, it seems that the consistent scrutiny may be based more in personal motivation than in actual knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and how these policies affect the content of this encyclopedia.
Anyway, huge comments like these usually start out with short intentions and gradually stream out. As such, it may lack a bit of focus, but hopefully it's readable. I believe there's more to be said, but I feel a little ridiculous jumping from subject to subject and paragraph to paragraph without any sort of outline. Either way, I understand your concerns. It may seem odd, considering what you'd said in your numbered points, but I've felt that the argument I'm aligned with was actually more productive and useful in improving the article- essentially, it is the more encyclopedic idea. Relevant information is being added in a clear manner.
(I can testify that I've learned quite a bit in the past month or so about a man whose work I never cared for, simply because he was listed here for an extremely well-publicized action which led to one of the most notable [and to some fans, lamentable] periods in his career. Now again, Larry Flynt's conversion is news to me as well- much more will be learned from this simple listing. The connectivity/interlinking of articles with related concepts makes Wikipedia much more useful when seeking out specific information or just perusing for the interest of learning.)
Also, I think something should be noted about Joe Lieberman. He's a bit of a special case, actually... though he ran independent before, he now claims to be Independent-Democrat. I'm not sure if that places him on both lists or neither, but it would seem more useful if he was placed on both lists as a special case with notice. Just my opinion about it.
Well, I suppose that's it for now.--C.Logan 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Was this directed at me, because I'm not sure how to answer.--T. Anthony 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Heh, sorry, that was directed at Nick. I just didn't want to cut in front of you, and I didn't want your comment to get caught up in the same indent as a huge block of text. Let me just add his name, to clarify.--C.Logan 07:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Bravo C.Logan. You took what I felt all along and put it in much clearer words.
Dylan's former Christianity was notable and thus belongs on this list. Personally, I'm for merging the two articles about current and former converts. It puts all the information on one page and can only improve the encyclopedic content. If a celebrity's Christian conversion played a significant part in his life, whether or not he's still a convert, it needs to be mentioned so that others may know. This improves the quality of the information we have on this person. Drumpler 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Drumpler, is the focus of "Christianity" lists - Bob Dylan? If, you believe that this brief inconsequential period is "significant" in Mr. Dylan's life - please, explain to everyone how this one man's dabblings in Christianity has made a lasting impact on that religion, so much so, that this one man's experience necessitates the merger of articles on Wikipedia? How, specifically, is Bob Dylan a notable figure in Christian religions? Why is it important that "others know" about this? Do answer. I'm quite confused on this. Cleo123 08:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I feel like I could have been clearer, but there's always room to elaborate later. I'm not sure what you mean about merging the articles, as this list already has the former converts section within it (maybe I'm misreading what you're saying). I think most of us would hope to expand and improve this current set-up, rather than go about creating a separate list with a vary narrow criterion and a slim chance of ever becoming worth its own entry. As I see it, any converts who later departed from the faith by any means (save death, that is) should be listed in a subsection on the relevant conversion page.--C.Logan 07:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant merging this article with List of notable former Christians. Drumpler 08:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, but what would the merged article be called? "List of people who converted or renounced Christianity?" Do we do this with any other religion?--T. Anthony 09:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The List of notable converts to Islam has a criterion similar to this, namely, "This is a list of notable people who have converted to Islam sometime during their lives." I believe it has been both mine and other editors' view that this article should be similar for the sake of convenience. Correct me if I'm wrong. Drumpler 10:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I got confused. I thought you meant merge this list with List of notable former Christians. My mistake.--T. Anthony 10:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I did mean that, because of similar parameters in List of notable converts to Islam. I think the two articles (this list and List of notable former Christians) need to be one article. Drumpler 11:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(To Drumpler) Okay, then I'm not sure I understand. List of notable converts to Islam is separate from List of notable former Muslims. So wouldn't merging the "convert" and "former" Christian ones be like merging those two? Also there are no former converts on List of notable converts to Islam, even if that could be allowed, so far as I know.--T. Anthony 11:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, didn't notice that. I can see where you're coming from, but at the same time, I can see where everyone else is coming from. It might be practical to make them two pages after all and include Dylan on the List of notable former Christians page instead. Drumpler 13:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
An alternate possibility might be, as I believe has been suggested before, by me at least, to include those individuals who qualify for inclusion on multiple lists on all the relevant lists, which text added to indicate their most recent status. The advantage of doing so I believe is that it would avoid POV concerns. By placing the name in all the relevant lists, we can't be accused of making judgements about them. However, I can see how in some cases that might create a situation where a person is included in a huge number of lists. Maybe, for cases like that, creating an entry like "Carl Convert - see (here)", with a link to a yet-to-be-created list of people who have had multiple conversions, or something similar. John Carter 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me just say that I object to the mediator's use of the expression "experiments with Christianity" and "Christian dabblings" to describe Dylan. This type of language is relatively insulting to both Dylan and Christianity. Conversion is not a process to be taken lightly and there is no evidence that Dylan approached this in that manner. Rather, there is actually a mountain of evidence that he was extremely serious. There is also no serious evidence that Dylan either renounced that conversion or effected a lasting return to Judaism. In fact, that idea is disputed by numerous serious sources. If we are going to use the word "dabbled" here, it would most properly be used to describe Dylan's short-lived and mostly undocumented relationship with the Lubavitchers. --JJay 20:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediator, on the Definition of "Convert"

Dictionary.com (which is based on American Heritage) defines the word "convert," when used as a noun, as:

one who has been converted, as to a religion or opinion.

Merriam-Webster Online defines it as:

one who is converted

and "conversion" as

the experience associated with the definite and decisive adoption of a religion.

According to Wikipedia (religious conversion), conversion to Christianity entails either baptism or salvation in the traditional sense of the term.

That's all I have to say on the subject. I'm too tired to be able to add anything else coherent here, but I'll have more to say once I've gotten some rest. However, I invite any of you who might like to give it a shot to provide more of a compromise definition below. --Moralis (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all Christian groups are "saved" in the manner you are proposing. For example, some believe that a simple affirmation is enough. Drumpler 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what "salvation" means in this context. Also, I note that the Jehovah's Witnesses, and possibly others, pointedly do not baptize, seemingly under any circumstances, before the person in question is old enough to understand what is happending, as per Baptism#Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't imagine that this problem is likely to be an essential one for this list, but do believe that a more specific answer might be useful. John Carter 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's my point- what constitutes a conversion is clearly a matter of individual perspective, and it is proving difficult to come to a conclusion that's satisfactory to all concerned.

By "salvation," I refer to the concept of salvation through faith- according to our definition, some Christian groups consider the acceptance of Christ sufficient, regardless of baptism.

Normally, this is when I would propose a compromise definition of my own, but for the purposes of satisfying all parties that's still a daunting task. A few points that I think need to be considered:

  • In order to convert, does one need to participate in an organized church? Is embracing certain key aspects of the religion sufficient? Consider the following when you respond:
    • Most of us know at least a few people who consider themselves, and who are generally regarded as, Christian- but who do not or no longer attend church. Do these people qualify as apostates? If not, should our standards for converts be more stringent?
    • If organized participation isn't necessary, how does one demonstrate their conversion to the Christian faith?
  • Does returning to your original religion mean that you're no longer a convert? If so, does converting to a third religion also mean that you're no longer a Christian convert? Are we compiling a list of people who are Christians by conversion, or a list of people who have at some point converted to Christianity? Why do you support one position over the other, or neither?
  • It has been pointed out on several occasions that similar lists on Wikipedia do not necessarily use the same parameters as those which have become the norm here. Precent plays a large part in Wikipedia. Parties to this mediation have suggested that List of notable converts to Judaism does not utilize the same parameters as this list, while List of notable converts to Islam uses similar criteria. Are we in the business of reconciling these differences? Should we attempt to come up with a concrete set of critera for all such lists, or does this article stand alone? Consider the following:
    • The issue of "who is a Jew" is even more complicated and personal to many people than the issue of "who is a Christian." The process of converting to Judaism varies from denomination to denomination, just like Christianity, and in most cases is vastly different from any Christian conversion. Given the differences between the religions, is it fair to treat these lists the same?
    • If we decide to reconcile these differences, why should we prefer one of these lists over another? Why should we change this list to mesh with List of notable converts to Judaism, and not the other way around?

Whee. --Moralis (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The proverbial can of worms has been opened. A couple of ideas:
  • (1) Most of us acknowledge that their are "families" of religions, like the Abrahamic religions and the Dharmic faiths, as well as individual denominations with few or any "religious" differences between them. Although I am not anything like an expert, I think the only real differences between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Serbian Orthodox Church are in name of leader and location of church headquarters. I'm not sure such a conversion would even qualify as a real "conversion", and, unless there were extraordinary specific circumstances involved, might even try to keep such conversions from being added to the relevant list.
  • (2) Conversions between "parent" and "child" faiths could be problematic as well. A practicioner of the early Bahai faith could reasonably describe themselves as a Moslem, but just of a different "creed" or whatever term would be used. The same could probably be said for some early Jews who might have converted to Christianity, particularly any who did not see Jesus as being a god per se, but rather "just" another prophet.
  • (3) There are also the inclusive and exclusive religions. I remember reading somewhere that one of the loa is the god of Louis IX of France, so I could see how a voodoo practicioner could become what would appear to be an active Christian or Jew while not necessarily abandoning their earlier faith.
  • (4) regarding reconversion, I would think that the best, most accurate answer is "Maybe" it still counts as a conversion. That would be determined by the nature of the religions involved, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, unfortunately.
  • (5) Regarding this list in particular, it would be a source of never-ending discussion if we were to make the list one of those who are currently converts to Christianity, based on the fact that, for instance, if a Catholic is reported as missing Easter mass, someone will probably say that they should no longer be counted as Catholics almost immediately. Given the impossibility of knowing any persons exact current status without ongoing up-to-the-minute updates from them, it seems to me to make the most sense to "contrive" these lists to include those who have had a notable conversion, whether or not that conversion is ongoing.
  • I think you're being too literal. I don't think anyone has suggested removing anyone who is lapsed or trying to mind-read people's private beliefs. The debate is about whether to retain people who left Christianity for another religion or said abandoned religion altogether. Dylan, as that's the popular example, has at times said things that imply he's no longer of any religion. (This seems firmer than the idea he reverted to Judaism) That's clearer than lapsed.--T. Anthony 19:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, no one has suggested doing so yet. I was not thinking of Dylan in particular, either. However, if we established as one of the page's specific guidelines that individuals were to only be included if they were still demonstrably Christian and established one of the parameters as being remaining "active" in their church of choice, we would probably be facing almost continuous questioning regarding some individuals, those individuals varying probably regularly. The list currently has I think about 100 living people, so the potential of attention-getting behavior of that type is probably fairly good, and would likely involve those editors which the strongest emotional ties to those specific subjects. The fact that something hasn't happened yet, under the current parameters, doesn't mean that things might change if the parameters were changed. John Carter 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (6) Regarding whether one needs to belong to an organized church, I would have to say no. The church Dylan converted to, the Vineyard movement, could be, by some, counted as not being a church based on the fact that it, as we all know, did not make it a habit of keeping baptismal records. On that basis alone, some could argue that the church was non-notable, as it had no provable converts. If one were to self-identify as being a Christian without a church, or to be verifiably "searching" for a church to belong to, I think they could still count as Christian converts, even if they wouldn't show up on the exact pages of any individual denominations.
  • My best answer to the above questions in general would be that we probably would be best served by at least trying to establish guidelines for such lists in the future, so that similar disputes don't arise repeatedly elsewhere. For my own specific beliefs on how to deal with the situations above, I wouldn't try to create a list of converts to Serbian Orthodoxy separate from Greek Orthodoxy, but keep them both in the same list, with the "comment" indicating which particular church is involved. For the "parent-child" and "inclusive-exclusive" questions, I think that all we could probably do would be to set up rough guidelines to be applied on a case-by-case basis. However, I do think that wikipedia would probably benefit by having some such rough guidelines in place. John Carter 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In order to convert, one does need to participate in an organized church. One does not “convert” to an informal loosely structured non-denominational group. One “converts” to a religion. Briefly embracing some aspects of the family of religions is insufficient. The act of formal conversion requires a formal ritual in which one publicly declares that they have abandoned their former religion, in favor of a new one. Demonstrated organized participation in the new religion is required.
If an individual has “left” the religion of conversion, they can no longer be called a “convert” to that religion. In order to be considered a "convert" to Christianity, one must in fact be a Christian. Non-lasting, or false conversions should not be included on this or any other list of notable converts to any religion on Wikipedia. In consideration of right of privacy laws Wikipedia must adhere to the section of WP:LIVING policy that requires “self identification” of religion. Living people should not be listed as converts to religions that they do not belong to.
Wikiepedia precedent should be followed in this matter. The majority of convert lists on Wikipedia restrict their scope to individuals who had lasting life long conversions. This matter should be settled in accordance with prior precedent. It would very inappropriate and disruptive to Wikipedia for editors working on this article to make sweeping changes to the scope of all other Wikipedia articles of this type simply so that their point of view could prevail in this particular case. Cleo123 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
So from that the only conclusion I see is the Category [Jewish Musicians] should be removed from the Bob Dylan page as it clearly violates WP:LIVING since no recent sources attest to Dylan's Jewish affiliations and it's not up to us to guess (at least not without considerable WP:NOR-breaking synthesis). I suspect ironically at least one anti-Dylan-inclusion-on-list editor would have strong objections to that, but that's the policy. This list, meanwhile, is obviously not a category as has been noted out by several editors, so we're going in circles again--one side insists it applies, one side insists it doesn't, ad nauseum. (It should be pointed out even if it did require self-identification, sources such as this one http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/dylan_bob/artist.jhtml states flatly "At the conclusion of the tour in late 1978, Dylan announced that he was a born-again Christian, and he launched a series of Christian albums that following summer with Slow Train Coming." is more than sufficient to address it: there you have it, WP:RS-conforming secondary source states Dylan self-identified as a born-again Christian and explictly used the word "conversion" later in the paragraph to describe the act, and that's assuming even if WP:LIVING rule applied to lists). The only valid point I see should be debated on is Nick Grave's point about semantics and if the list should include former converts. Tendancer 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Tendancer, you’ve neglected to quote the rest of that paragraph where it says: “In 1982, Dylan traveled to Israel, sparking rumors that his conversion to Christianity was short-lived.” If Bob Dylan had, in fact literally “announced that he was a born-again Christian” I doubt we would be having this debate. Can you provide a quotation in which Dylan explicitedly refers to “himself” as a convert to born again Christianity? If there really had been such an announcement, one would think that there would be numerous reliable sources available quoting Dylan on this issue. Dylan has made a number of vague statements regarding Christianity that media outlets seem to have extrapolated in to a “formal conversion”. That is media conjecture, not self -identification.
At numerous junctures during the course of this lengthy debate editors have demanded sources for Dylan’s “return” to Judaism. Time and time again those sources have been provided. Now it seems that several editors are again behaving as if they “don’t know” that he’s a Jew, even when his “return” to Judaism is mentioned in their own sources. For example, in the Rolling Stone interview that User:JJay keeps presenting, we see Dylan’s son , Jakob, specifically refers to his father’s return to Judaism: “By the time Jakob turned 13 - bar-mitzvah age - he says, "The wheel had turned. I've been Jewish for most of my life." He says that like those Little League games, his catered coming of age was well-attended. But it was hardly hip. "Stray Cats didn't play. It was like Larry's bar-mitzvah band.” [16]”
I would agree with Tendancer that the Jewish Musicians tag should be removed from Dylan’s biography if there were no self-identification and if the tag refers to religious practice rather than cultural heritage. There has, however, been what I see as numerous public self identifications. For example, there are his many public appearances in support of Chabad. . Video of his 1986, [17] 1989 [18] and 1991 [19] appearances can be viewed on Utube. He’s doing a bit more than singing in these appearances, he’s publicly supporting Chabad, a Jewish outreach organization that holds among its missions combating Christian groups that target Jews for conversion. In wearing a yamulke and what appear to be sidelocks, or payot (1989), he makes a very explicit statement about his religious identity. That is not to mention the fact that there are numerous sightings of Dylan publicly attending Jewish services spanning more than a decade.[20]
At numerous junctures in this discussion, sources have been provided for Bob Dylan’s “return” to Judaism. I would suggest that readers review the talk page archive as well as the AFD discussion. Also, User:Metzenberg has provided a wealth of sources on the Dylan talk page. I believe his “return” to Judaism had previously been established. I’m not sure why this now being argued anew.Cleo123 18:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Tendancer, you’ve neglected to quote the rest of that paragraph where it says: “In 1982, Dylan traveled to Israel, sparking rumors that his conversion to Christianity was short-lived.”
I'm not sure what you're attempting to point out with the above. I don't think the 'neglect' of the inclusion of the above statement really makes a big difference: the source speaks in clear terms in regard to his conversion, and it refers to the rumors of his return to Judaism as just that- rumors. And to quote you from an earlier argument, "Rumor? Since when does Wikipedia report rumors?"
If Bob Dylan had, in fact literally “announced that he was a born-again Christian” I doubt we would be having this debate. Can you provide a quotation in which Dylan explicitedly refers to “himself” as a convert to born again Christianity? If there really had been such an announcement, one would think that there would be numerous reliable sources available quoting Dylan on this issue. Dylan has made a number of vague statements regarding Christianity that media outlets seem to have extrapolated in to a “formal conversion”. That is media conjecture, not self -identification.
If the source would be more specific as to when such an announcement occurred, this would be more helpful to the discussion. However, I don't believe it is fair to scrutinize a source which does not intend to offer such specific information. I feel that you're pushing a little too hard for "I am" statements, especially when You should keep in mind that the 'self-identification' issue which you're pushing for applies to Categories, and not Lists. Ironically, many of the statements which you have presented as forms of 'evidence' regard to his (non)conversion or his reversion have been quite vague, and are typically isolated from their context- once again, keeping in mind that such an exegesis of primary sources is essentially original research. On the other hand, the most reliable and WP:BLP satisfactory sources which we have at hand spread no confusion in regard to his conversion, and make arguments against his return to Judaism.
At numerous junctures during the course of this lengthy debate editors have demanded sources for Dylan’s “return” to Judaism. Time and time again those sources have been provided. Now it seems that several editors are again behaving as if they “don’t know” that he’s a Jew, even when his “return” to Judaism is mentioned in their own sources. For example, in the Rolling Stone interview that User:JJay keeps presenting, we see Dylan’s son , Jakob, specifically refers to his father’s return to Judaism: “By the time Jakob turned 13 - bar-mitzvah age - he says, "The wheel had turned. I've been Jewish for most of my life." He says that like those Little League games, his catered coming of age was well-attended. But it was hardly hip. "Stray Cats didn't play. It was like Larry's bar-mitzvah band.” [21]”
We have explained to you many times that the sources which claim his reconversion are drastically inferior in terms of policy. Might I remind you that, during the debate, all sources claiming conversion which were from a Christian perspective were indiscriminately rejected by Bus stop as unreliable? Why then, do you attempt to push sites coming from a Jewish perspective for an event which is equally as beneficial as any claim of 'conversion' would be? There's an air of hypocrisy in the presentation of these sources, which I pointed out to you before you had even used them in this discussion. If you choose to place merit in these 'reversion' sources, that's fine, but don't expect others to do so when drastically more reliable sources, which are WP:BLP satisfactory, are continuously rejected by Bus stop and yourself.
Additionally, it's certainly worth noting that the quote which you present with such certainty is an extremely vague statement- by no means satisfactory of the standard of explicity which you impose upon the arguments and sources presented by the other side. Thankfully, the above mentioned reliable sources are much more explicit in reference to this period:
"In the fall of 1983, Bob's seventeen-year-old son Jesse had a belated bar mitzvah in Jerusalem- Jakob and Samuel had already been bar mitzvahed in California- and Bob was photographed wearing a yarmulke at the Wailing Wall, adding to speculation that he had returned to Judaism. "As far as we're concerned, he was a confused Jew," Rabbi Kasriel Kastel told Christianity Today. "We feel he's coming back." In fact, Jesse was on vacation in Israel with his grandmother, Beatty, when they discovered a bar mitzvah could be conducted quickly and easily at the Wailing Wall and Bob simply flew in to play his part. He still believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and kept a broadly Christian outlook, although he had not maintained regular contact with the Vineyard Fellowship since the early flush of his conversion." (Sounes, Down the Highway)
I would agree with Tendancer that the Jewish Musicians tag should be removed from Dylan’s biography if there were no self-identification and if the tag refers to religious practice rather than cultural heritage. There has, however, been what I see as numerous public self identifications. For example, there are his many public appearances in support of Chabad. . Video of his 1986, [22] 1989 [23] and 1991 [24] appearances can be viewed on Utube. He’s doing a bit more than singing in these appearances, he’s publicly supporting Chabad, a Jewish outreach organization that holds among its missions combating Christian groups that target Jews for conversion. In wearing a yamulke and what appear to be sidelocks, or payot (1989), he makes a very explicit statement about his religious identity. That is not to mention the fact that there are numerous sightings of Dylan publicly attending Jewish services spanning more than a decade.[25]
Regarding the tag, I also agree (if it refers to religious practice) to its removal, as in this instance you are actually considering the actual intent of the WP:LIVING standard- the application of category templates- in contrast to your constant attempts to conflate two different concepts so that the policy which you agree with will support your argument. I think it should be noted that if these incidences are presented as satisfactory public self identifications, then it is silly to argue that any of his much, much more well-known concert dialogue and performances could not be considered self-identification (the point being that we should simply stick to reliable, secondary sources in this matter, rather than lend to speculation). It should also be noted that I am quite perplexed as to how one can argue against reliable sources continually, and yet present tenuous evidence with pre-supposed conclusions tacked on as 'hard facts'. For example, one could hardly say that Kareem Abdul Jabbar is a Jew, and it would seem his involvement is equally supportive.[26][27] If you wish to look at Dylan's involvement in such a manner, you can feel free to do so, although I might point out that we have continually noted that the involvement in rituals or ritual dress is no guarantee of religious content, nor is it confined to Judaism- Jewish Christians, Messianic Jews, and many Jews who identify strongly with the connection between Judaism and Christianity still participate in rituals, aspects of dress, and often do still see themselves as Jews who believe in the Messiah- which, in objective classification terms, makes them Christian. Additionally, offering anecdotes from a site which is inherently biased in its presentation isn't likely to cause any earthquakes. Again, these are essentially rumors. What was it that you said? "Rumor? Since when does Wikipedia report rumors?" Nor should we apply any more weight to these anecdotes then to the variety of junk emails which provide similarly reliable tales.
At numerous junctures in this discussion, sources have been provided for Bob Dylan’s “return” to Judaism. I would suggest that readers review the talk page archive as well as the AFD discussion. Also, User:Metzenberg has provided a wealth of sources on the Dylan talk page. I believe his “return” to Judaism had previously been established. I’m not sure why this now being argued anew.Cleo123 18:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm not sure why his conversion is being argued to this day, as I would say with certainty that his conversion is far more affirmed than any of the claims of reversion which have been presented. I also encourage individuals to look over the past points of the discussion, because I don't believe I've seen any third party sources (in terms of religious affiliation) which support any of your claims. This is not to discount the sources on their own, but concerning use in Wikipedia, as we have established the need for third party, reliable sources for the act of conversion (which are also in accordance with WP:BLP), the same should apply to sources brought forth for the argument of reversion.--C.Logan 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I note that there is no specific reference to religion at all on the page WP:LIVING, so am curious as to exactly where Cleo is finding the reference to justify his/her earlier statement, and would welcome a specific reference to the section of the page being refered to. Also, to quote directly from the page WP:LIVING regarding one of two cited examples for controversial material: "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." I believe that the inclusion of this information, provided reliable sources are included, in fact does adhere to the policy guidelines, based on the example from that page quoted above. John Carter 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

John Carter, I have provided a specific reference in the section above. Below is a re-print of one of my earlier comments:

Comment I believe that you have misinterpreted policy here. Clearly, WP:BLP has set forth the more stringent criteria of "self identification" for religious and sexual preference, because these are essentially "private" matters. I interpret the special provisions regarding religious & sexual preferences as a sincere effort on Wikipedia's part to mitigate potential Invasion of Privacy litigation, which has become so common place against Internet media outlets. Clearly, the special exception for “private matters” exists to protect the subject of biographies, such as Bob Dylan, from being portrayed in a “false light”. We are all volunteers here and I understand that most editors do not view these matters through the prism of journalistic liability. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is liable for the actions of its amateur staff, which is why we must interpret all policies concerning living people in the most conservative light, in order to protect Wikipedia.

For everyone's edification, the law states:

"One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability for invasion of privacy, if:
1. The false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
2. The actor acted with malice -- had knowledge of or acted with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. See Section 652D of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
The tort of false light involves a "major misrepresentation" of a person's "character, history, activities or belief." See Gannett Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 2006 WL 2986459 at 3 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 20, 2006.)

In this particular situation, we know for a fact that

1. Bob Dylan has never publicly stated that he “converted” to Christianity. Nor has he ever stated that he left Judaism. Others have, but he hasn’t. There isn’t the legally required “self-identification” of a formal “conversion”.
2. He has publicly complained, on the record, that media outlets have “misrepresented” his religious journey.
3. It has been established that he is a practicing Jew. To place him on a list of converts to Christianity could create a “false” impression for readers.
4. The biographical subject has a history of litigation against media outlets that he believes have “misrepresented’ him.

Considering not only the above facts, but the very lengthy debate that has ensued over this matter in which multiple editors have objected to this publicly practicing Jew's inclusion on the list - there is some potential argument to be made for legal malice. Wikipedians do not have the excuse of ignorance or a detrimental reliance on secondary sources, because our own policy requires a “self identification”.

If one were to rely on User:C.Logan’s interpretation of policy, an editor could not place a Homosexuality tag on the biography of a married Christian Evangelical preacher without a public self identification from that preacher. According to his interpretation, it would be perfectly acceptable, however, to place that living person’s name on a list of homosexuals, as long as there was some secondary source for the information. (Like say, an interview with an alleged lover in a reliable source.) Clearly, this is completely illogical and a misinterpretation of the spirit in which WP:LIVING was crafted. I contend that the special requirements for self-identification regarding religious and sexual preferences are applicable not only to categories but to lists. I believe that Wikipedia policy dictates that not only Bob Dylan but any and all individuals who have not personally publicly identified themselves as converts to Christianity must be removed from this list.

Please, note that the preceding commentary is a discussion of law aimed at protecting Wikipedia from potential liability. It is not a legal threat of any kind and should not be mischaracterized by any editor involved with this discussion as such. Cleo123 04:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that clears things up for you. Cleo123 18:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't, particularly as there is existing content on the WP:BLP page which I reprinted above, regarding an example of an alleged affair, which could also potentially be viewed in the same light. That information also could be seen as being potentially damaging, and yet the WP:BLP page expressly permits such comments. Is it your contention that such comments regarding a possible romantic liason (often of married individuals) is somehow less damaging than statements regarding matters which even the subject himself seems to have, at the time, indicated are accurately represented? You also state that the subject has a history of filing such lawsuits. Being not as familiar with him as others, I would like a bit more information on those suits to assist in making an informed decision. Also, I note as per the terms of the case you included above regarding Gannett, none of those provisions at least to my mind clearly apply here. Please indicate which provision you believe inclusion of such information violates. Again, if we are relying on contemporary published sources which the subject seems to have accepted as not requiring correction at the time of their publication, as well as the subject's own statements in the book of Christian speeches from stage he presumably (barring further information) at least passively permitted to be published, I have trouble seeing how any of the three provisions you cited apply, particularly if text is added to the simple inclusion of the name indicating the additional relevant material. John Carter 18:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
As long as we're in the business of reprinting comments, I might as well duplicate my own, which was in response to Cleo's above comment:
Once again, 'Categories' are not the same as 'Lists'. The 'Categories' policy does not apply to 'Lists', not matter how you may believe it does. There are fundamental differences between the two arrangements, one of the most important being the fact that a category tag itself does not allow for any elaboration on the reasoning for it's placement. A category tag cannot tell someone what criterion was used when determining whether someone counts under a specific 'classification', while a list- which does not 'classify in the strictness of a single 'title'- can group by concepts and actions as well; that is to say, a list does not have the limitations of a category. As such, applying 'Category'-intended rules to a list is a bit like someone attempting to apply WP:BLP to the Edgar Allen Poe article. Anyone can inadvertently (or deliberately) stretch favorable policies when they believe these policies can support their argument, but this does not mean that the individual's exegesis is correct or even sound.
Again, I'm not entirely sure that your concerns about 'legal problems' are well placed- with Dylan being a public figure, WP:BLP says:
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.
As far as the above states, we should have far more concern about claiming that Dylan has 'returned to Judaism' then about any of the claims regarding his conversion. Additionally, Wikipedia makes it pretty clear that it guarantees no validity as to its content, and it would seem that the law is actually on Wikipedia's side, anyway.
Regarding your numbered points, these too are problematic.
  1. First, this does not apply to lists. Second, Moralis has explained below that you are holding to a definition of 'self-identification' which is far too strict to function. If this were the case, categories would be largely absent from 'living people' on Wikipedia.
  2. From what I've seen, he has continually rejected the 'label' of 'Born-Again'. He also rejects the label of 'Orthodox Jew', in the same response. This says little about his religious identification, and much more with his rejection of media categorization- namely, 'tabloid'-style terminology. Considering that we are working from reliable sources from Dylan experts (all of which he has add ample time to 'bring a case against'), I don't think we have any problems, especially considering that our current source status satisfies WP:BLP in general, and also for it's specific prescription for 'Lists'.
  3. When was this established? Is this in regard to the loose knot tied with tenuous strings of evidence? We're not sleuths, here. Please hold to the RS. Additionally, if this were even the case, it is the reader's responsibility to understand the criterion laid out within the introductory paragraph. Assuming, for a second, that you were to agree that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity back in the late 70's, what would be the 'false impression' presented by including him on a list of individuals who converted to Christianity, especially considering that his status is made clear in his description, and much more so considering that he is even placed in a separate section than the rest of the individuals in the list, with like individuals.
  4. Considering the above article, it would seem Wikipedia has little to fear from printing even deeply libelous material concerning public figures. Of course, this doesn't mean we should print such material, but again, we are relying on strong, reliable sources- which satisfy WP:BLP. I'm surprised that Dylan's 'media outlet' lawsuit fiasco hasn't yet extended to the works of his biographers, which have done more to spread these 'libelous accusations' than any Wikipedia article ever could.
Additionally, as your example does not quite parallel the current issue, the logic therein does not fully apply. However, as far as I'm concerned, the individual should be included on the list, with an appropriate placement given the conflicting nature of claims. For example, he could be placed within a controversial section with a sufficient elaboration on his situation. However, it would seem that your example would only extend in analogy to the 'early stages' of such an event occurring; in contrast, we are utilizing sources which look back twenty or so years and unwaveringly call his 'experience' a 'conversion to Christianity'. The matter, it would seem, is long past 'settled', whether you choose to believe the conclusions or not. Additionally, recall: 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.
Concerning your final statement, I wouldn't worry- I don't believe the policy against legal threats applies to your assertions. I believe they are mis-thought arguments, but they are made in earnest concern.--C.Logan 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope this helps.--C.Logan 18:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


To address Cleo's claims, a couple of which (1) and (3) are factually inaccurate:
1. Bob Dylan has never publicly stated that he “converted” to Christianity. Nor has he ever stated that he left Judaism. Others have, but he hasn’t. There isn’t the legally required “self-identification” of a formal “conversion”.
  • Innumerous sources already given stating he announced it, specifically using the words Christian and conversion. Ignoring the strange adjective "legally" from your claim as I assume you mean wiki policy--as has been pointed out by numerous editors there's no wiki policy applying it to lists, and even if it did we already have sources. Of course, that has been noted before as well ~two paragraphs prior, I guess you must've missed it.
2. He has publicly complained, on the record, that media outlets have “misrepresented” his religious journey.
  • Right (though that was from an 80s interview where he sounded amused rather than complaining, but to avoid interpretation [that's OR] and for the sake of argument let's assume it's a current complaint relevant to WP): that's one reason editors here should refrain from calling him a "practicing Jew" and present it as fact. Only sources I've seen suggest a return to Judaism in the 80s/90s, and the latest sources states he has no affiliation to any organized inclusion. Compare that to the pro-inclusion camp, which has not e.g. try to classify him as a "practicing" Christian, but rather as a well known former convert to Christianity (a well-cited historical fact with significant impact on Dylan's career deserving mention), and wanting to add parameters to help address your concerns and clarify it's no longer current.
3. It has been established that he is a practicing Jew. To place him on a list of converts to Christianity could create a “false” impression for readers.
  • First a correction: It has been claimed he is a practicing Jew. I have yet to see a single source that confirms it that he, as of writing, is Jewish. Per the WP:BLP and libel concerns you have cited, I think we should avoid calling him a "practicing Jew". In the meantime, numerous editors have made effort to address you and Bus Stop's "false impression" concerns e.g. changing the list name, adding parameters--all of which are 1) enough to establish a rough consensus without the anti-inclusion camp by the way and 2) unfortunately usually met with accusations hinting of anti-semitism or other ulterior motives to include Dylan on the list.
4. The biographical subject has a history of litigation against media outlets that he believes have “misrepresented’ him.
  • That is why wiki relies on secondary sources. We're robots that repeat what others have said, as one administrator explained on your talk page to explain why you should avoid WP:NOR-breaking original research: We don't interpret statements, we don't synthesize to reach conclusions (e.g. if we were to grab a Dylan interview from 1985 years after his conversion, taking a quote that he no longer believes in the born-again thing, and try to interpret it to mean that he has never converted), we only repeat what sources state. The secondary sources explicitly states "At the conclusion of the tour in late 1978, Dylan announced that he was a born-again Christian", we cite it, problem solved.
Hope this helps. Tendancer 19:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is systemic bias on Wikipedia. See WP:BIAS, here. A disproportionate amount of input comes from population groups that are not Muslim. A disproportionate amount of input to Wikipedia comes from population groups in which Islamophobia is likely real. Great Britain and the United States are two examples of populations that have disproportionately large editorial input to Wikipedia, and those two countries are arguably places where Islamophobia exists. The List of notable converts to Islam is arguably an article "under siege." Arguably if there was greater input from Muslim countries, the entries on the Muslim list would be less unflattering. In my opinion the Muslim list presently reads a little like a who's who of rogues and villains. Though the Muslim list uses the imprecise parameters that I object to on the List of notable converts to Christianity, I don't find it as egregious a problem (as the problem presently plaguing the List of notable converts to Christianity) because the Muslim list is not, at present, generating the impression that any living person is a Muslim despite evidence to the contrary. In point of fact, there are no entries on the Muslim list who are no longer Muslim. It would be better if the parameters on the Muslim list were corrected to be more precise and simple, but at present that is more of a problem in the theoretical realm than a problem that takes on a real form. A quite different situation prevails on the Christian list. Bus stop 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


There is a difference between portrayal and factuality. When there are openly Muslim users who wish to change the utterly undeniable fact that an individual converted to Islam while under the captivity of her Taliban kidnappers to the undeniable whitewashed "converted because she was treated well by the Taliban", there is a problem in misrepresentation, and it isn't those who contribute to the systemic bias.
It is whitewashing when editors promote positive descriptions and focus on the addition of scholars and simultaneously remove negative descriptions, remove convictions, remove undeniable facts, removing unflattering information to the point where some descriptions make no sense at all, and at times outright removing 'negative' individuals without clear explanation.
I believe that if you feel that any of the 'negative' descriptions are exaggerations or are otherwise inaccurate, then please make a note about specific individuals if you so choose. I think you'll find that the descriptions presented are entirely accurate, and most of the current issues are being compromised with my input- I believe that we shouldn't exaggerate, and we shouldn't underplay anything either.
Although your presuppositions regarding this discussion and your possible bias outside the Wikipedia may influence your perspective concerning that discussion, you may want to familiarize yourself with all the issues before commenting on it, and attempting to connect the issues within that article to the issues on this page, as it is essentially a soft reinforcement of your argument against the motivations of the editors involved.
Concerning your statement about 'correcting' parameters, it may be better to specify that you have your own definition of 'correct', i.e. it is simply an opinion. Once you disregard the unwarranted accusations of ulterior motives and baseless accusations of policy violation, the remaining discussion is entirely preferential- there is no 'right' or 'wrong', despite what you may continue to believe.--C.Logan 16:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
(To Bus stop) You know this actually makes sense. I think their might be more urge to add terrorist than good people to the Muslim convert list. I think there is a bias on Wikipedia against religion especially towards Catholicism, Islam, and Scientology. (I think reality is biased against Scientology, but even then I think the place goes a bit far) I think you might be a bit unfair to that list though as I think the majority of its names are okay people. On the other area I'm also against former converts being on as other lists don't intentionally have them. (Well I added former converts to a few lists because it seems clear they'll stay here so I'm trying for consistency)--T. Anthony 17:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure if you're simply dealing with the concept in theory or if you are actually familiar with the discussion on that page, but it seems certain to me that any fervency exhibited on the part of some editors to 'add' terrorists is that many users work so very hard to remove or whitewash such names for unsupported reasons. As you've pointed out, the listings at that page are, in the majority, good individuals- but the problem is that the bad individual which do exist there are being consistently covered up and vanillified. 'Good' listings are allowed to maintain positive descriptions, but known convicts, and specifically individuals who committed acts of terrorism post-conversion, consistently have such descriptions remove when they simply quote sources nearly verbatim. This is a hypocrisy, and I support the editors who combat whitewashing- to an extent.
I've always found it more favorable to satisfy both parties involved, and I've worked towards several compromises with a user Bless Sins, who seems to hold a bad reputation amongst the editors involved. The way I see it is that the vandalism/whitewashing will continue until compromise is achieved. We don't need to magnify bad deeds, but it is utterly irresponsible for editors to create the illusion of a list free of grime and shadows. The fact that the individuals who converted to Islam have committed heinous acts, or have been involved with controversy or crime, is a fact, just as much as a convert's winning of the Nobel Prize would also be a fact. There is a difference between NPOV and censorship, and hopefully all the contested listings will find the middle ground solution.
I've seen the bias against subjects which pertain directly to me, and it is no doubt a bit upsetting to see. However, we have to keep a perspective on which information receives attention due to systemic bias and which information receives attention because of the relevance and usefulness of it. As far as I can see, the current problems do not arise from systemic bias, but rather from the presuppositions of editors regarding the motivations of other editors. Yes, I've said it before, but I believe it. One can not assume that, if an editor falls into the mold which contributes to the systemic bias, that they are, in every case, actually contributing to it. I feel that this mistaken assumption is one of the prerequisites to the functionality of the opposing argument. Just my take on it.--C.Logan 18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been as active on the Islam list, but I've done a bit on it since November 2005. It has had the problem of people not wanting to include criminals at all or complaining too much about criminals being in it. Although there have been a fair amount of people who wanted to highlight the criminals and make the article about Islamic oppression/violence. The other problem it had is whether to include divisions not recognized by mainstream Islam. For example I remember wanting to add Yusef Lateef for a time, admittedly in part because he seems nice and I like his music, but was informed that's not allowed as Ahmadiyya isn't really Islam. Which maybe it isn't, I don't, but I get the sense that's less of an issue here. Although I could see what results if I add a person who went from polytheism to Mormonism. I'm kind of rambling. The point is the Muslim converts list has had strong POV problems from day one and although that includes Pro-Islam POVs it's definitely included anti-Islam POVs as well. Considering Wikipedian demographics I can see worrying more about antis as they could become more numerous. (Jewish people, on the other hand, are more or less adequately represented when you consider what percentage of the world population they have)--T. Anthony 19:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed- I've tried to stick to the middle ground at that article, and I agree that some users possess a strong Anti-Islam POV. However, it seems that this is extremely rare, and most of the edits which seem to lean towards that mentality are partly due to exasperation: when an article has to deal with the consistent removal of appropriately placed material, it can become very frustrating to users who try to align themselves with a neutral point of view in their editing habits.
Many users seek to remove information for the simple reason that they don't like what it says, and they either assume that their opinion will be weighty enough, or that a citation of misunderstood policies and guidelines may do the job.
Personally, I'm much more concerned with the removal of badly sourced information and the reinforcement of reliably sourced info than with any religious agendas that either side may have.
With that being said, I'm all for the softening of some of the descriptions, in the cases where it's obvious that other editors are pushing an anti-Islamic POV, or intend strong implications from the text. However, there is a fine line between sensible presentation and sensationalism.
A description, such as Yvonne Ridley's, which attempt to convey the good part of the story without the less favorable aspects of it, is unacceptably POV, as far as I'm concerned.
I think that both sides need to be kept in line, but the problem is slightly greater from the pro-Islam camp.
Regarding the inclusion of those from smaller, non-orthodox sects, I don't think it's fair to exclude them. It strongly suggests that only certain forms of Islam are 'acceptable' forms, and I disagree with that line of thinking (and I can imagine it might be rather offensive to those Muslims of the smaller denominations). I've noticed your comment on the page, and I might share some input about it. I do believe they loosened the previous constraints, which is a good thing, so it would seem that Yusef would have a place on the list now.
By the way, I may just check out his music thanks to your recommendation.--C.Logan 20:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said I've been less active of late. On the other matter Muslims tend to take a stricter line on heterodoxy than modern Christians. There's a part of me that's uncomfortable with how strict a line they take, but it's not my religion so I can't say what's appropriate for them. As for Lateef's music it's basically jazz and some New Age. Not sure you'll like it. Judging from what I've listened to he's noted for Asian/African/World influences and use of unusual instruments. He has one tune where he plays something like an ocarina for the whole thing. I have eclectic tastes.--T. Anthony 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the Christian laxity is a necessity given the diverse array of sects and denominations within the body of believers. I believe that the Muslim treatment of the situation is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, as it essentially enforces the mainstream beliefs without regard for the smaller divisions, who may indeed consider themselves "Muslims"; although admittedly, it is their religion, and in comparison, I may not personally consider Jehovah's Witnesses as "Christians" even if Muslims might see it that way. So I suppose it's best left to them, but as you said, it doesn't seem like Yusef's denomination is as far out as some of the comparable Christian denominations which we have no qualms in considering Christian.
Regarding the music, maybe I will, maybe I wont. I did grow up in a home with jazz playing nearly 24 hours a day, as my mother simply couldn't function without some sort of background music tugging her along her daily routines. Anyway, I have eclectic interests in general, so who knows.--C.Logan 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediator, In Response

The Mediation Cabal allows me to make what it terms "judgements" only when Wikipedia policy is very clear. I don't like to exercise this right, but for the sake of process I'm going to do it now:

  • On WP:LIVING's category policy:
    1. The section in WP:LIVING titled "Use of categories" pertains only to the use of [[Category:Whatever]] templates (see Wikipedia:Categorization for information on what a Category, capital "C", is). The wording of this policy is very clear and explained within the same section: it is technically impossible to explain on a Category page why an article is included in the Category. The same cannot be said for an entry on this list; it's entirely possible for us to explain, within the list itself, why any individual has been included.
    2. Additionally, even if the section in WP:LIVING titled "Use of categories" applied here, Dylan satisfies both requirements:
      • "Self-identification," as I understand it, does not necessarily mean that an individual must verbally declare his religion- only that they must make it clear in public.
      • Several sources have been provided wherein Dylan does make his religion clear- publicly and verbally.
      • Dylan's religious exploits have been and continue to be significant in his public life, having affected both his words and his music.
    3. The same section of WP:LIVING explicitly allows the inclusion of potentially contentious material if the "allegation" is reliably documented and significant.
  • We are therefore in compliance with this policy, which doesn't apply anyway.

Wikipedia policies which have been invoked in this conversation do not prohibit Dylan's inclusion on this list for any reason. They do protect his inclusion. Therefore, further discussion should not focus on whether or not Dylan can be included. This issue has been firmly settled via weeks of discussion, and the relevant policies beaten into the ground.

Further discussion, if you folks want to come to a conclusion rather than arguing forever, should focus on whether the list should include former Christians, or only current Christians. I think the question at hand can be best presented like this:

Is this a list of notable Christians who became Christian by conversion or a list of notable people who have become Christian by conversion?

Please refrain from arguing the same tired points for the rest of eternity. I can't mediate between parties who aren't willing to move forward. There is still a good argument for the exclusion of non-Christians as a whole, but really, can we leave the Dylan thing alone and focus on the big picture? --Moralis (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Q: "Is this a list of notable Christians who became Christian by conversion or a list of notable people who have become Christian by conversion?"
A: I think "notable people who converted" is the more obvious definition of "notable convert". What does "notable Christian" mean? Someone who converted and remained Christian until death (or now)? How do we verify deathbed (or current) religion? We can, however, research and verify the event of conversion.
"Notable converts to Christianity" are notable people who, at some point, converted to Christianity. If they later converted to another religion, that should be noted parenthetically (which prevents false implications that they are a currently practicing Christian). If another, similar list uses the other standard, then that list should be changed, not this one. — Demong talk 05:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "The Mediation Cabal is a bunch of volunteers providing unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia. We do not impose sanctions or make judgments."[28]Cleo123 08:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "A disruptive editor is an editor who:
    • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
    • Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
    • Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
  • [29] Tendancer 11:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment It would appear that Tendancer's very uncivil post is somehow directed at me, due to it's placement on the page. I would suggest that Tendancer review the tiny handful of contributions I have made to this article. Indeed, I suspect I have made the fewest edits to the article of all the major players involved with this dispute, repeatedly opting to discuss matters on the talk page rather then joining in on the edit warring. Indeed, it would seem that User:C.Logan and User:Warlordjohncarter have been the most “prolific” contributors to the article, the article’s talk page and the user pages of editors who do not share their views. I have repeatedly provided sources for all points I have made. On at least four occasions during this debate I have provided sources for Dylan's "return" to Judaism - often times using your own reliable sources against you. Each time editors accept and acknowledge his return to Judaism, some other member of the pack comes forward a week or two later demanding sources a new. Such pestering could be considered trolling. The implication that I have somehow resisted RFC is amusing, as I came to this discussion in response to a request for comment. It should be noted that on at least two occasions, I have previously asked Tendancer to stop following me from article to article. His/her comment above is yet another example of overt flaming, on his/her part. One might see it as an implied personal attack. Cleo123 08:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A few of noteworthy items regarding Cleo's (likely WP:ICA-breaking) reply:
  • 1. As has been pointed out to you by several editors, since you so often accuse others of impropriety with incendiary rhetoric, if you believe you have a case please go ahead and report those violations to the proper channels (as opposed to e.g. writing a 7 paragraph diatribe [30] against another user), I can assure you several users here would be enthusiastic to have more admins review pages you've participated on and note the consistently antagonistic and accusatory nature of personal posts, among other things it makes it easier to submit the eventual RFC for User Conduct.
  • 2. I found your statement 'I have provided sources for Dylan's "return" to Judaism' fascinating. 1) please explain how that would argue against Dylan having converted? 2) You acknowledge you have provided sources to support the notion Dylan had to "return" from something? Obviously then you also believe he converted, I honestly don't understand why you are continuing to defy mediation and consensus and a well-cited historical fact and claiming Dylan never converted to Christianity then, when yourself feel compelled to cite sources saying he "returned" to Judaism. To quote you, "such pestering could be considered trolling".
  • 3. The 3rd item from WP:DE states Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators. In reply you states "The implication that I have somehow resisted RFC is amusing". As 90% of the rest of the item is neglected, can I take that as a tacit acknowledgement you have an issue against all the many other means to achieve consensus: moderation (which you advised Bus Stop to refuse), opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators (as you've done twice now).
  • 4. A recommendation for other editors: this is the second time the same side is rejecting the results of mediation after it went against them. Per WP:CONSENSUS:

In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.

Clearly there's the "unreconciled" and "outside the law" factor at work here. To move forward I suggest we build consensus without them, ignore the circular arguments. If they decide to debate legit points instead they are then welcome to participate, but I think beyond enough attention has been wasted on debating a historical fact. Tendancer 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have repeatedly provided sources for all points I have made. On at least four occasions during this debate I have provided sources for Dylan's "return" to Judaism - often times using your own reliable sources against you. Each time editors accept and acknowledge his return to Judaism, some other member of the pack comes forward a week or two later demanding sources a new.
You forget to note that none of the independent sources which you present could be considered reliable sources, specifically considering the standards of WP:BLP. You repeatedly site Jewish community sites and Youtube videos as if these are suppose to blow our minds- when, it should be pointed out, no religiously affiliated site was accepted when providing sources for his conversion- not even, in fact, a Jewish Newsletter.
Regarding the times you "use our own reliable sources against us", it seems that you believe your exegesis is solid gold, as to make such a statement here you would have to repeatedly ignore my comment each time I point out the problem with your personal interpretations of isolated comments. Actually, come to think of it, I don't recall you ever referring to the most reliable sources which we frequently bring up in this discussion; these of course being the biographies.
Therefore, the editors involved repeatedly ask for sources for his 'return', because despite your overwhelming confidence in the way you interpret things, I doubt anyone else is really convinced by out-of-context exegesis; nor will anyone who remembers the bar which was set for sources regarding conversion forget that bar when considering the sources concerning his reversion. We expect reliable, WP:BLP satisfactory sources- for both his conversion and his reversion.--C.Logan 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with both of the comments above. Any action by the Mediation Cabal is by definition unofficial. And the quote regarding the definition of a tendentious editor is also accurate. Basically, in effect, a mediated solution is more or less official, in a sense, until and unless the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee is called in. However, unless such recourse is taken, assuming good faith more or less requires that the mediated solution be accepted. The only question that really remains is whether the solution, when it is arrived at, will be accepted. John Carter 14:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
John Carter, you seem to be forgetting that your requests for mediation, arbitration, community sanctions, blocks against editors who disagree with you etc. etc. etc. have all been declined. For the record, I agreed to this form of mediation based upon the description provided on the WP:MEDCAB page. Now, the mediator has dropped a bombshell, completely changing the terms of the mediation, issuing judgements. I'm not sure that I find that acceptable. Cleo123 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
So do you want a third mediator or to put this to something more formal? Possibly you hoped mediation would lead to all of us coming to some kind of agreement, but at some point it became clear that won't happen. Or we could contact Jimbo and see if Moralis's reading of Wikipedia policy is correct. Because I'm not sure what Moralis said is a "bombshell." Dylan can still be excluded if we decide to exclude former converts. He did say that Wikipedia policy would maintain his inclusion, if we don't exclude former converts, but that is the reading of policy virtually everyone here agrees to except you and Bus stop. I don't agree with Dylan being in because I think allowing him in could lead to lots of nonsense in something already a bit problematic. I also disagree with calling him "born-again", as some still seem to want, because this seems to be a label he's specifically disapproved of for over 20 years. Still I don't see any evidence that he'd consider it libel to say he tried some form of Christianity for a time and then left it. I'm not for including it because I think it and him are unnecessary to this. I don't see why it'd be libellous though. If he were a rabbi or Jewish theologian it could, but he's a folk/rock musician.--T. Anthony 08:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Response to User:Cleo123 - So noted. Feel free to take any other action you believe appropriate. However, I do note as per that the WP:MEDCAB page does explicitly state, and I quote, "We cannot judge who is right (unless there is a clear policy violation)." As the mediator has stated that his conclusions are what he considers basically clear statements regarding what he sees as clear policy, I think that his actions to date are within the parameters as defined on that page. I note that much of your arguement seems to be based on a personal interpretation of WP:BLP. I also note that you have never explicitly mentioned these concerns of yours on the talk page there. That might be one way to proceed. Also, feel free to initiate yourself any other procedures, as you see fit, realizing that (1) other parties will possibly also have to agree to it, and I can't guarantee that others will, and (2) there are other existing rules, policies, and guidelines, which admins may act on on their own. John Carter 18:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there some reason Tendancer is posting the above information? It seems unrelated to anything. Why would an editor post information without relating it to anything else posted around it? Curiously, Tendancer does not identify the object of his above post. Bus stop 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Curiously, no specific object was identified in Cleo's post, either. I guess we may just have to consider the placement. Who knew? --C.Logan 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If it'll stop arguments I think we should accept this. I think it's time we move on to whether we include former converts at all. By "former converts" I mean people on record as having embraced a new religion or renouncing Christianity. Flynt's made pretty clear statements he doesn't believe in God at all anymore and that his Christianity "didn't take." The Sikh in that section converted under uncertain circumstances, he was getting an education in England I believe so might've just done it to smooth that, and went back to Sikhism. Dylan's been discussed too much. Some say disincluding them will be too difficult, but I don't see why. You can usually discover when a notable person converts to a new religion. I don't even mean notable as in "world famous." Rod Dreher's conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy was mentioned in his Wikipedia article within a day or two of it happening and he's not exactly a household name.--T. Anthony 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I also believe that the focus needs to move from Dylan, because it's getting rather ridiculous at this point- unless we make general decisions before specific ones, we may find ourselves debating without structure, which will ultimately prolong things. I'm not one of the editors who sees any real necessity in including or excluding them.
As far as I see it, it is merely a slight matter of preference, rather than any dramatic issue regarding policies or the inability to keep things up to date (although I would agree that it would be unrealistic to have a frequency of source-checking at any regular interval), or any issue of slander/libel/misrepresentation/proselytism. That is to say, in my own personal observation, it appears do boil down to one question- what will make this article more useful to an interested reader?
Well, as far as I'm concerned, and if the proper descriptions are given (as they are now), I see no issue against the inclusion of such individuals. It is essentially the addition of information relevant to the subject. Only the application of POV presuppositions can really turn it into anything more than that.--C.Logan 17:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The last question above is for others to answer. Personally, I have to say that we would almost be required to use the "people who have become Christian by conversion" option as specifically using the requirement that the individual be a Christian would, as soon as that parameter is established, result in similar almost endless discussions whenever a given subject has not attended church services for a month or so. Having said that, however, I can and do see that it might be a good idea to say that some individuals can and should probably appear on more than one such list, when they have had notable conversions to more than one religion. And, just for clarification, I'm curious what the phrase "good argument for the exclusion of non-Christians as a whole" above specifically means. This question is not and should not be perceived as being in any way a challenge, just a request for clarification. John Carter 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
By this, I meant that those who seem to believe that the list should exclude people who are no longer Christian should feel free to pursue that argument in a way that does not involve WP:BLP, as their opinion is still equally valid and this discussion is far from complete. --Moralis (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect I don't think this "requirement that the individual be a Christian would, as soon as that parameter is established, result in similar almost endless discussions whenever a given subject has not attended church services for a month or so" is valid. It has not been established that church service of any kind is required to be considered a Christian. Christian Conventions, Cooneyites, etc do not have churches/attendance at all in any usual sense of the word. That they are Christians is less controversial, I believe, than the claim the Christian Scientists or Christadelphians are Christian. In addition to that excluding "former Christians" has always been about excluding people who are classed, by reliable sources, as now being in other faiths or philosophies. Being lapsed or non-observant is not the same as being "former" and I see no evidence that confusion on that is going to be significant. There is a logic to not including former Christians and I think that can be implemented with very little work. By doing that you can have this more clearly as a "List of Christians", you avoid the implied insult to Christianity (The Islam list would not insult Islam like this, it does not include people like George Weah or Jean-Bédel Bokassa who left the faith), you avoid including people whose conversions were temporary matters of convenience, it becomes more useful as interreligious study, etc. However I think it's most likely former Christians will stay on the list now that the one deal is over.--T. Anthony 22:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, and I acknowledge that I used less than exact language. However, I was simply trying to point out (badly, it appears), that if we establish a concrete parameter of any kind which we would use as a hard-and-fast rule for inclusion in articles such as this one, I cannot help but see that at some point in the future, someone, possibly guided by an absolute belief in their own position, will argue for or against the inclusion of the party they wish to include or remove on that basis, and be successful if it were used as an absolute rule. I acknowledge that there are cases where church attendance of any kind is not necessary for one to remain a believing Christian, particulary in places and times where there were no religious sites which those parties might use readily available. And I clearly agree that including those whose conversion was simply a matter of convenience would be a worthwhile goal. It would however be problematic, and very likely original research in some cases, to try to make that last differentiation. I can see "grouping" converts together by time and religion, in some cases, and even excluding some members of that group, when circumstances other than religious belief per se seem to have possibly been paramount. So, for example, I might see in "converts from X" an entry like, for instance, "Several of the people of Area X during the Y century, with A, B, and C being particularly notable converts." I do believe having such "concentrated" listings when a large number of people converted (possibly for convenience) at the same time is both reasonable both in regards to article length and to eliminate redundancy. John Carter 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Once the argument has been stripped of both the unwarranted elements of suspicion and the unsupported arguments of misuse of policy, it would seem that the rest of it becomes a simple matter of personal preference.
That is to say, now that we have clarified that there is no real conflict in policy, and that the editors involved should not be supposed to have ulterior motives, all that remains is a division of preferences. I believe the inclusion of such individuals is not problematic, as long as their status is clearly noted, and it is even less of an issue if they are relocated entirely to a separate section. As there is no confusion in this arrangement, the argument boils down to this: should we include more information (that may prove useful and edifying to others), or less?
At least, that's how I view it. As I've explained, I've learned quite a bit about a man I never really familiarized myself with before this discussion began, and all because of a single listing. Therefore, I would say that there is a lot which can be learned from a simple listing on this page. If we are truly in the business of presenting information to others, then there should be no impediment to inclusion of this information if it is presented fairly, with justification and elaboration, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure how the opposing argument really stands on its own when it is not crutched by accusations against editors and the stretched misapplication of policies (as it does not have the force, which it is intended to have, without these elements).--C.Logan 22:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment No, it is not a "matter of personal preference" - an interesting Freudian slip there. No special "preference" should be shown to this convert list, as opposed to the lists connected with all other religious groups on Wikipedia. For whatever reason, a group of editors connected with the Christianity list seem very dedicated to making this list as long as it can possibly be by also including individiduals who clearly have left Christianity. The article's talk page demonstrates a history of resistance to removing any names from this list even when reliable sources have required editorial revision. While this clique of editors are attempting to be as inclusive as possible, editors on the majority of other such lists are operating under a premise of care and exclusion where living people are concerned.
WP:NPOV applies not only on an article by article basis, but also from a global perspective. To allow one religion to "pad" its list with individuals who have publicly left that religion, would be to exercise an editorial bias in favor of that religion. It also creates some weight issues from a global perspective because converts to one faith would be overstated in comparison to other faiths represented on Wikipedia.
No one has suggested that the ongoing church attendance of individuals included on the list be monitored for list maintenance. That is a very dramatic suggestion. When there is clear evidence from reliable sources suggesting that an individual has left Christianity, they should be striken from the list. It's really quite simple. Individuals who have identified themselves as something other than Christian do not belong on the list of notable Christian converts.
The clear cut precedent has been that convert lists for all religions on Wikipedia do not include people who have left those religions. Precedent should prevail in this case. No "special treatment" should be afforded to the Christianity list, in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BIAS. Cleo123 08:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Amazingly, I gave the two conditions under which the discussion becomes a matter of preferences, and immediately after you question my remark, you follow with a reply which completely ignores the second condition which I had stated, and by that prerequisite also violates the first condition. Once again, once you drop the stretched misapplication of policy 'violations', and cease to presuppose an 'agenda' as the driving force behind the opposition, the state of the article becomes a matter of preference. Once you drop the drama you continually impose in your argument, the decision is this way or that way, not right way or wrong way- hence, a matter of preference over the presentation of information within the article.--C.Logan 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the list of those people who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion. It is not a list of those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity. How do we know that? Because parameters arise naturally. We naturally have two groups of Christians: those who were born Christian, and those who converted to Christianity. But both groups only contain Christians. Neither group contains non-Christians. In order to assert that this is the list of all those who have ever converted to Christianity you have to slightly modify the elemental parameters. Doing so is a contrivance. That opens up the newly configured parameters to charges of serving special interests. The new parameters are not "elemental" parameters anymore. They are those parameters chosen to (potentially) push a specific agenda. Those parameters (potentially) constitute point of view pushing, because those parameters are (potentially) engineered to attain desired results.

I may be the only one saying it but the article as presently configured is antisemitic. It endeavors to put a known Jew on a list of what, when properly understood, is a list of Christians. The article is specifically tied to Christianity -- it is part of the WikiProject Christianity. It even displays a crucifix on it, emblematic of Christian identity. We do not demonstrate respect for a person's identity by jamming their name into a space that disregards, even contradicts, that identity. We respect differences by steering a wide berth around those valid and wholesome characteristics that define personal identity. A poor argument is given for Dylan's conversion to Christianity. Certainly formal conversion is unlikely. Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity for 27 years. Dylan was born a Jew. That leaves little to no claim to Dylan being Christian. It is antisemitic to label a Jew as a Christian. We are talking about two different religions that have not always had a peaceful relationship to one another. For that reason, and for the illogic of the parameters presently asserted for this list, I think this list should only have Christians on it. Bus stop 16:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We should not be adjusting parameters unless we have a compelling reason to do so. We should be sticking to basic parameters until and unless a reason is articulated for using more complicated parameters. Basic parameters arise from the two groups that arise from the two means by which people become Christians: by birth and by conversion. Basic parameters for this list are the parameters for that second group, namely those who've become Christians by conversion. Unless an editor can present a compelling reason why the more complicated parameters advanced by some editors here for this list should apply, then the simpler and more basic parameters should apply. That translates into simply that only Christians should be on this list. If no one can present a reason for more complicated parameters, then all non-Christians should be removed from this list henceforth. Bus stop 01:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Although you're aware that I disagree with the concept that anyone is trying to 'adjust' anything, as the individuals involved, specifically Dylan, have remained on this list without opposition since the creation of this article (hence it has been consensus to include these individuals until the current discussion has arisen, I feel that it may be useful to use your terminology so you and I might reach a better understanding of things.
At least in my case, I feel that parameters should be 'adjusted' for a reason which I personally feel is quite 'compelling'- at least as compelling as encyclopedia editing can be. As you agree (as you have said), the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information, and useful information at that. Well, although you certainly assume that misdoing is behind the attempts to 'expand' the article, I do not make those assumptions, and I do not function in accordance with those assumptions.
I believe, therefore, that any 'expansion' of this list is not bad at all, not because of my 'affiliation', but because of the mere fact that on an encyclopedia, transmitting more useful information is a positive thing. I believe that the list is much more useful if it endeavors to include converts who remain Christian as well as those who do not.
I have given (lightly comparable) examples of this, such as the repeated point of List of vegans; if an individual wishes to learn who has practiced veganism during their lifetimes, the information is all there- limiting the entries by currency only stunts the possibilities of useful information being transmitted through the article (although it would be more helpful if current practitioners and exes were separated for purposes clarity).
Of course, I feel the same concept applies here. There is no harm in listing individuals who converted, and later fell away from the faith or returned to their former faith. The information relayed is two-fold: the reader not only learns that the individual had converted to this faith, but also learns that the individual has made another change of faith/belief later in life. In this presentation, the information is presented in a clear manner with no ambiguity. It presents two points of relevant information concerning these individuals, both of which are as worthy of note as the conversions of any other individual on the list.
As one user has mentioned, there are certainly many individuals who are not aware of Dylan's post-conversion 'abandonment' and actions, and the listing here notes both the event and the subsequent occurrence, thus, in such an instance, correcting misconceptions individuals might have about Dylan, or anyone else within the section.
As we're trying to make the situation of these individuals as clear as possible to, (imagine this), your satisfaction, it is troubling to me that you still have such a problem with the whole idea. Compromise is being attempted, but it seems that you hold an all-or-nothing mentality, which is really not a productive mindset (although that's not to say that anyone else is wholly innocent of this same behavior, here).
Humor me: if Dylan (and by extension, the other individuals) were to remain on this list, in what manner would their presentation be acceptable to you? That is to say, by what terms would you accept the presence of these individuals. This is not a case of me 'going to any measure' to include these individuals, but is merely a simple question which hopefully might help resolve this entire issue. Once again, even though you do not agree with inclusion at all, what terms would be necessary for your satisfaction if Dylan and the others had to be included?--C.Logan 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In this instance, transmitting "more" information is not a "positive" thing, it is an antisemitic thing. At the least it constitutes point of view pushing for a Christian agenda. That is in violation of a variety of Wikipedia principles.

A known Jew cannot be placed on a list with the info-box seen below without it being antisemitic: Does anybody notice the upright vertical bar and the horizontal bar which crosses it at a right angle about two-thirds of the way up? It is known as a crucifix. It is symbolic of, emblematic of, if you will, Christianity and indeed Christian identity. How is this relevant to this discussion? Aren't we discussing whether or not non-Christians should be included on this list? As a subsection of that discussion, aren't we discussing whether or not Dylan should be on this list? Are we not aware that Dylan is a Jew? If Dylan is a Jew, is there any editor that does not recognize that it is an antisemitic act to put a Jew on a list headed up by a crucifix? It happens to also be a contradiction. And it also happens to involve a contrivance of the parameters of this list. (The contrived parameters are merely an offense to logic.) Can we try to be rational in our use of this list and try to confine its use to those people who actually are Christian? Could we endeavor for that? The crucifix happens to be symbolic of Christian identity. Obviously anybody who is not a Christian cannot be on a list headed up by a crucifix without inherent contradiction and disregard for religion in general. Bus stop 02:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop- See: Jesus. The tag pertains to articles and lists relating to the subject of Christianity- are you not aware that not every subject involved in these articles has be a Christian?--C.Logan 03:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The cross is no longer on this article and neither is Dylan at the moment. The cross doesn't have to return to the article at all, but I think it's just saying it's part of the Christianity project. That strikes me as a whole different conversation anyway. I have to admit you seem to radiate a strong anti-Christian/Christianophobic vibe on this thread. Have people here been too mean to you or do you just need a vacation?--T. Anthony 05:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You made sense above and now you're back to this stuff again. The antisemitism issue is dead. If you can't move on from it than well just move on.--T. Anthony 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It is personal attacks such as this that keeps this project from moving forward. Drumpler 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
And your statements have been expressed in at least similar form (if the above is not an exact cut-and-paste job) before, repeatedly. Thank you for expressing your opinion again. However, please rest assured that we all remember them well enough that there is no practical need to cut and paste previous comments again. John Carter 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Was this to me or Bus stop? Drumpler 13:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It was to Bus stop. I was just adding an additional comment below your own. Sorry for any formatting errors. John Carter 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, Bus stop, how come you are making an issue of Dylan and not Flynt or Singh? Why the only Jew that was on the "former convert" list? Drumpler 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Past voluntary professions of faith" is a practical standard, and our language is clear

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

In addition to the above comment, I'd like to reiterate (for the sake of the renewed phase of this mediated discussion) that it appears this may be the best article to list "former converts" and people whose "recent" religious status is "indeterminate or disputed." So long as the language we use is direct, it honestly presents the available information, and avoids misrepresentation through clear language in a seperate section within the article, then we're right to list these within the context of this article. We're compiling and presenting information that's significant to the lives of people who made a notable conversion to Christianity, which is very much relevant to this article. This information doesn't currently have a better home. As of now, if a separate article called "Former Notable Converts To Christianity" were to be created, it would most likely be suggested that the contents of the article be merged back into this article. There's simply not enough existing material to justify a unique article, and no demand for such an article to stand separate from this one. There would also remain the problem of labling people "former converts," when their status is actually highly uncertain or disputed.

If, with time, the subject of "former converts" develops into a viable topic for it's own article; if enough material is compiled to justify such an article; and if a way is found to approach the subject of "indeterminate" and "disputed" status; then it will become appropriate to spin this off into its own article. For now, though, this section exists specifically to address the concerns of those who might dispute the status of some people who made notable conversions that significantly affected their lives.

This is the product of compromise, a result of efforts to appease those who had reservations about the inclusion of certain people on this list. All efforts have been made to be entirely forthcoming about the status of people on the list, and to avoid any possiblity of misconstruing the information available. Those who hold the minority opinion about the inclusion of certain people on this list have actually improved this article by compelling a change to the language of the text, the creation of a separate section, and the opening of debate on the issue. So, that's the positive side of this highly contested debate.

It seems unlikely and unreasonable, however, to expect this list to expel the names of all people who made notable conversions, on the basis of a later change of faith, or a lack of documentation of their current faith. The most reasonable arguement that I can see against including former or disputed converts is that their status could be misconstrued, but I think the edits that have sectioned these people out and provided explanatory text have largely addressed these concerns, and can be relied upon to avoid any misunderstanding/misrepresentation. The semantics of debating "what does the title mean or imply" should not entirely trump the text and contents of the page, which have become very explicit in detailing the status of it's members, and have been fleshed out with many references detailing all perspectives on the issue. zadignose 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just create a new "Disputed" section

Make a 'Disputed' section, where you can place people for whom conversion is hazy or not known fully. I dont see any problem in that. Maybe that'd help solve the disputes. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could work. I would favor a separate subsection/listing for each religion, if the current structure is maintained, as a single separate section of "disputed converts" could include converts from everything from Aztec religion to Zoroastrianism. John Carter 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm against it. The question is then "disputed" by whom? If it's by a secondary source that claims Dylan's conversion status was disputed, then that's fine. If it's due to dispute by Wikipedia editors, that doesn't seem to belong in the content of an encyclopedic article--we would be adding a "disputed" description not because any source states so but because our opinions deem so, and that's original research. Tendancer 17:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The condition you cited was actually what I was thinking of, Tendancer. I can imagine that we might have such questioned conversions arising. I can particularly see them in instances when the original faiths are so similar that it could be questioned whether there was a conversion or not. John Carter 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
If the religious persuasion/ conversion status of a living person is questionable, it should not be included at all, in accordance with WP:BLP. We should not be creating seperate sections to house material that is contentious and/or does not meet the standard for inclusion in the main article. Cleo123 09:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between "questionable", which means simply that someone can question it, and "questioned", the word I used. By definition, anyone can question anything, thus making it "questionable". "Questioned" as I see it means that there are reliable sources that have indicated that such a conversion took place, but that there are other sources which have, for whatever reason, questioned it. As per WP:BLP in the second example cited in the WP:BLP#Well known public figures section regarding an alleged affair, we are completely within the bounds of BLP as explicitly stated on that page itself to include such information. However, if there is another reliable source which calls such into question, then I believe that it can still be included, provided some indication is made as to the nature and reason of the dispute. John Carter 14:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
John, we both know debating with an user who consistently misapplies WP:BLP and throws around the "libel" tag is wasting time. A mediator explained why it's inapplicable, numerous editors explained why it's inapplicable. One user has ignored them and continues to make the same arguments ad nauseum--citing sources that 1) s/he synthesizes to reach manufactured conclusions, a characteristic of disruptive editors specifically outlined in WP:DE and 2) can be used against him/her b/c these sources in his/her own words, cites "[Dylan]'s "return" to Judaism". How does one return from something unless one converted? I also don't agree why you're debating "questionable", "disputes", etc. Many users might've questioned if former converts belong on the list--that'd be fine and then folks like Dylan is either on or off, no need for new descriptions. Meanwhile, as far as I know only two persons on this planet question it as having ever happened after being presented with dozens of mainstream sources: Bus Stop and Cleo123. We can't waste energy to try to accommodate every viewpoint, esp if it's a viewpoint that refuse to accept facts, moderation, mediation, and consensus. It's time to move on to a consensus without them and address the greater point of former vs current. You've been corresponding with them for months, often having to reuse the same arguments yourself; twice now when mediators reached conclusions they don't like they just reject it and try to discredit the mediators ad hominem, so obviously there's no reason to think continuing to beat a dead horse and embark on a debate to define "questionable" (esp when only two people on earth is doing the questioning on this particular point) will accomplish anything. Cheers. Tendancer 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really directed at anyone. Anyway I thought this sounded interesting, but on consideration I think it's probably a bad idea. Maybe even a very bad idea. Disputed sections on religion-related lists can easily lead to a bunch of gossip entries and then get deleted anyway. Even some famous examples of disputed conversions, like Gamaliel and Pontius Pilate's wife, could be highly controversial even in a disputed section. (The Christian-themed miniseries "AD" had Gamaliel as sympathetic or tolerant to Christians, but generally kept to modern concensus that he was not an actual convert and just considered Christians "basically good if a bit misguided.")--T. Anthony 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope this isn't taken badly by anyone, but I think we might have a potential future disagreement here, and you may have cited one of the better potential examples. Please see here. For both of the names you listed, considering both are counted as saints of the Christian church and at least Gamaliel's conversion is open to question based on other info (there being really minimal info about Pilate's wife anywhere), I think such a heading might be the best place for him. Part of my reason is that I do think someone eventually might at least try to add both names, and having a section for such historically questionable conversions might be the best place. Having said that, I would include only those individuals for whom contemporary or later reliable sources are either absent or specifically silent on the point, and where there is some other directly contrary seemingly reliable evidence. Comparatively unattested, undocumented conversions which seem at least somewhat to be explicitly contradicted by other evidence might be best put there, or one some other list containing such historically questioned conversions. John Carter 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Those were two of the more noted examples as they are both in the New Testament. (Although the New Testament does not specifically say either one converted. Even their pro-Jesus or Pro-Chistian remarks in the NT are a bit open to interpretation) Still even going back to the old Catholic Encyclopedia they show some doubt by saying "At an early date, ecclesiastical tradition has supposed that Gamaliel embraced the Christian Faith." Also they site Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople, who lived centuries later and who they blame for the schism between East and West, as the source of his Baptism.[31]. However considering Photius's regard in Eastern Christianity it might be useful to know how they see Gamaliel today.--T. Anthony 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I believe the ultimate citation for his 'conversion' is the Clementine literature(here's one example), which is dated anywhere from the 2nd to the 4th century. Photius provides only the specifics of his baptismal tradition (Peter & John), but this seems to be a simple legend (though, of course, you never know). Of course, there is a lot of skepticism behind the validity of the Ecclesiastical tradition, specifically amongst the Catholics themselves.
One reason for this skepticism, beside the lack of strong historical evidence to suggest his conversion, is his treatment in the Talmud, which is very positive- not something you might expect if he actually became a Christian (though it is claimed he became one in secrecy).--C.Logan 00:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
One idea which I had mentioned elsewhere might be a potential solution here. Perhaps, given the rather "mythical" nature of several of the stories of early converts to Christianity, that section could be started with a statement to the effect of "The majority of earliest converts to Chrsitianity resided in the area of Jerusalem, becoming converts after hearing Jesus himself speak or later, through the efforts of his early disciples. These included the Twelve Apostles, (other names), and several others whose conversions are less reliably documented in outside literature. For a more complete listing of such individuals, please see "List of early converts to Christianity". Then that subpage could include in the initial introduction a statement that not all the names included can be verified as converts by non-Christian sources, but that existing Christian sources do include them, in addition to any comments regarding the lack of outside data to verify such conversions following the names. Do you think that might be an acceptable compromise? John Carter

Any chance of archiving here?

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)

I believe the entire mediation should be kept "whole" and eventually housed in its own seperate archive. Cleo123 08:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
I agree. I just want the mediation threads to all be archived as a whole. Cleo123 09:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Overwhelming Consensus?

There have been several very misleading posts to this discussion in the last few days that attempt to paint User:Bus stop and myself as some sort of "unreasonable minority" somehow operating "outside the law" contrary to concensus. Amid the sea of personal attacks from a variety of editors, trolling demands for previously provided sources and excessively long posts by User:C.Logan - I find the following:

"I think all former Christians need to be removed from this list. There is no reason to have any former Christian on this list, except ad populum propaganda. It somehow makes certian people feel that if there are a lot of converts, their religion is somehow more true. That is part of the reason why these lists get long. I see no other reason to include former Christians other than to make this list longer."--Sefringle 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
"...One's religion is a complicated business. Theoretically, you can accept all (or nearly all) of the Christian canon and still not call yourself a Christian. Likewise, you can reject all of the Christian canon and still call yourself a Christian (this is the position of some prominent Anglican clergy). The same for other religions. You can hold completely contradictory opinions at the same time. There is no authoritative source as to "what you are" or even "what you were", except you, and if you're not willing to talk plainly on the subject, how can you be included in a list of this or that?"
"AFAIK, Dylan at no time said plainly and on the record, "I am a Christian." It is all inference, very reasonable inference but still inference. His later statements deny explicit Christianity, but these are in reference to his later position(s). He is keeping his religious position, especially now, private. As is his right. So why is he anywhere on this list?..."--Wfaxon 00:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
"Moralis, the general precedent has been that in lists of people by belief, only those who currently hold that belief, or held it until death, are listed. So you won't find Antony Flew in List of atheists, or Charles Templeton in List of Christians, no matter how notable they were in their former faiths or belief systems. (Incidentally, you won't find Joe Lieberman on List of notable Democrats either.) List of notable converts to Islam is an exception to this pattern. I think this list should follow the generally followed standard of listing people according to their current beliefs/nonbeliefs, for three reasons: (1) Styles for parallel Wikipedia articles ought to be as consistent with each other as is practical. It's more encyclopedic that way, and easier to follow. (2) The article contents will more closely match what is described in the article title. Again, it's more encyclopedic, and easier to follow. (3) Finally, and most importantly, it errs on the side of caution by giving the greatest possible respect for a person's current choice of self-identity. I would support creating a separate article listing former converts to Christianity, if there were ever enough persons found to justify such a list. Otherwise, I think such persons more properly belong in List of notable former Christians, where they can be noted both as converts and deconverts." Nick Graves 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"…I don't agree with Dylan being in because I think allowing him in could lead to lots of nonsense in something already a bit problematic. I also disagree with calling him "born-again", as some still seem to want, because this seems to be a label he's specifically disapproved of for over 20 years..."--T. Anthony 08:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to me that within the last 2 weeks, there have been at least six editors arguing on the so-called "minority" side of this discussion. By contrast, it would appear that there are six editors arguing the opposing point of view. That is not an overwhelming majority - nor are the numbers reflective of any sort of consensus. In light of these facts, it would be much appreciated if terms like "majority" and "consensus" were not used in the misleading manner in which they have been in recent days. Excessive postings by the same cast of characters should not be misconstrued to constitute "overwhelming consensus". Likewise, overtly hostile attempts to drive editors away from the discussion with vieled threats and personal attacks will not result in any sort of "true" or lasting consensus. Cleo123 00:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing that might be causing confusion is there seems to be two or maybe three positions in "the minority" camp.
  • We should focus on not allowing any former converts: This seems to be the position of Nick Graves & I. If I understand this correctly we read "converts to Christianity" as a description of people not as a description of an action which may or may not change. To list members of other religions as "converts to Christianity" is therefore nonsensical and contradictory. It'd be like calling Laurence Olivier an American actor, for the years he spent in the US, or Ezra Pound an Italian writer.
  • Dylan's conversion didn't happen or is offensive: This is where I think you and Bus Stop are placed. This seems to anger some and just confuse others.
  • Uncertain: Not meaning they're not sure of their opinion. Their opinion is that it's uncertain whether Dylan, or other former converts, really converted or not. Therefore leave off any case that's disputed or uncertain. I lean in this direction at times and Wfaxon seems like that.

The "other camp" seems more uniform so might seem "bigger."--T. Anthony 01:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment It seems to me that User:Bus stop, myself and all the editors listed above have expressed the view that individuals who have left Christianity should not be included on the List of notable converts to Christianity. If the "other camp" seems larger it is because they continually claim to have achieved consensus by way of majority. However, they do not represent a clear cut majority. Opposing opinion is being buried in excessive and repetitive, often off point, postings to this discussion. Cleo123 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a lot to get too, but yes you two agree with the premise of Nick or I. I think what I mean is that the focus is in different areas. The three "sub-camps" I mentioned all share some basic premises. You, and especially Bus stop, are more focused on the idea Dylan did not convert. If that was less important to this discussion I probably wouldn't care at all. I vary between thinking he probably did convert or that it's uncertain but a reasonable theory. What makes me at times vary from you two is you both seem to have fairly strict ideas about what conversion would even involve so I'm not certain how that'd effect the article if you "won." Although I think you, meaning just you and not Bus stop, make some good points.--T. Anthony 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
One complaint. I, and I believe everyone else, would probably appreciate it if the beginner of this thread did not create "quotes" around statements which appear nowhere else on this page, as it seems to indicate that others have in fact said such statements. If such misrepresentations of the statements and positions of others were ceased, there might be some way to a solution. However, I note that no indication of a solution is to be found in the rather long post above. Please inform me how you would go about resolving this dispute. To date, you, Cleo, have actively discouraged any attempts at resolution. What do you propose to do to resolve this, or are you content to continue to misrepresent the statements of others, as you did in the title of this thread? John Carter 01:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You see, T. Anthony, the employment of tactics such as these give the false impression of uniformity. Here we have John Carter, once again, attempting to act as a spokesperson for "everyone else" - much in the same manner that C.Logan has previously made a habit of using the pronoun "we" in his posts. I truly doubt that editors such as User:zadignose would consider User:Warlordjohncarter his/her spokesperson. Yet, there you have it.
Once again, John Carter, appears to be requesting more sources for information that is easily found on the page:
"Clearly there's the "unreconciled" and "outside the law" factor at work here. To move forward I suggest we build consensus without them, ignore the circular arguments. If they decide to debate legit points instead they are then welcome to participate, but I think beyond enough attention has been wasted on debating a historical fact." Tendancer 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather than addressing the fact that his view does not represent any sort of clear cut majority, he appears to be playing more games, pretending he somehow "can't find" or "doesn't see" comments that were made in direct response to one of his own posts.
As John Carter is well aware, I proposed a compromise several weeks back, which User:Bus stop and other editors agreed to. Editors on his side of this dispute refused to accept the compromise solution. At this juncture, I believe that Wikipedia precedent should prevail and the parameters and scope of this list should be made to conform with the majority of other lists of this type contained on Wikipedia. Cleo123 03:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't fight too much you two. Still getting around the hostility I think there's a kind of valid question. What would resolution mean for you? That could include "for you Cleo" or "for you John Carter." I don't think I was here weeks ago so I'm not sure what compromise you refer to. The idea of putting them in former Christians? If you don't believe Dylan was ever a Christian why did you agree to that idea?--T. Anthony 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my comments have been twisted and spun quite a bit by quite a few editors - so much so - that I often don't recognize what I am alleged to have said! LOL! For the record, I have never disputed the fact that Bob Dylan experimented with and somehow got involved with Christianity for some period of time. I do not object to sourced discussion of his alleged conversion being included in his biography, a forum that lends itself to a balanced, neutral, sourced presentation being provided. My objection has always been to inclusion on something as definitive as a list of converts. Did he formally convert to Christianity? I don't know. I don't think any of us know that for a fact. Why? Because Bob Dylan, apparently, does not want us to know. He seems to have indicated that a formal conversion is a fabrication of the media. I am inclined to think that may be the case. I see a lot of WP:WEASEL WORDS and passing the buck in many of the sources provided. Media outlets of the time period do not seem to report a formal conversion as fact - and WP:LIVING cautions us to be wary of such sources. To date, no evidence has been provided that he left Judaism. There is an argument to be made for the fact that he may have simply incorporated some Christian beliefs into his Judaic practice, for a brief period of time, which ran paralel to the release and promotion of some gospel albums. For example, "Jews for Jesus" members do not seem to categorize themselves as "converts to Christianity". I'm not sure this case is that different. I am simply trying to 'ere on the side of caution where a living person is concerned.
The previously discussed compromise was to create a seperate list for converts who had fleeting "conversions". As you know, I do not believe that Dylan's involvement with Christianity rose to the level of a "formal" conversion - so that was quite a compromise for me to agree to. I only proposed it for the sake of ending this insufferable debate. Editors on the other side of the dispute unilaterally rejected the idea. My willingness to reach some sort of a compromise has been grossly under appreciated. Honestly, at this junction, I question whether or not these editors really want the dispute to be resolved. Every time we come close to reaching a resolution, there is a new wave of personal attacks, attempts to get editors on this side of the fence blocked or somehow "punished" for their views, and attempts to revisit previously settled matters. Cleo123 06:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. The second mediator has left so I think we should put this idea of yours to an actual vote. If it does not get a majority we should include the former converts. You might be saying "what you've betrayed me", but that's not really it. I looked at the previous votes on the matter and thought about the mediators. I think the solutions left are probably just this idea of yours and allowing the former converts in. Otherwise we'll just argue for eternity. I usually don't like agreeing to something that's wrong, this is part of why I try to leave Wikipedia at times, but in this case I feel like there's been a good deal of discussion so we need a definitive outcome. Even if it's not an ideal one.--T. Anthony 07:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
And yet, compromise concerns both parties. If you haven't noticed, I partly agreed with your idea, though not entirely. The current state of the article is a product of 'compromise'. You hit the ball into our court, and we returned it. Instead of rejecting this arrangement outright, could you take it upon yourself to return the idea? It seems that your definition of compromise only extends as far as you'd like it to- if you were truly interested in compromise, you would be working with the current idea further, and we would eventually, through back-and-forth suggestions, reach a point of agreement. Would you be interested in this, or do you prefer to continue this discussion?
Additionally, as I've explained before, the 'we' signifies all those who agree on the particular point at hand. It seems that you're reading to much into it. If a group of users agree that Dylan should be included (because he converted to Christianity and this, essentially, is a list of people that converted to Christianity), and I am one among them, I see no issue with the pronoun 'we'. I'm sorry if this two letter word proves to be such a troublesome habit of mine.
Another thing which is often ignored- as far as I'm concerned, the stance which other editors and I agree to is an 'improvement' over a 'less useful' arrangement (of course, I still maintain my belief that the arrangement here is the natural one which was intended from the article's creation- but feel free to disagree, of course). Precedents change, Cleo- if they didn't, then Wikipedia would be filled with useless articles because they must all 'conform' to the majority rule. As I've said, the implementation of such a subsection would be extended to all the comparable convert lists.
There is no special treatment exhibited here- this is essentially a superior arrangement, in my opinion, which should be applied to all relevant lists. If you were to agree with this position, you too would promote the adoption of this format for related articles as well. Of course, you don't agree, so in this instance the more conservative option is more favorable to you. Essentially, change is good as much as maintenance of precedent- and again, as I said, which one should be chosen is only a matter of preference once one abandons presuppositions about other editors.--C.Logan 03:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point to bring up, T.Anthony, in regard to the mixed focus of some of the editors here. However, I don't think your analogies work perfectly- by your analogy, the editors here are attempting to call Dylan a 'Christian', which is exactly what these editors are not doing- something that's had to be explained a few times. The analogy instead would be more accurate if you were to note a comparable immigration list- for an example, 'List of notable immigrants to the United States' (Laurence not quite applying here, but of course there are suitable examples). Even if the individual later emigrated to another nation or returned home, there wouldn't be a real reason to remove the individual- does his second action negate the (f)actuality of the first?
On another note, I love being called a troll- especially when I continuously ask for reliable sources, and in response receive nothing of the sort except for an OR exegesis of out-of-context comments. If an individual continued to present sources of a quality which was deemed unacceptable for the sourcing of the conversion, and then gives their own interpretations of isolated comments while ignoring what the reliable sources actually say, would you not continuously ask for usable sources as well?
Honestly, I never would have had a problem with Jewish 'reversion' sources if the Christian 'conversion' sources had not been deemed unacceptable by these same individuals. To accept sources for 'reversion' which are not comparable in quality to the 'conversion' sources when such a fuss was made about these latter sources is hypocritical and, ultimately, a show of one's own bias (as that editor apparently denies that a Christian source could be presenting anything of factual value while on the other hand believes any Jewish website to be of comparable quality to the published, expert-written sources on conversion which we now have had). If the concern is really about the presentation of possibly libelous information, why shouldn't we stick to WP:RS and WP:BLP when considering the 'reversion' sources as well?--C.Logan 01:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No one has called you a troll. Please, stop misrepresenting my statements and the facts regarding this debate. In addition to some Jewish sites I have also previously presented mainstream reliable sources - a fact which you are well aware of. Cleo123 02:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If you called something "immigrants in America", then listed someone who lived here five years and left, I'd see that as misleading. They're not an "immigrant in America" if they're not in America. Even if you put them in a special "temporary section" it would just be adding extraneous information. "Converts to" is a similar terminology by religious standards. Is Dylan or Flynt or Singh vital to this list? I don't see how. Would removing former converts cause these disasters some imagine? Again I don't see how. I think the idea it will is based on some unproven, and I'd say extremely unlikely, premises. Like "If we remove former converts anyone who skips service one Sunday will be removed" or "we can't know what they really believe now" or "we'd have to update it too much if we do that." On the first you're not a former convert unless you outright renounce the religion or leave it for a new one. On the second that could lead to the theory that you can't 100% "know" what they believe at any point, so even when they got baptized it could've been phony no matter what they said. Wikipedia isn't expecting mind-reading. On the third we might need to update it often regardless because Christianity gets new converts all the time and articles on historical figures who converted may be added.--T. Anthony 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You have a point at the beginning, except that isn't what I'd said. 'Immigrants in America' is not the same as 'Immigrants to America'. The use of 'in' certainly guarantees current status, so why would you use this form when responding to my example? These two are as different as the current title is to Bus stop's oft-mentioned interpretation, 'List of notable Christians who arrived by way of conversion'. Obviously, one demands a certain criterion, and the other does not.
I mean, I don't mean to split hairs about phrasing, but the phrasing you present in your point urges me to agree with your argument for that phrasing, but not if you would apply your argument to the phrasing which I had presented. The comparable phrasings, as far as I see it, are 'Converts to' and 'Immigrants to'. Both are used occasionally as compound nouns, and both categorize an individual by a past action, not a present situation.
Additionally, no, I don't believe anyone is 'vital' to this list. The list itself is not 'vital' for any reason. However, it is compiled because it is useful, and like all other lists, it allows an individual to arrive at many different articles through a descriptive hub article. Lists, while vaguely similar to categories, are intended to unite many articles under a concept of similarity with descriptions and explanations (as well as criterion which is much too complicated for a Category). Vitality should not be the deciding factor when it comes time to discuss the changes to an article.
It should be also noted that I've never really backed that frequent argument of 'problematic editing' situations. Personally, it's not really a point I find much merit in (although any article which deals with constantly changing information can be a pain, it's unlikely that conversions will be turning over like hot cakes).
The most unusual thing about this discussion is that, as it has gone on for such a long time, I'm consistently changing my purpose in participating. As far as I'm concerned, my main issue, my entire reason for still being here, is that I believe that the editors who are vehement about Dylan's removal are persistent in their point because of what they believe about the motivations of other editors. As I've said, remove the presuppositions, and it's simple preference- a simple question of 'should we have it like this, or not?'.
If we could all reach a peaceful state, and simply debate the matters of the article in a reasonable manner which does not mix in 'motivations', I would be a joyous young man. As long as accusations of 'anti-semitism' and 'proselytism' are flying around, the discussion will continue with this back-and-forth debate situation. With editors such as you, T.Anthony, I have no real issue with your opinion. As I see it, you function exactly how a user involved in this discussion should- you aren't polarizing the situation, aren't bringing in outside factors, aren't making accusations, and most importantly, you seem to keep a cool head. Certainly, most of the individuals involved, myself included, have skirted or stepped over the edge with some of these behaviors.
I'm going to be starting a new section which, hopefully, will allow the editors involved to discuss the inclusion without incendiary elements thrown in. Unfortunately, I doubt everyone will actually play along with it, but I really do not like this discussion, and I wish to see it go away (of course, even if this means that my suggestions for the article don't take).--C.Logan 06:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
There's not really a phrase like "Converts in Christianity", not that I've heard of anyway. I think as such it's supportable to say "converts to Christianity" is as equivalent to "Immigrants in America" (Or Liechtenstein or whatever, the nation is not important here) as it is "Immigrants to America." I chose "in" to give a sense of how some feel is the logical way to view this. Still if you look above I crossed out my vote. I'm willing to concede the matter to avoid prolonging arguments.--T. Anthony 07:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the thing- one scenario has two possible phrasings, and the other only has one. The thing is, it somewhat parallels the discussion- some people equate this list with the 'in' option, and some equate it with the 'to'. I happen to be a 'to'.
I know you've crossed out your vote, so you should know that I'm just discussing with you here- not looking to debate, or anything.
Honestly, at this point I'd be willing to do anything to expedite a complete resolution. The mediator seems to rule in favor of inclusion, and I believe that we should take great care with how this decision is handled. It certainly does not mean that we should just plop things in as they are, but at least we have a direction which we know we should be working towards. Essentially, we should continue to compromise over the current set-up. As I see your comment above, I'm okay with voting, but I've explained a few times before why, after considering Cleo's idea, I found that the current set-up is more viable.--C.Logan 07:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Your statements:
Each time editors accept and acknowledge his return to Judaism, some other member of the pack comes forward a week or two later demanding sources a new. Such pestering could be considered trolling.
Amid the sea of personal attacks from a variety of editors, trolling demands for previously provided sources and excessively long posts by User:C.Logan.
In the above, you present an analysis of actions which you feel to be a form of trolling. As I am one of the users who continuously asks for sources, I am explaining quite clearly why such an action is not, in any way, 'trolling', as far as I'm concerned. In my mind, the only troll is the individual who continuously presents such sources in ignorance of the previous standards set.
Although, as you generally seem to believe that your exegesis of quotes is a sufficient source, and that the sources you've presented- none of which pass the bar which you yourself demanded for conversion sources- are wholly sufficient, I would attribute your own behavior to negligence and confusion in relation to the discussion, and as such I wouldn't call you a troll.
As it is, I have not yet seen you present a remotely reliable secondary source. As you are aware, the interviews which you find so conducive to your viewpoint, regardless of the publication, are not sufficient sources for the reasons explained in WP:OR:
Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians.
Now, this does not mean that we can't utilize these primary sources which you've presented, but we shouldn't be relying on your presentation of them for any sort of 'proof'. Unless reliable secondary sources are presented to (explicitly) support your assertions, I will keep asking you for sources, no matter how bothersome this may seem to you. All I'm asking is that you find a published, secondary source from an individual who is considered to be an expert on Dylan. As I've always stated, I'm open to these sources, despite what you may assume from my demeanor.--C.Logan 03:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If you would stop assuming that every single comment posted on this page is directed at you, personally, that might help in reducing your number of posts to the discussion. I would also appreciate it if you would stop confusing conversations you had with User:Bus stop regarding reliable sources with conversations you had with me. Why don't you take a little break from responding to every single thing that anyone posts to this page and take some time to review the archive. It is full of sources, as is the Dylan talk page and the AFD discussion. As far as I can see, Dylan's "return" to Judaism was settled some time back in accordance with WP:V. I am not sure why you are now trying to argue this point anew. It is distracting from the issue at hand, which is whether or not Non-Christians should be included on this list. Cleo123 05:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If I choose to respond to comments which are relevant to the discussion, what business is it of yours? How exactly does that suggestion help the discussion? Additionally, I'm not confusing the two of you. With consideration to you, you have provided sources for your arguments, and he has not- and it is your view of these sources which you have presented which I'm scrutinizing. I don't believe that any clear state of belief can be presumed from the sources given.
It should also be noted that the reason I so frequently bring up the reliability of reversion sources is when you exaggerate the situation regarding them. As I see it, Dylan adheres to no religion at all, but that does not really affect the discussion. On another note, the same could be said in response to your frequent scrutiny of the conversion sources- why do you and Bus stop feel free to continuously scrutinize the sources for conversion, and yet you find it unreasonable when an individual scrutinizes the sources claiming a return?
I would vastly prefer that we not discuss sources anymore, but every time you bring up the issue, I choose to respond. Can we not paint this as if I'm starting new sections to criticize the sources continuously? As far as I know, the whole concept of the current subsection works around the idea that Dylan is no longer a Christian, though all third party sources have made it fairly clear that he follows no religion at this time.--C.Logan 06:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the source of argument is the insistence that this is a list of Christians. It's not, is it?71.217.118.217 03:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Some think it is, and some think it isn't. I don't believe that anyone on this list must be a practicing Christian, as I believe the criterion for inclusion should be centered on their conversion, and not their continued participation (as it is in lists such as List of Christians).
Of course, this discussion has been going on for quite some time, and it's pretty clear that no real agreement has been reached on what/who this list should include.--C.Logan 04:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity/Archive_5&oldid=1203633557"