Jump to content

Talk:Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Archived article renaming debate of August and September 2009. Note: discussions may have been refactored.

Summary

Lengthy disscussion aimed at deciding what the correct article title should be. Many were unsatisfied with the previous "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover", and various alternatives were submitted. Ultimately, the title was changed to its current one, "Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence".

Two straw polls were conducted. In the first poll, name suggestions were welcomed, and editors were invited to give brief comments on each name. In the second poll, unsupported names from the first poll were removed. Editors were invited to signify their first choice with a number one (1) and a choice that was unacceptable to them with a letter x (X). With five 1's, "Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence" had the most 1's and also recieved two X's.

After more discussion, the name was changed on 15 September 2009 by AuthorityTam.

Article Name

I agree that simply dropping one half of the current title for this article would amount pushing a POV. But the title is awkwardly long as it stands. Could we all agree to some shorter name like "Southern Baptist Convention Rightist Shift"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugeneacurry (talk • contribs) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that yes the reduction of the name to "conservative resurgence" does seem like it would be non npov. I do agree that a better name that captures the essence of both terms would be better. "Southern Baptist Convention Rightist Shift" or "SBC Conservative Shift" would seem to capture this in npov terms. However, I don't know if this controversy has ever been expressed as a "shift" before. In any case, if the name is changed there should be a redirect as most people seem to refer to it either as a resurgence or a takeover. Ltwin (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
An appeal from AFAProf01
I seriously regret someone bringing up this issue again. It has been hashed and rehashed so many times and in so many places. There is so much history and so many deep feelings. For a younger generation, perhaps like many of you, our recollections and concern about nomenclature may sound like stories of the Civil War—interesting, but not all that relevant today.
The names applied ARE EXTREMELY RELEVANT. "Shift" is very polite but an incredible understatement.
  • "Fundamentalist Takeover" is the name applied by those labeled (by themselves or others) as “liberal,” “moderate,” or “Mainstream.” "Takeover" is accurate, in no way an overstatement—just "rough around the edges." The stated goals of the Resurgence/Takeover meet virtually all the technical and theological definitions of the term “Fundamentalist" as may be seen in the BFM/2000. It is not a stretch, but also is "rough around the edges."
  • “Conservative Resurgence” is the name applied by those labeled (by themselves or others) as “conservatives” or “Fundamentalists.” "Resurgence" is a mouthful, but polite. The entire phrase is the term chosen by the more conservative group and the designers.
If you Google "conservative resurgence," you'll find that is a phrase chosen years ago by the architects of the resurgence/takeover. Another Google of "fundamentalist takeover" will bring up sizable list of references. By leaving it as it is and has been for such a long time, it covers all the bases for both sides. Our article cannot settle the debate, nor lend credence to either side. It does, I think, do its its best to present both POVs fairly.
I do not believe any good can come from exhumation of these remains. It definitely WILL awaken the proverbial "sleeping dogs," call fresh attention to an ugly time in a prominent part of Christianity—giving more fodder to the critics, and divert valuable energies away from what to some are "Matters of Eternal Significance" on the "Christianity" template.
Thank you for even considering my deep feelings. Afaprof01 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to second Afaprof's plea. For better or worse, the two viewpoints are each represented in this article's title, one worked out after a lot of prayerful thought and heated discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but whatever the name is, that's NOT an acceptable option. On Wikipedia, if there are two possible names for something, one is picked and the other is redirected. The Virginia Tech massacre isn't Virginia Tech shootings/tragedy/massacre - it's massacre and the others are redirects. Maybe neither of these options is correct and something completely neutral like Southern Baptist leadership history, Southern Baptist Convention leadership change, or Southern Baptist Convention leadership transition. But the current name is not an acceptable option. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Do_not_use_an_article_name_that_suggests_a_hierarchy_of_articles. Wikipedia:Naming conflict suggests, among its standards for determining the correct name, preferring the name that the subject uses for itself. Obviously, if that standard is used, the Southern Baptist Convention prefers "Conservative Resurgence". Using a Google news search, "conservative resurgence" wins 558 - 315. When using all g-hits, conservative resurgence wins 21400 - 9730. I have no particular preference between "leadership history, leadership change", "leadership transition", some other similarly neutral "made up by Wikipedia" title, or "conservative resurgence", but neither the current state of dueling titles nor "fundamentalist takeover", which is an extreme POV and flies in the face of our guideline of using the subject's self-identified title, are acceptable. --B (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I would not be in favor of "leadership change" or similar term. This was no a simple leadership transition. This was a process which took years and affected more than just the officers of the convention. "Leadership history" too me would would be the title of an article on actual people who led the SBC, not on a shift in the direction and outlook of an entire denomination. I also would question the neutrality of "Conservative resurgence" as many people would contend that that is a pov itself as "resurgence" suggest just that conservatives were reasserting their positions. However, some feel that they went beyond just reasserting their values, they took over the convention. So, to me, it doesn't seem like its going to be acceptable to say "fundamentalist takeover" is definitely out but "conservative resurgence" is ok because it sounds nicer and is what the SBC wants it to be called. Oh and just for the record I'm not a baptist. Ltwin (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
How about conservative shift or conservative movement? "Conservative movement" gets close to the number of gnews-hits of "conservative resurgence". --B (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I know it's really hard to come into this "cold" and "get it." When churches have split in history, a really POV term got used: "schism." Today the news wires are reporting that conservative Episcopalians are "leaving" over the "U.S. church's ordination of an openly gay bishop and other liberal trends." In the SBC we have significant differences:
  • the traditional SBC leadership employees were systematically fired
  • elected officials were replaced by a well-planned and well-publicized conspiracy of "stacking the deck"--according to the designers and planners.
  • Long-term missionaries were disenfranchised and terminated if they refused to sign a pledge-like affidavit to support the new administration and its mandatory . Many came home after years on the mission field.
  • Distinguished tenured and well published seminary professors were summarily fired because they dared not to follow the new party line either their classes, or in their writings. Academic freedom became completely nonexistent. In fact, one seminary was put on probation by its accrediting agency for the patent lack of long-respected and accepted academic freedom. It's all well documented, and I'll be glad for furnish URLs on request.
  • If you've wondered why research from critical Baptist scholars has virtually vanished from search databases, it's because original thought and bold researching is no longer allowed. With them it's not just "publish or perish," it's "publish what we want to read and that agrees with our biases, or perish."
Technically a schism requires a split into two or more groups. So "schism" doesn't apply here. The "Moderates" showed great restraint and maturity in choosing not to form a competitive denomination, although they had the strength and following to do it. The primary new group formed by the "Moderates" is Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. It refuses to be called a denomination, although it has formed all new missionary outreaches, primarily to provide place of service to those disenfranchised by the refusal to sign legalistic pledges and contracts. It runs seminaries, ordains ministers, chaplains and others (without regard to gender). It commissions missionaries and raises support for missionaries it sends at home and abroad. It describes itself as "a fellowship of Baptist Christians and churches who share a passion for the Great Commission of Jesus Christ and a commitment to Baptist principles of faith and practice." No one doubts the "passion for the Great Commission" part applies to the Fundamentalist/Conservative group, but the part about historic "Baptist principles of faith and practice," while given lip-service by the New SBC, bears little resemblance to those that existed prior to the takeover. "Conservative movement," "Rightist Shift" (LtWin is correct that "shift" has never been used), and LtWin is also completely correct in saying "they went beyond just reasserting their values, they took over the convention."

If you review the article's history and talk pages, there have been very few complaints about the article's present title. As far as a double title, that was an effort to strike a compromise and defer to both sides. The Moderates were already referring to the process as a "Fundamentalist Takeover," and the Conservatives from the beginning called their mission a "Conservative Resurgence."

We cannot rewrite history. It fits every definition of a "hostile takover," including the financial part since it a lot of very expensive real estate and huge trust funds were taken over.

I quote from the Wiki article some words that have never been challenged since written here:

  • traumatic disagreement that captured national attention
  • it fragmented Southern Baptist fellowship and (was) "far more serious than a controversy."
  • "a self-destructive, contentious, one-sided feud that at times took on combative characteristics."
  • All leaders of Southern Baptist agencies (seminaries, colleges, mission and other boards, administrators of the very huge beaucracy, were summarily replaced, most of them after long years of faithful, distinguished, and notable service.
  • The new Baptist Faith and Message includes some arguably fundamental provisions:
    • "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband"
    • "The office of pastor is limited to men"

In conclusion, the article's title describes the actions of only one side: Resurgence (inaccurate term preferred by the new leadership), and Takeover (a term well-established in connection with what happened). By one side I mean it only refers to the Fundamentalists/Conservatives. There's nothing in the title about the Moderates who were kicked out.

Today we don't dodge the "Takeover" term in business, and we often prefix it with the adjective "hostile." In the same sense that a corporate board of directors maneuvers and politics to "stuff" the board with directors of a certain ilk, that's exactly what happened deliberately and methodically in the SBC Takeover. If we need to drop one of the two terms, the really correct one is "Takeover." I have never seen a defense of the euphemism "Resurgence." It would be very difficult if not impossible to justify.

Afaprof has said it well. He/she knows first-hand what he/she has written for us to consider.

To get the ball rolling, here are some brainstorm items: Southern Baptist Convention's

  • Rightest Takeover
  • Ideological Purge
  • Ideological Purification
  • Hostile Takeover
  • Internal Control Seizure
  • Internal Assumption of Control
  • Coup
  • Religious Cleansing

PLEASE, FOLKS. EITHER VOTE "NO CHANGE" OR MAKE SUGGESTIONS. THANKS. Oberlin (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1. This isn't a vote. 2. Your retelling of history is a bit on the biased side and isn't even worth dignifying with a response. 3. The naming of the article is simply the most encyclopedic title for the article - it is not an endorsement of the events. 4. The current name is NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES going to be permitted. This is a violation of Wikipedia's naming conventions. The article is going to have one name, not two names. 5. Your proposed names are all ridiculous biased titles. --B (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
B, are you always so insulting, authoritarian and ill-mannered ("ridiculous"; "isn't even worth dignifying with a response"; "NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES going to be permitted")? Oberlin wasn't writing an article, so NPOV shouldn't have to apply. The user was trying to communicate with fellow editors. And I don't know about "vote," but we're always striving for consensus, right??? If you read the above carefully, you'll see that the so-called "ridiculous biased titles" fall under the heading "To get the ball rolling, here are some brainstorm items:" That does not mean "proposed."! I don't think being an Admin entitles anyone to be this rude. How about trying to be more of a mentor to us peons. I think you owe User:Oberlin an apology! And you've sure discouraged me from putting any more of my thoughts on here in any detail. Afaprof01 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
They were probably proposed in sarcasm as opposed to serious suggestions, but there is no way that, other than "coup", these are even useful as brainstorming topics. Some people (not necessarily Oberlin, just in general) think that Wikipedia articles about subjects they don't like need to be highly critical. A neutral article that doesn't take sides isn't appropriate because, after all, any fool can see that Person XYZ is wrong, twisted, and evil, and so a "neutral" article will paint them as wrong, twisted, and evil. Call it systemic bias on Wikipedia's part. Articles, like this one, need to stick to reporting the facts. "Fundamentalist takeover" is a highly judgmental title. The ones suggested by Oberlin are mostly even worse. "Conservative resurgence", while admittedly slightly leaning in the pro-SBC POV, is the subject's preferred name, which Wikipedia recognizes as having some weight. I think "conservative movement" works much better - it removes "resurgence" (which implies the pro-SBC viewpoint that they were conservative all along and only just reasserted themselves). As for the current title, no, it isn't acceptable under any circumstances. Wikipedia doesn't use ridiculous titles like this. --B (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Oberlin's summary looks pretty straightforward to me. I can't disagree with your characterization of some of the titles, though. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What about calling it some kind of controversy, such as "SBC Conservative Controversy" or maybe "SBC Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy"? Ltwin (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy is that it refers specifically to the Presbyterian schism, not to this one. Maybe "conservative-modernist split"? The problem with anything like that, though is that then we are making up our own term. Another alternative (outside the box) would be to fold this article into a series of articles on Southern Baptist history that is done chronologically and named by dates. That way, there is no judgment on it at all. --B (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME says in part concerning the Name of an Article, "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail." Afaprof01 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're ignoring "and there is no good reason to change it". There's a very good reason to change it - it violates our naming conventions. That rule means that we don't need to have a debate about changing Virginia Tech massacre to Virginia Tech shootings every week. It doesn't mean that we can't correct a clearly inappropriate name. Dueling names is NOT our naming convention on Wikipedia. It's going to be changed - the question is to what. I'm all for finding something mutually agreeable, but any admin looking at this is going to tell you the same thing - it's going to be changed. --B (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was reading up on the dispute and thinking about this last night and I realized what one of the problems is. Both the CBF and the SBC are very much fundamentalist and conservative. Our liberals are still more conservative than anyone else's conservatives. It wasn't a "fundamentalist takeover" because fundamentalists were already in charge. It was a power struggle between the ultra-conservatives and the ultra-ultra-conservatives. --B (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Neutral name for this article

The current name is not acceptable because it implies an article hierarchy. People supportive of the takeover call it a "conservative resurgence" and those opposed call it a "fundamentalist takeover". Another name that gets a lot of g-hits is "Conservative movement". What is the best name for the article in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines? B (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

These two suggestions were posted above too - SBC Conservative Controversy" or maybe "SBC Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy" Ltwin (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
"Fundamentalist takeover" is merely pejorative. A.J.A. (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I just read the longer discussion above, and I'd like to add some comments. We don't call the 2000 election the "Republican takeover" or the 2008 election the "Democratic takeover"—and we certainly don't call them the "reichwing rethuglican takeover" and "socialist moonbat takeover". Yes, people organized to win an election and then systematically replaced the subordinate leadership with supporters and generally changed policy to align with the preferences of the majority. Guess what? The SBC has a democratic polity and that's how democracy works. If replacing the "traditional leadership" is scandalous to you, maybe you should become a Catholic. A.J.A. (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
(B checks to see if Socialist moonbat takeover is still a red link) --B (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What about "SBC Rightist Revolution" or "SBC Rightist Reorganization"? The SBC's leadership has moved in an undeniably rightist direction and "revolution" is ambiguous: the American Revolution is generally seen as a positive development whereas the Russian Revolution is generally seen as a negative development. At the same time "reorganization" implies the ideologically motivated purges Afaprof01 and others don't want whitewashed out of memory. Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Rightist" seems more like a made-up word, not a term that anyone is using to apply to the incident. --B (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, the people involved called themselves conservatives and moderates, not rightists and leftists (we're not talking about Latin American guerrillas here) and not fundamentalists and modernists or liberals (they called each other those things). I don't think revolution or reorganization fit; the formal nature of authority never changed, the structure wasn't reorganized, and all the organs of denominational life went on as before, just with leaders of a more conservative orientation. Post-resurgence leaders held office for the same reasons pre-resurgence leaders did, they were voted in or were appointed by the same office that had always made that appointment.
I understand that from the perspective of the moderates the important thing was the fact that they (or their friends and allies) lost their jobs, but from the conservative perspective the important thing was the theology. But the conservative perspective is also the perspective of the modern SBC. No one is whitewashing the fact that the theology was safeguarded by personnel decisions. It's just a question of where the emphasis is. The event is known in Southern Baptist memory as the resurgence. A.J.A. (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So, what about Southern Baptist Convention Conservative - Moderate Controversy"? Ltwin (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. It would be nice if there were a better word than controversy, but I'm not sure what that word would be. --B (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I use controversy because the SBC article calls it a controversy, and I really don't know what else to call it other then a split, dispute, conflict, or realignment. Any of those terms sound ok? Ltwin (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Really, I have no preference between any of those words. I'm having trouble coming up with a single words to describe what takes a sentence. ;) --B (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
We need to be truthful without unnecessary derision. It was an earthquake of epic proportions. A split implies we each decided to go our separate ways rather than one group being ousted. Oust, purge, coup, takeover, subjugation are on my personal short list. Then, here are more suggestions of some words in combination:
  1. SBC ouster of moderate leadership
  2. SBC takeover by ultra-conservatives
  3. SBC moderates ousted by coup
  4. SBC purge of moderate leaders
  5. SBC ultra-conservatives purge moderates
  6. SBC ultra-conservatives' revolution
  7. SBC dominionist takeover [In Gen. the couple were told to "have dominion over the earth". I don't think fellow Baptists were intended.]
As User:B has correctly pointed out, the dichotomies are more-convervative and less-conservative. No one was liberal. That's why I opt for 'ultra-conservatives'. Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
But again, you're suggesting titles that tell the story you want to tell. As A.J.A. pointed out, we don't call the 2008 election the "takeover by ultra-liberals" or "purge of moderate leaders". The event was a leadership shift; your opinion was that it was a takeover. Those supportive of it would say it wasn't a takeover - it was the majority of people exercising their right to vote. Obama didn't take office as a part of an "ultra-liberals' revolution" - he was elected by a majority of the voters in this country. "Conservative shift", "Conservative leadership movement", "conservative movement", etc, are ways of phrasing it that do not make a value judgment on the appropriateness of the movement. Even "controversy" isn't a horrible term - I have a general distaste for how Wikipedia tends to have a "controversy" section in every article if anyone anywhere disagrees with it, but that's a general preference of mine, not a reason we have to avoid that term. "Ouster", "purge", "takeover", "subjugation", etc all make value judgments and that is not appropriate. --B (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the sources in the article, which nobody is disputing here on the talk page (and nobody seems to be attending much to as more than one of the links have gone dead, and another is being used to support original research on the part of an editor of this article), I see the following wording choices by sources that presumably are discussing the entire process rather than clearly just discussing part of it:

  • Conservative Resurgance - One source (The Truth in Crisis: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, vol. 6)
  • Reformation - Two sources, but one is an article reviewing the other, so barely more than one choice of wording (Anatomy of a Reformation: The Southern Baptist Convention 1978-2004)
  • Controversy - One source (The Root of the SBC Controversy), which clearly says the controversy was about theology, not politics, so to use a political term would be going against what this source says the issue was.

I see the following wording choices by sources that are clearly discussing only part of the entire period/process, and thus are not describing the entirety:

  • Controversy - Three sources, of which two (The Genesis Controversy and Continuity in Southern Baptist Chaos: A Eulogy for a Great Tradition and The Ralph Elliott Controversy: Competing Philosophies of Southern Baptist Seminary Education) are discussing the controversy of Elliot's book (one of these two by Elliot) and the third (Round Two, Volume One: the Broadman Commentary Controversy) is discussing another early incident.

Looking at this, I think "Reformation" is an excellent choice. It is supported as well by the sources in the article as anything else, does not suffer the political connotations that make Afaprof01's suggestions non-viable, and is to anyone with the faintest degree of familiarity with Christianity will have connotations echoing the Protestant Reformation, namely a messy process supported by some and opposed by others. "Resurgance" has similar connotations but feels poor as a preferred term of one side. "Controversy" appears to be primarily used to describe specific incidents, generally early in the process before the conservatives had gained control, and thus implying that in the end their control is not controversial, the control of the denomination by those indifferent to liberal trends was controversial, so I find it unsuitable for this article. GRBerry 04:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok I could live with Reformation, but what kind of reformation would it be called, simply a Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Reformation or what? Ltwin (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Given that it is within the SBC, that phrase (spelled out) has to be part of the name. If I knew the association/denomination's history better, I might be better able to make suggestions. SBC Conservative Reformation could work. SBC 20th Century Reformation might work, depending on whether there is anything else in the 20th century that was called a reformation of the denomination/association. GRBerry 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
As you've pointed out, "Reformation" conjures up thoughts of the historic Protestant Reformation. The analogy breaks down quickly: in the Prot. Reformation, the "reformers" withdrew from the mother church. In the SBC whatever, the "reformers" wrested control from the mother denomination and kicked out the originals. I hope for a more correct title that paints a more accurate mental picture. In the SBC article, "Controversy" has been used by the SBC to describe a previous huge disagreement. Using their term again should not be pejorative. Afaprof01 (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Afa, in any Christian context "reformation" has ties too strong to be ignored. For that reason, I would prefer either "controversy" or "conservative resurgance" (slight preference for "conservative resurgance--it seems accurate, and is not pov). carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I can agree with that. "Reformation" probably does carry too strong a set of connotations, and it is also a term prefered by one side. Given that, "resurgence" is superior to "reformation". It also gives more information than "controversy" does. Maybe "Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention" would be a good title. (P.S., I checked the dictionary, the correct spelling is resurgence, I'm sorry for introducing a typo above.) GRBerry 13:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
As pointed out in earlier comments, "Conservative Resurgence" is strongly POV. It is the term self-picked by the architects of the Takeover.02:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Help can someone please change that stupid name that has currently been applied to this article. This is rediculous. This is not and never has been a "war" by any stretch of the imagination. Ltwin (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

DONE. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
AFAProf01

To get a fresh opinion, I solicited "outside" suggestions from professional editor and writer Katherine Yurica (yuricareport.com). Katherine Yurica was educated at East Los Angeles College, U.S.C. and the USC School of Law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today and as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report. Here is her reply to me:

I'm afraid that I agree with Wikipedia in that your title is too complex and unclear. You may be trying to be too specific. I would suggest that you broaden it to something like this:

  • The Historic Battle for the SBC or more properly:
  • The Historic Battle for the Southern Baptist Convention or perhaps
  • The Corporate Battle that Redefined the Southern Baptist Convention.
  • Or: The Southern Baptist Convention Under New Ownership: How a Church Was Won and Lost.
  • Or maybe this: The 20-Years War For the SBC.

Writers should always be trying to sell their work through their titles. Ask yourself "What would I really like to read about."

I find the topic to be a fascinating story and I see that you have uncovered a great deal of background material that further enhances the importance of your article. I would also suggest that you open with your second paragraph and eliminate the first. You get the reader's attention immediately as a reward!

Then I might point out later in the article, when you begin a description of the legal structure of the SBC, that all churches in America in general share a corporate identity, for they are all legalized by incorporation and they are required to set up Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws that control what they can or can't do. This legal structure is both the entity's strength and its weakness—as you have pointed out—the power to appoint committees is the power to control the SBC! People in general don't think of churches as legal corporate structures—and they should. I hope this helps you.

My best wishes,

Katherine Yurica
Editor

The problem with this "journalistic approach" is that Wikipedia is designed to be a reference encyclopedia, so "selling" the article with the title just isn't relevant. Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Eugene. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking it over and it just seems that "Conservative Resurgence" is really the only way to go with this article's name. Sure, it's POV, sure, it's history written by the victors, but there's no real getting around it; that's the name most people use to describe what happened. Now, before Afaprof01 and others come thundering down on me consider this: unquestionably horrific historical events have often been labeled in positive ways by those responsible for them and, though we don't support the positive interpretation, we generally use those labels to refer to those events. China's "Great Leap Forward" comes immediately to mind. So if wikipedia can call the mass starvation of millions the "Great Leap Forward" for no other reason than because that's the event's generally recognized name, why can't we just call the SBC's change of leadership "The Conservative Resurgence" regardless of how we view the event itself? Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, now, Eugene. Do you really think you might get thundered upon? :-) In all warm, courteous, well-intentioned, soft-spoken, sucrose intent, "resurgence" by definition implies that it was put back like it was. As someone in our group here has pointed out, there were some (I think a few) out-and-out liberals who were ejected justifiably. I keep hoping for something that doesn't imply revival, renewal, restoration. As for the China article, I think it's sad that the title got past our fellow editors. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me, but the answer seems rather straightforward: Southern Baptist Convention conservatism controversy
Of course, the article name without using small caps or capitalizing regular words; it'll look like this:
Southern Baptist Convention conservatism controversy --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence. Upon further reflection, I believe the term "conservative resurgence" is not so blatantly positive that it need be avoided. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
AFAProf01

"Conservative resurgence" continues to have the same problems that have already been pointed out: 1) It is strongly POV since it is the exact name the Conservative group re-titled "Fundamentalist Takeover." 2) It leaves out those who were disenfranchised by the takeover. 3) Re-surge implies that there had been a prior surge, and that they are re-doing it. That wasn't the case. So it's an inaccurate term, and we don't want to perpetuate that error in terminology. 4) It is totally one-sided and gives no recognition of the combined years of intensely loyal high quality service of professionals, and many more years of the disenfranchised laypersons, who were ousted by the intentional takeover. Calling it was it was--takeover--is not pejorative. It's fact. It was a well documented conspiracy of the first order. It was well executed. My second choice is LtWin's nomination: Southern Baptist Convention Conservative - Moderate Controversy. It's the least POV of any other nominations. Someone suggested "controversy" has been overused. Maybe so, but I suggest we go with it until and unless we have a breakthrough that is so exciting we can't resist changing it again. Afaprof01 (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Afaprof01 (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no dog in this hunt. I've never been associated with the SBC or Baptist theology.
I still prefer the name Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence.
  • 1) IMHO, the term "conservative resurgence" does not become unacceptable simply because its critics don't like it (i.e. who cares if it's "the exact name" the group chose?). The terms "conservative" and "fundamentalist" are not equally "loaded", IMHO.
    Has "conservative" ever been either a peacock term or a pejorative? Can the same be said about "fundamentalist"?
The phrase "conservative resurgence" was carefully chosen by the more rightist group to be their battle cry and became a de facto trademark. It therefore is a term very offensive to the moderates who became the displaced people since they see themselves also as conservatives, but a long way from fundamentalist. No problem with "conservative". BIG problem with "resurgence" or "resurgency."
  • 2) An article is more than its title. The article body can and should include those "disenfranchised by the takeover".
  • 3) Conservatism is ostensibly about "conserving" what one originally had or valued. It's arguable that the establishment of the SBC was the initial conservative "surge".
  • 4) Editors, we're discussing the title of an article, not an eternal flame commemorating all that is good and holy.
    I hate to rain on a parade, but Wikipedia is not a memorial.
Please let me reiterate my neutrality. Ahem. Terms such as "conspiracy" and "subjugation" are patently "loaded"; they should be used carefully. Other terms, such as "takeover", "purge", and "coup" are appropriate when used by outsiders, but less so by insiders. The terms "ultra-conservatives" and "rightists" seem unencyclopedic; let's avoid them. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
One more time, please: "Conservative Takeover" is still the most accurate term short of "Fundamentalist Takeover" which won't work. Happens every day in industry and politics. It very aptly describes the entire process, hence: "S... B... C... Conservative Takeover." It was found offensive only when it read "Fundamentalist Takeover." "Controversy" as someone pointed out implies an ongoing struggle. This one's a done deal. The takeover was complete.

Straw poll

Any interest in a straw poll? First, please re-read WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name
Then, intersperse your VERY BRIEF signed comment (eg Never! or Barely acceptable. or Maybe. or Good. or 1st choice!) immediately below each.
Feel free to add a well-thought-out additional item on this list, at the end. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Time-date stamps (that is, "--~~~~") can be parked under here:
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll 2

I've removed the unsupported names, and put those with more support toward the top.
Please rank, with your first choice being "1" and any you view as unacceptable being "X"; bold if you feel strongly. If you have comments, please leave them below the Time-date stamps below; thanks!

Time-date stamps (that is, "--~~~~") can be parked under here:
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC). GRBerry 16:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC) adjustedbased on naming convention discussion below17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Ltwin (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Carlaude:Talk 03:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Oberlin (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


--conservative resurgence is clearly POV. That is the exact name the conservative/fundamentalist group used to name themselves. I would protest that under WP:NPOV. "Resurgence" is POV since it implies a return to the way things were, so it is taking a non-neutral Point of View. Afaprof01 (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that conservative resurgence is

POV.Oberlin (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, so far the option with the highest low-rank is conservative - moderate controversy (low-rank of "5")-- but if we disregard A.J.A.'s votes (which are "X"s for all but two of the options) then the highest low-score is conservatism controversy and a much nicer low-rank of "3.5" (aka "3 Tie"). Carlaude:Talk 03:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Observation: Conservative Resurgence is the Condorcet winner, beating every alternative but one five to three, and that other one was five to two. A.J.A. (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Ed. to add: I obviously ignored Conservative Reformation when I did the table, since it was the only option with more Xs than numbers. Resurgence carries that one six to zero. A.J.A. (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Further observation: Conservative resurgence also wins the Borda count. A.J.A. (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll 2 results

Based on the votes so far... I think it is safe to drop "Conservative Reformation" and "conservative takeover" as not realistic options for Consensus. No one likes "Conservative Reformation" and only one person really likes "conservative takeover" (while Oberlin voted a "3" it should really be considered a "4" because he maked 3 other options higher.)
Also while "conservative controversy" is both liked and disliked, it is getting less support than the similar "conservatism controversy." Carlaude:Talk 08:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I proppose we sonsider it narrowed it down to these three and discuss. I think two I have droped a mighty clear. As for "conservative controversy" option-- if anyone does feel strongly about keeping it please say so now (and why) so we can remove one (or both) of those two options. Otherwise we can consider it agreed to.
  • Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence.
  • Southern Baptist Convention conservative - moderate controversy.
  • Southern Baptist Convention conservatism controversy.
Please keep the discussion of conservative resurgence vs. not conservative resurgence in the sections below. Carlaude:Talk 07:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to add my vote in the section above so I will just say that I agree with the name ::* Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence. as best suited for the title of the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-epilogue

I've mentioned before that I have no association with the Baptist faith or with the SBC; I have no dog in this hunt.
It seems beyond obvious to me that the article should be renamed...

  • Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence.

At WP:NAME#Controversial names, it says, "The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles."

  • Would a researcher more likely Google the term "conservative resurgence" or one of the five alternatives (along with "SBC" of course)?

At WP:Naming conflict, it states...

A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic... These sometimes arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy... This page asserts three principles:
[1] * The most common English-language use of a name takes precedence, if there is one;
[2] * If the common name is not the official name, use the common name. ... When there is no common English name, use the official name.
[3] * If there is neither a common nor an official name, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

If we apply criterion [1], we're forced to consider what is the "most common" term used to describe this subject matter. While it isn't overwhelming, no term appears more often than "conservative resurgence" in writings I've seen. Admittedly, I haven't done an exhaustive statistical study, and admittedly, such a study would be useful.
If we apply criterion [2], we're left to determine who decides which name is "official". Does anyone else have a better claim than the SBC itself?
If we apply criterion [3], then that explicitly involves the SBC. I've performed an advanced Google search using each of the six suggested names, at "SBC.net", their website. Five of the terms had zero hits on the website of the Southern Baptist Convention.
One term had nine hits; the term is conservative resurgence.

IMHO, this matter can be put to bed. An editor who wishes to comment further should not ignore what is said in the two Wikipedia guideline articles cited in this section [1][2].

We don't need universal agreement for the new name; editors need not "agree" to the name itself; however...
Do we have consensus that Wikipedia standards rather than POV have determined the new name?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam and other editing colleagues, if we were renaming the Southern Baptist Convention article, then "asking" the SBC would be appropriate. However, we are renaming the article Southern Baptist Convention: Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover. Criterion [3] (which I agree is appropriate) says the name that "the subject uses to describe itself or themselves." There were and are two "sides" (subjects) to this controversy. It has even been called the SBC Civil War by authors. Calling it what is prevalent on the SBC.net is not unlike renaming the "US Civil War" to the "US Union Victory" or even "Union Resurgence." Please keep in mind that the Resurgence/Takeover is an article about whatever polite name we give to the "war." That includes the plan for takeover, strategy, struggle, casualties, victors, offense and defense, and all the factors that made up this complex matter. It is not an article about the present SBC (which sometimes calls itself the "New SBC").
In this case, the "subjects" (plural) are the present SBC and the disenfranchised. "Resurgence" completely leaves out one of the two "subjects," and that's inappropriate and incorrect. Afaprof01 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic, but [3] kicks in only if [1] and then [2] are not applicable; both [1] and [2] are applicable.
I might also add that criterion [3] doesn't actually say "subjects". It says "subject". The subject is not the prevailing faction from the 1980s, but today's SBC as a whole. Any other interpretation of "subject" would tend to open a can of worms for many many articles.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
But we do call it the Civil War rather than the War Between the States. A.J.A. (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me add a brief note of the inappropriateness of using language about "the disenfranchised". At the simplest level, it's factually wrong. Moderates had (and have) the same right to vote as everyone else. They just lost. At a deeper level, Afaprof01 has complained that the result of the voting process was the removal of the old leadership, which he evidently considers so obviously scandalous that he need only mention that it happened to discredit it as a hostile takeover, coup, and so on, as if incumbency itself were the source of legitimacy, and voting is morally equivalent to rolling out in tanks and starting a military dictatorship. Stated most modestly, Afaprof01 would like to disenfranchise anyone who is not well represented by the current (or former, I suppose) leadership. But really he wants everyone disenfranchised, because even if you do like the incumbents, he doesn't really think you should have a choice, since if you did have a choice you could vote them out. A.J.A. (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
AFAProf01
I do not appreciate User:A.J.A. making this a personal assault on me as a fellow editor. Surely he has more professionalism and personal integrity than shows in the above attack. He doesn't know what Afaprof01 would "like" to do, and he seriously misjudges my motives very inappropriately. I choose not to defend his offensive inappropriate judgments. This is a completely unwarranted attack.Afaprof01 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Let it go. Cut it out. The most literal definition of disenfranchised is "not having the right to vote."
But...the term also means "not represented", as in, 'not represented by the new name'. Of course, an article name represents an encyclopedic nugget of knowledge; it does not represent a constituency. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You denied the legitimacy of a democratic vote; from this, what I wrote follows strictly and I stand by it. Either be silent or forthrightly defend your anti-democratic position. A.J.A. (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)

I think I need to point out that the guidelines that AuthorityTam is quoting is for the names of groups or other enties-- but as I understand the article, it is not about the people who did this or the people who opposed them but the process. In other words this controversy is an event, not an group. Thus the guidelines we should look at first is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events).
Now a lot of what AuthorityTam said above may still apply but I will state the important and equivalent section, on "Maintaining neutral point of view" when the events are controversial, below for discussion. Carlaude:Talk 07:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Carlaude:Talk 00:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, the guidelines specific to "Naming conventions (events)" merely clarify (that is, they do not contradict) the overall naming guidelines. Compare:
--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with AuthorityTam here. It does have a common, even if disliked, name. Carlaude:Talk 16:32, 1
"I've tweaked my opinions in the second straw poll based on this; these are indeed the guidelines. Particularly noteworthy from WP:Naming conflict is the wording "Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include: ... * Does a third party, a conflicting claim, or minority view oppose the use of this name?"

Given this language, the objective fact that the minority no longer in power oppose the use of the name is not relevant to our decision. This renders the objections to "conservative resurgence" that have been expressed thus far irrelevant. It also puts "conservative reformation" back in the running again, as we do have sourcing using it as a name for the process that is used by the SBC today. It puts everything else clearly behind those two, as those appear to be the two names used by today's SBC. Between these two names used for the process the discussion above about connotations continues to convince me to favor "resurgance" over "reformation". GRBerry 17:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

While my views have changed, I have not changed my Straw poll 2 votes to reflect this because I consider the policy here to make the straw poll moot. If I did "tweak" my votes it would have to be Xs for all the names not agreeing with the policy, and only one name can be the common, or most common, name. Carlaude:Talk 05:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

NAMING CONVENTIONS

(From Afaprof01.)

RECOMMENDATION: Stay with the present title that has been on the article since its first day: SBC Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover. Authority: #1 There does exist a particular common name for the event, representing both viewpoints of the 25+ year struggle. It should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.

SBC Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover.

LET'S EVALUATE THIS PROPOSAL AGAIN IN LIGHT OF POLICY #1:

#1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.

We were avoiding this primarily because of the word "Takeover," I believe. There is a particular common name for the event. It is the original name of the article: SBC Conservative resurgence/fundamentalist takeover. Although it applies a controversial viewpoint (from both "sides"), it should be used. We've been saying it could not be used because it implies a controversial point of view. Yet, Naming Convention #1 trumps that. It represents the common name that has been used by each group since the beginning of the controversy. From Day #1 of the article, it has been correct, and there have been nearly zero complaints or criticisms until User:B brought it up, mostly because it was a right-slash divided expression. The common name was chosen because the two sides viewed it from unique perspectives. Those who won the SBC civil war prefer the name "Conservative resurgence" for themselves, but it is wrong because "Resurgence" includes a value-judgment that (a) they were right and everyone else was wrong, and that (b) they are restoring things to the way they were, which is not true. They have moved the SBC much farther right and taken away personal freedoms in several areas.

#2. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.

This second policy goes so far to authorize terms such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". Therefore, "Takeover" should be no problem. Recommend leaving the title as is. There is no need to change it now that we have this Wiki policy direction. Afaprof01 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a bit silly. The policy is for Wikipedia to use the most common name outside Wikipedia and you are tring to say "Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" is the most common name, because it has been the only name used by Wikipedia. This classic circular reasoning.
While I think we can all agree some folks called it a "conservative resurgence" and others called it the "fundamentalist takeover," and even other things, I am certain no one but us called it the "Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover." That name is a Wikipedia created name that did not catch on elsewhere, and we should not expect it ever would. Carlaude:Talk 00:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this suggestion by Afaprof is completely, 100% wrong. It doesn't have anything to recommend it. GRBerry 01:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Epilogue

As you likely know by now, the article has been moved to Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence.
I hope this exhaustive experience was useful! --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem may not be with the name but the premise of the article

This is such a slippery topic and I think it is almost impossible to have an article about this and not have it driven by some groups agenda. I think that it would be better to do an article about the books that reference this matter. Someone earlier in this discussion said that you would not create and article called "The Republican Take Over" and I agree with their point. However in this case you don't even have a single event to reference. When I think of Baptists, I think conservative. It is like asking the question which burka is more conservative; the black one or the brown one? No matter wha the facts are, this article can only be subjective and thus POV. I am not trying to be rude, but I don't think finding the right title settles the issue with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmmapleoakpine (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

First off your assertion that all Baptists are conservative is misguided. There are many liberal Baptist groups, and in fact, a Baptist group that broke away from the SBC, the Alliance of Baptists, is open and affirming when it comes to homosexuality. So, it just wasn't conservatives bickering with more conservatives. This article is about a valid and an important part of the SBC history. Ltwin (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I did not intend to be rude and my comment about conservative was in order to acknowledge my clearly subjective perspective. I appreciate the additional background that you provided and I still stand by my contention that changing the title will not settle the issue with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmmapleoakpine (talk • contribs) 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Baptist_Convention_conservative_resurgence/Archive_2&oldid=1248774684"