Talk:List of converts to Christianity/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archives

To avoid excessive length I did some archiving. See Archive 4:May 22, 2007-June 7, 2007 and Archive 5:June 7, 2007-June 15, 2007 if you wish information on recent mediations and debates.--T. Anthony 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, to cut down on length, I archived older, inactive sections. See Archive 6:June 15, 2007-June 22, 2007 to review them. Nick Graves 20:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected page

You can read the rationale here.--Isotope23 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I put Dylan, Flynt and Singh back into the body of the article, as it had been agreed that the list would include former converts, and that Dylan was, according to reliable sources, a convert to Christianity. Nick Graves 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, however, I would recommend no one touch it right now, including Bus stop until consensus is made. I don't want the page to go protected again. Drumpler 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see Bus stop is already up to it again. No one else touch it. I have something else in mind as I believe now that Bus stop is just gaming in order to get his own favourite version of the article up. Drumpler 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, regrettably so. Disruptive editing is being exhibited in pure form by monsieur Bus stop.--C.Logan 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Note Bus Stop also made the antisemitic accusation AGAIN [1]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I say let's be the better people here and let it show for himself. I have posted to Isotope's talk page if anyone wants to make constructive comments there. Drumpler 14:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Read this and compare it to a certain someone's history and habit. Sadly, this appears to be the sort of thing we've been entertaining for weeks upon weeks. I agree that we should leave this fellow to his own doings- he's making a case against himself better than any of us could.--C.Logan 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This article should not be used to project Christian antisemitism on the reading public, which is the way in which I think it is being used. Some editors here are distorting the parameters from a listing of those notable Christians who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion to a listing of all those people who ever had any passing interest in Christianity. That represents a bogus expansion of the parameters of this list, and it has only one aim: to get Bob Dylan onto this list. Bob Dylan happens to be a thoroughly Jewish person. Yes, there are sources relating to the conversion of Bob dylan 27 years ago. But sources such as all of those only establish usage for Wikipedia purposes for the use of the word "conversion" for the time period of approximately 1979. No one considers Bob Dylan a "convert to Christianity" today. No one considers Bob Dylan a "Christian" today. It just represents the disparagement of a Jew to list Bob Dylan on this list of converts to Christianity. That is antisemitism of a specifically Christian flavor. In Bob Dylan we have a Jew presently involved with the ultra Orthodox Chabad Lubavitch sect of Judaism. It happens to have nothing to do with Christianity. Bob Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. No evidence of formal conversion has ever been unearthed by any editor here at this article. There is a total contradiction between the name of this list and its contents. Why would that contradiction be tolerated? And the parameters have been grossly contrived, distorted to try to justify the antisemitic portrayal of Bob Dylan as a Christian. These are the parameters found in a tag that heads up the List of notable converts to Judaism:

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

Why is the List of notable converts to Christianity playing fast and loose with parameters? Is Wikipedia a mouthpiece for Christian antisemitism? Why is the plain purpose of this article being distorted to project Christian antisemitic sentiment onto the reading public? If Bob Dylan were a Christian then he certainly would have a proper place on this list. But he is not. That is what some editors here have difficulty accepting. Bus stop 14:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy-paste? Or perhaps a generator?--C.Logan 14:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, at least the hour and a half after I unprotected the article justified why it was protected in the first place. At this point the discussion has burned through 2 mediators, come to what can probably be viewed as a rough consensus, and the page edit-warring continues. I'd say this is all headed towards WP:RFC, WP:CN, or WP:ARBCOM. It's just my personal opinion, but this seems to have moved from a content dispute into editor(s) behavior issues.--Isotope23 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm already working on the ArbCom report as we speak. Everyone shall receive a notice when I am done. Drumpler 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Although, I wonder, if this dispute debate qualifies as WP:LAME status? ;) Drumpler 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily does qualify as WP:LAME. Clearly, the issue of Dylan's inclusion is a small and almost meaningless one, but the questions regarding larger BLP issues, the specific criteria for inclusion in this and other lists, where, if anywhere, those who later left faiths should be listed, and so on are I think substantive enough for possible referral to ArbCom. The fact that we haven't had the opportunity to address them, given at least one editor's preoccupation with Dylan to the exclusion of seemingly all else, doesn't mean that they aren't significant enough for consideration, and I'm really not sure that such large issues are ones which can best be decided on one article talk page. John Carter 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, but I mean for other reasons which are obvious to everyone else. Drumpler 15:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23 -- This article is bullshit and has been bullshit for a long time. Too bad you, as an administrator, are not taking a stand on all the manipulations underway to contort what this article is into something which it is not. It is a list of converts to Christianity. To say it is a list of those who had a past flirtation with Christianity represents bullshit that could fly if it only had wings. As the administrator who has been present here for awhile you should also be pressing those editors who have the obvious agenda to get Bob Dylan on this list at any cost, to get real and express their justification for making a list that revolves around Bob Dylan, under the guise that it is a list of converts to Christianity. How come you seem so unable to press the other side for justification for their out-of control biased manipulations of Wikipedia's ostensibly serious purpose? Should lists be turned upside-down and inside-out to achieve desired aims? Or should lists flow naturally from elemental parameters? Why aren't you, as an administrator, asking some of these editors to provide some justifications for their obvious manipulations to this article? They have contemplated so many changes to try to get Bob Dylan on this list that I can't even name them all, but it has included even changing the name of the article. As an administrator, do you think that represents writing an article? Or does that represent projecting the message that your particular hate group happens to embrace? Why aren't you asking them why this burning desire to list Bob Dylan among converts to Christianity is so important that it justifies juggling the parameters and renaming this list? Bus stop 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My particular hate group? How interesting... I wasn't aware I was a member of a hate group. Did I get inducted while I was at lunch?

I've stated this numerous times; I don't personally care if Dylan is no this list or not. My involvement here has largely been to keep the article from descending into a continuous edit war. As I noted earlier, it would appear that there is a consensus here so I unprotected. I'm making no judgments as to whether this consensus is correct or not. I'm not the mediator here (something I have to admit I am grateful for); I'm not here to ask anyone to justify anything. There is an ARBCOM request open, I invite you to bring up any issues you may have with me there.--Isotope23 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23 -- There was no reference to you being a member of any hate group, but as I wrote it I was 100% aware that it would be misconstrued that way. Get all the mileage out of it that you and any other editors can. The article is antisemitic. I know nothing about you or any other editor. Be sure to claim that I did not assume good faith. Be sure to claim that I engaged in personal attacks. I am aware that the article will remain antisemitic until an administrator with a sense of justice restores the article to a straightforward accounting of those Christians who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion, and excludes from the article those who don't happen to be Christian. Bus stop 18:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Get over it Bus stop (talk · contribs)... I've already said it is no big deal whether you meant it as a personal attack towards me or not. As I said at WP:ANI, it was unclear what you meant, but I didn't take offense at it. Regardless, I'd urge you to weigh in at the ARBCOM request. I've already asked that the scope of the request be expanded to include editor behavior of all parties here as well as the core WP:BLP concerns.--Isotope23 18:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, now you've accused editors of being part of a hate group that's it- I've reported you to the Administrator's noticeboard. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wish you would've waited until I finished this ArbCom report. :P Drumpler 16:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It might have been best. With any luck though, ArbCom should realize that the request above was for personal attacks (accusing others of being part of a hate group), and maybe not necessarily related to what requires arbitration. I wouldn't mind if you gave some of us a chance to review the report before you filed it, if anyone could figure out a way for such to be done. I honestly don't know whether such would be possible or not, though. John Carter 16:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I really do not think it was and I'm still going to file it. They allow other comments on it, so if you want to contribute when I'm done, feel free. I just wish Gustav would have read the page before making a request, as I'm naturally a slow person. Always have been. Drumpler 16:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are not a fan of warped rants which aggressively question largely uninvolved individuals, I advise you to skip the above. Perhaps you could eat a serving of fruit or two in the amount of time it might take you to read the above comment.

Bus stop is, as he claims to be, a painter- but not simply on the canvas alone, but in the discussion forum as well. He enjoys altering or expressing benign, uninteresting things as being full of drama and pathos. Ultimately, it seems, he sees things only in the manner in which he wants to see them, without consideration for how they might actually be. Interestingly, this attitude/behavior has carried him through 2 months of discussion. It may have been amusing to some, and even compelling to others at some point in time, but now it is getting extremely tiring.

Just because you say something is a certain way, Bus stop, it doesn't make it so. In the face of consensus, you are looking somewhat like a madman; like a child throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way; like a conspiracy theorist who lacks the ability to admit when he is 'wrong' about something, as far as the majority opinion is concerned.

There are individuals who argue vehemently against the moon landings; there are even individuals who argue endlessly for the belief that the earth is flat. The fact that these views are possessed by some does not make them correct, and we do not have to entertain their ideas beyond reason. Not everyone sees things the way that you do, Bus stop.

If you're going to continue to discuss things in this manner, I might point you to a couple of sites in which your manner of discussion would be much more acceptable, and perhaps even encouraged: Blogger, or perhaps Livejournal.--C.Logan 16:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd subscribe to that blog.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'd think after the first entry, it'd start to be repetetive. Drumpler 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on what we've already seen from that editor, there seems to be at least a really good chance of it being so. John Carter 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm resting. You all have fun. ;) Drumpler 18:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The name change should be done as soon as possible. After that Dylan, Flynt, and Singh should be returned. I hope this is the last thing I say on this talk page.--T. Anthony 23:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, we're going to strap you down and use Chinese water torture on you until you say more. ;) Drumpler 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well okay. I'll add that Bus stop, instead of disrupting the article, should contact the Anti-Defamation League about it if he feels this way. It would be a better use of all of our time. (Well maybe not the ADL's time) Still I'm disappointed you brought the three names back before the move. The move was much more strongly supported and should've come first. I guess I'll still check the article to see when you do it.--T. Anthony 23:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I decided to do the move on my own. Darn my OCD. Well hopefully that's all. Don't leave me any message on things here as I want to put this whole thing behind me.--T. Anthony 23:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's one more. Okay, I'll stop. :P I'll be good. Move along. ;) Drumpler 10:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh you. Anyway I wonder if we should try outside opinions of those in Category:Wikipedians who listen to Bob Dylan on the matter? (Half-joking, half not. Although it seems when they identify as of religion they identify as Christian, so might be seen as biased)--T. Anthony 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it, as it might be interpreted as forum shopping. I think its a combination of continually letting Bus stop make his own "resumé" and taking the appropriate action (doesn't look like ArbCom is going to accept it, although we can wait and see). Drumpler 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I personaly don't think the ArbCom should accept the case. This is a relatively straightforward (if long-drawn-out) case of an edit dispute and a disruptive editor behaving disruptively. If the editor in question stops being disruptive or leaves the project, the problem is solved. If he continues to be disruptive, his edits can be reverted, and he can be blocked until he behaves himself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Its detailed in the ArbCom report. Mightn't it just be best to have himself revoked from this article? Oh and the Bob Dylan article, because if one checks the edit history, he has made a history of similar edits. Drumpler 23:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- There is no justification for the mention of any non-Christian in this article. This article is a listing of converts to Christianity. It may be your opinion that it would be nice to mention Bob Dylan's interaction with Christianity, but that is just your opinion. This article has parameters. This list is a repository for names of notable converts to Christianity.

Would you like me to be prevented from editing not only this article but also the Bob Dylan article? Why? Am I preventing you from going off on tangents not justified by the basic parameters that apply to this list? And would I also perhaps provide input to the Bob Dylan article that you might not like?

The Bob Dylan article and this list happen to be two very different articles. In the Bob Dylan article, which is written in prose form, there is ample latitude for finding the right language that describes Bob Dylan's interaction with Christianity. This is a list. It follows parameters. Its parameters do not include non-Christians. Bus stop 00:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion

The way it's written right now, it's pretty clear that Bob Dylan converted briefly from Judaism to Christianity then went back to Judaism... I don't know what the fuss is about? I suggest Bus stop be more civil and this may be a case where he needs to just let it go... both the list here and the article Bob Dylan itself to be in agreement. I don't think anybody's going to read this list and be convinced that Dylan became a missionary or something... Sasquatch t|c 16:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Larry Flynt v. Bob Dylan

This article should not be used to project Christian anti-atheism on the reading public, which is the way in which I think it is being used. Some editors here are distorting the parameters from a listing of those notable atheists who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion to a listing of all those people who ever had any passing interest in Christianity. That represents a bogus expansion of the parameters of this list, and it has only one aim: to get Larry Flynt onto this list. Larry Flynt happens to be a thoroughly Atheist person. Yes, there are sources relating to the conversion of Larry Flynt 30 or so years ago. But sources such as all of those only establish usage for Wikipedia purposes for the use of the word "conversion" for the time period of approximately 1977. No one considers Larry Flynt a "convert to Christianity" today. No one considers Larry Flynt a "Christian" today. It just represents the disparagement of an Atheist to list Larry Flynt on this list of converts to Christianity. That is anti-atheism of a specifically Christian flavour. In Larry Flynt we have a Atheist who disowned his eldest daughter for her Christianity. It happens to have nothing to do with Christianity. Larry Flynt has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. No evidence of formal conversion has ever been unearthed by any editor here at this article. There is a total contradiction between the name of this list and its contents. Why would that contradiction be tolerated? And the parameters have been grossly contrived, distorted to try to justify the anti-atheistic portrayal of Larry Flynt as a Christian. These are the parameters found in a tag that heads up an arbitrary list I pluck out at random. Why is the List of notable converts to Christianity playing fast and loose with parameters? Is Wikipedia a mouthpiece for Christian anti-atheism? Why is the plain purpose of this article being distorted to project Christian anti-atheism sentiment onto the reading public? If Larry Flynt were a Christian then he certainly would have a proper place on this list. But he is not. That is what some editors here have difficulty accepting. Yes it makes no fricking sense to me either. Ttiotsw 18:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't encourage it, please. ;) Drumpler 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a purpose here: It was a complete cut+paste of a previous contributors text in which I changed a few words. Bus Stop has focused so much on one person he has missed that there are others on the article which he should also be removing to support his argument.

Now this is the crunch; I would have supported him if he had clearly removed *all* equally which matched his criteria !. But no - he just went for the anti-Semitic spin and ended up still alienating me. Right unto this day he still was at it. I was seriously hoping to see a different approach.

Problem is that my original all-or-nothing view has been spoiled and I now want to make sure we do record conversion and de-conversion too (which the Flynt entry here is actually missing that he has deconverted). Ttiotsw 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that, in practice, Bus stop (talk · contribs) has removed reference to Flynt on more than one occasion.--Isotope23 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that The People Vs. Larry Flynt made that crystal clear, though. ;) Drumpler 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dylan + Flynt was reverted with the antisemitic accusations but Dylan + Flynt was an opportunity of burying the message !. The edits just after you unlocked the article on the 22nd missing Flynt [2] . Bus Stop has never changed tack and tried to argue that Flynt can't be a Christian but is still blinkered on Dylan and how Jewish he is. I've argued that as you can be a Jew and an Atheist (See Jewish Atheist, Jew isn't as rigid a criteria to choose. Now Atheist and Christian *is* a mutually exclusive mix. Bus Stop edits thus feel POV driven and he is missing this barndoor-sized hint as to how he could have swung the consensus. Ttiotsw 22:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He still went against consensus. Drumpler 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The name was changed from List of notable converts to Christianity to List of notable people who converted to Christianity. This is one more in a long string of contrivances to try to showcase Bob Dylan's brief flirtation with Christianity a long time ago. Bob Dylan has been associated with Orthodox Judaism in the intervening years, and Bob Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity in the intervening years, and no formal conversion ever took place, or at least no evidence of formal conversion has been found. All that there exists are sources using the term conversion from the time period 1979, and that use is figurative, because no source indicates formal conversion. No reasonable person believes the figurative word used in 1979 becomes the literal word in 2007. The recent change in the name has no beneficial effect on the underlying article. There was no rational reason to change the name of the article except to keep Bob Dylan on the list. There are 200 other names on the list. The placement of none of those other 200 names is benefitted by the name change. This is obvious game playing designed to circumvent obvious parameters that apply. Sources have limited applicability, and all sources do not all have the same import. There are literal and figurative uses of words. And a time period of 27 years also has a bearing on this issue. Some editors seem to be overlooking what I think are some pretty obvious facts. Bus stop 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As this involves me I'll inform you that I made the title change because it was agreed to by most participants including User:Cleo123. See Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity#Title Change?. Do not impute motives to me that I do not have and in fact personally reject. (I tolerate this current set-up, but I don't like it)--T. Anthony 00:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which should be more surprising, the fact that he didn't live up to his threat or the fact that he seems to have made an original comment for once. John Carter 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And learned a new Wiki policy (WP:GAME) after I pointed it out to him on his talk page. I still don't get his point about the word "conversion" in 1979. Current sources use the same word. I also think his understanding of the word "conversion" is based on a Catholic understanding of the word, although I cannot find where he has mentioned this (I know he did before). Drumpler 23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This article should not be used as a WP:SOAPBOX. Whatever your feelings about Jews, this article is not the place for you (any editor) to express any views on that subject. This article should be simply a repository for names of converts to Christianity, which perforce means Christians. Please don't, for instance, use this article as a showcase in which to display Bob Dylan's brief and long ago and entirely informal flirtation with Christianity. Such displays are improper.

This list has parameters not very dissimilar from its sister list, the List of notable converts to Judaism. The parameters for that list are clearly displayed in a tag at the top of that list. The tag reads as follows:

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

Those are also obviously the parameters for List of notable converts to Christianity. Simply change the word from Judaism to Christianity and you have the basic parameters for the List of notable converts to Christianity. Bus stop 22:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop stay on topic. You are disrupting this talk page. This section is about comparing Larry Flynt entry with Bod Dylan not your single view which seems to only focus again and again on discussing Judaism as if you were some expert. Maybe you are, maybe you are not but in the end Wikipedia says we have to rely on secondary sources for our views and continually quoting Wikipedia using cut+paste as if it was some evidence to support your view is simply using tertiary sources. Give us secondary sources. Ttiotsw 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Due to yet another edit war, I've protected this page for the time being.--Isotope23 00:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Was. But still, this is a list of people who converted to Christianity, as decided by consensus. Drumpler 00:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- There is no formal conversion. There is only figurative use of the word conversion, in sources dating from 1979. How does that become factuality in the 27 intervening years that Bob Dylan had nothing to do with Christianity and his subsequent involvement in Orthodox Judaism (Chabad Lubavitch)? Bus stop 02:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you referencing the sources which figuratively report his figurative involvement with Orthodox Judaism, figuratively?

I can believe you're even using such an argument. The sources say what they say, and we aren't stretching things. The sources say "full-blown conversion". You, however, will accept nothing less than baptismal certificates. Hell, all I even ask for is a reliable source which claims a return to Judaism- mind you, a reliable source, and not simply an OR exegesis of an existing source, or the knot-tying of tenuous information which fits your argument.--C.Logan 05:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected Again (with parameter discussion)

Due to yet another edit war, I've protected this page for the time being.--Isotope23 00:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- The article is wrong, as written. The question is, how do you not see that? It is obviously a list of converts to Christianity, non-inclusive of people other than Christians. Please see the parameters at List of notable converts to Judaism if you have trouble understanding that. The parameters for List of notable converts to Judaism say as follows:

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

How is it that you think the List of notable converts to Christianity enjoys wildly expanded parameters from those found at List of notable converts to Judaism? Can you please try to justify for me the inclusion of people who are not even Christian on the List of notable converts to Christianity?

It does not matter what your personal tastes may be on this matter. The parameters determine the list. Please use the Bob Dylan article if you wish to wax eloquent about the Bob Dylan interaction with Christianity.

This and the Bob Dylan article are two different things. Please don't confuse the two. This is a list of notable converts. Please take note of the parameters for this list. Just substitute the word Christian for the word Jew in the above description of the parameters that apply to these sorts of lists. Bus stop 00:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what Bus stop considers a "conversion", as he didn't address that when he had the opportunity to in the earlier discussion. Drumpler 06:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

He didn't, but he's essentially said that conversion to Christianity requires confirmed evidence of being baptized. This is a defensible position, but might be inapplicable to some denominations or in cases of poor record-keeping.--T. Anthony 06:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I already tried to report him here but then Drumpler piled in and basically said I was interfering in his Arbcom case. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick Graves and Gustav von Humpelschmumpel -- What "compromise" are you talking about? Do you mean moving names around within the same list? What do you see as "compromise" in that?

How is it I see no attempt to address the discrepancy between the parameters applicable to the List of notable converts to Christianity and the List of notable converts to Judaism? The Jewish list confines its contents to Jews. The Christian list includes anyone of any religion as long as they had any encounter with Christianity at all, which of course includes in the absence of formal conversion.

My opinion is that the List of notable converts to Christianity is all about Bob Dylan. I can't prove that, but I notice the contortions and distortions and contrivances that editors here go to in order to showcase Bob Dylan on this list, including recently changing the name of this list in an apparent attempt to justify Bob Dylan's presence on it.

There was no other reason for the name change of a day or two ago, was there? Can anyone tell me, in their own words, any reason why the name of this article was recently changed? Devising an article to showcase a Jew in the context of "converts to Christianity" represents a subversion of serious encyclopedic purpose. It clearly represents the disparagement of a Jew, simply because Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive in many key areas of their belief systems. Jews do not, for instance, accept the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. It would be more correct to say that Judaism rejects the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. Why is this list running roughshod over differences between religions? Isn't an encyclopedia about recognizing distinctions? Or do some editors here think that an encyclopedia should endeavor to blur real and applicable and relevant distinctions? Parameters do not allow for this. Parameters call for these sorts of lists to be compilations of converts to that religion. Bus stop 03:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

First: There were efforts at polls for a compromise. One proposal including removing former converts. I asked, nay begged, you to put your voice in on that. You declined. What ended up getting consensus was the current option and in part that's because you made no effort to help the other proposals.

Second: The Jewish list is dealing with a different religion that views conversion in a different way. There is no logical reason this list has to be the same as the Jewish list. The Jewish list is also different than every other conversion list, much moreso than this list is different.

Third: This involves a musician I couldn't care less about. Read other posts Nick or I have written on the subject for more information.

Fourth: The name change was caused by the results of the poll. I proposed it because I agree with you that it's illogical to call this a "list of converts to Christianity." I hoped it was an effort at ending the fight. As I did it you are essentially accusing me of something based on a misinterpretation. I think that's unfair and I request you apologize to me. I've made it clear I don't want former converts on this list and if the consensus changes someday I'll be pleased. It is unfortunate the way you have misunderstood my motives and misrepresented me. Please stop doing that.--T. Anthony 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

T. Anthony -- It is an effort to keep Bob Dylan on the list. It does not serve the other 200 people on the list, because the other 200 people on the list are Christians. Bob Dylan and only two other names are not Christians. And I don't think the name of the list was changed to retain the other two relatively obscure people. These lists are about converts to a religion. Judaism is a religion and Christianity is a religion. A convert has to be of the religion to which they have converted. Anything else is a contradiction. As far as the List of notable converts to Islam is concerned, it is not a locus of abuse. If anything, it is abused. The List of notable converts to Islam may contain the wording that it reserves for itself the option of containing on it names of people who are not Muslim, but in point of fact it does not. Furthermore it suffers from Wikipedia's known systemic bias. (See WP:BIAS.) There is an under-representation of editors from Muslim countries. Additionally the list suffers under the abuse of Islamophobia. The names that do get listed portray Islam in a bad light. The List of notable converts to Islam reads almost like a who's who of rogues and villains. The only list (of those three big Abrahamic religions) that is very abusive of parameters is the Christian list. The List of notable converts to Christianity, at odds with logic, demands that non-Christians should find a place on that list. The List of notable converts to Judaism excludes names of people who are not Jewish because that is logical and consistent with the purpose, which is the compilation of notable converts, not the compilation of anyone who ever, by anyone's definition, had anything to do with the religion. Those are flabby parameters. Those parameters are good only for using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. Bus stop 04:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So I take it you aren't apologizing to me? You're going to stick to the idea that I did the title change as "an effort to keep [[Bob Dylan] on the list", which is a misrepresentation of my stated reasons or purpose for doing so. Are you saying I'm lying about my reason? Regardless if you don't wish to apologize that's your choice. Have a nice life.--T. Anthony 05:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe T. Anthony has been a very reasonable editor here. I disagree with him, obviously, but he at least has the common sense to accept majority decisions. Please do not attempt to shame him for this. This discussion only persists because you refuse to admit that your "argument" is merely your own opinion to which most people here disagree.--C.Logan 05:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious if the techniques being used here are just a combination of burning everyone out so that Bus stop owns the article and getting the article continually locked so that no one can edit his favourite version. ArbCom has recommended taking this elsewhere, so any ideas? I'm suggesting perhaps WP:ANI. Drumpler 06:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying he's been doing for ages - I think Tendancer's comment on the Arbcom summed up the truth of what has been going on here. I already tried taking it to the ANI, so maybe you could do the honours this time. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The currently protected version has Dylan in it so it's not his "favorite version."--T. Anthony 14:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the case, but I think the idea is that it was his attempt to lock the article in his favored version, but in this instance, a reversion occurred before the protection was placed. Given the celebratory attitude exhibited by Cleo on Bus stop's the last time the article was locked without Dylan on it, I wouldn't discount such an assertion, but I personally wouldn't argue strongly for it, either. It seems, though, that there is not much left for BS to do beyond engaging in pain-in-the-assish activities such as this, given the turnout of the mediation and community votes... and the absence of any real, relevant argument or input coming from him on this matter.--C.Logan 20:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the list and it looks like we've been as high is 5. I can possibly file a request at WP:ANI, but if possible, WP:BAN might even apply here. Drumpler 15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Conversion means anything to someone who is looking to find conversion. That is evident from this article's Talk page. Conversion has been said to be accomplished by "sermonettes" delivered from a stage between songs. That argument has literally been made by one or more editors here. Conversion, it has been said on this Talk page, was accomplished by sitting down and talking with a priest. That has literally been argued on this Talk page. It has literally been argued on this Talk page that Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity was accomplished by the song lyrics to the "Slow Train Coming" album. Statements made by Bob Dylan on and off the stage have been cited by editors on this Talk page as indicative of or constituting conversion.

Sources refer to Bob Dylan's conversion. So for Wikipedia's purposes conversion is a word we would use in referring to Bob Dylan and the time period 1979. We would use the word conversion because sources use the word conversion. But the use of the word does not establish the factuality of the process. Factuality would be established by one or both of the following: formality and/or practice. Both, in point of fact, are absent. We have neither a formal conversion nor the practice of the religion. Christianity has had nothing to do with Bob Dylan since 1979, or at least no evidence links Bob Dylan to Christianity since 1979.

We seem to forget that Bob Dylan was born a Jew. Bob Dylan need not do anything to be a Jew. The facts of religion at birth apply in the absence of negation of them. This is not rocket science. In 27 years Bob Dylan has not had anything to do with Christianity. How does anyone manage to misconstrue these facts?

We are talking about a simple Jew. Never mind the fact that Bob Dylan is a celebrity. In the absence of active negation of his religion at birth, he is just a Jew. Wikipedia uses sources; editors here at Wikipedia should not be abusing sources. The source which grants the editor the right to use the term "conversion" in relation to Bob Dylan in 1979 in no way establishes a long lasting relationship to Christianity for Bob Dylan. It does not even establish factuality of conversion. It merely grants the use of the word conversion. Furthermore, it grants the use of the word conversion only where other factors do not rule out the use of the word conversion. Twenty-seven years without involvement in Christianity is just such a factor. An editor here at Wikipedia should not be blindly latching on to a word or phrase. An editor here at Wikipedia should not grant any word or phrase free reign. Sources do not have limitless applicability.

Were Bob Dylan involved in Christianity today then he would belong on this list. He is not. This list remains a repository for names of converts to Christianity, despite the efforts of some editors to bend the parameters to include those who are not Christian, and despite the contrivance of changing the name of a list containing 200 names just in order to try to justify the presence on that list of only one of those names. Misuse of Wikipedia remains a glaring problem here. Some of the editors here are laboring under the mistaken notion that showcasing a celebrity Jew's dalliance with Christianity 27 years ago is the central core of what this article is about. In point of fact it is not. This article's parameters are not unlike the parameters for List of notable converts to Judaism. That article has the following parameters, stated at the beginning of that article:

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

The above parameters are stated at the beginning of the List of notable converts to Judaism. These are lists of converts to religion. In one case the religion is Christianity, in the other case the religion is Judaism. The religions may be different in their underlying tenets, but parameters for these lists should be similar. They should be logical. Bus stop 13:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is there's no evidence that another argument about excluding former converts will get them excluded. There is evidence it will simply lead to more fighting and maybe resentment to you. Because Cleo123 seems to have left so that'd leave you and Sefringle. Although possibly you could ask the opinion of the non-Christians who edit List of notable converts to Judaism to see what they say.

Maybe you feel I did not argue for removal enough, and it's true I needed to think on all the consequences first, but I did try. I put up a proposal to create a list of former converts and when that failed I voted for moving them to the list of ex-Christians. I tried to say why it makes no sense to call former Christians "converts to Christianity." I only switched to accepting them as a separate section because removing them seemed impossible. Personally I reject the current arrangement, but I will tolerate it as the result of consensus. I've likely said too much. Zai Jian!--T. Anthony 14:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

T. Anthony -- What makes you think the identity of the editor has relevance? Do you think it matters whether an editor identifies himself/herself as a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Atheist or none of the above? Bus stop 14:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were thinking Christians might be biased, I'm glad to be set straight. However the Christians who edit the article List of notable converts to Judaism are mostly people who've disagreed with you here. Well hopefully I'll resist temptation longer this time. Good luck with the modern/contemporary art articles as you seem to know that stuff well. Hope for better days for all of us, see you.--T. Anthony 14:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Bus stop missed the point of my question. My question, again, is this: What is a formal conversion for a Christian? I'm not asking about Bob Dylan's conversion (or lack thereof) in particular. I'm asking Bus stop what would be considered a conversion? How does he understand the word? What I'm not asking for is a long filibuster answer. Drumpler 15:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop had a post here, which engendered the June 24th response below. Someone brought that post back in full, but I didn't agree with that. I feel Bus stop has a right to remove his own post as that's basically "withdrawing it", which I've done before myself. I had a note here about that post though because I thought some might want to know where to find it in order to understand C.Logan's "20:25, June 24" post. If you do feel the need to see it its in the history as Bus stop's "12:41, 24 June 2007" post. Both the post and the note engendered a reversion war. If you now wish to start a new reversion war about the fact that I created a new note about a post about whatever than I can't help you. Currently we're running at an improbabibility factor of 2 to the power of 8 against and falling. Maybe soon we will have normality "g".--T. Anthony 05:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that JJay removed these comments earlier today and nobody seems to mind: [3]

I believe you neglect to mention the fact that his deletion followed a ridiculous back-and-forth battle over comment placement. Additionally, he at least gave his reasoning. You have not. Please see WP:TALK. If you want to delete your comment, then it is acceptable, but you should give a reason, and at least leave a message concerning the removal, specifically when there are comments which follow your which depend on it for context.--C.Logan 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcane ritual? Maybe this is why you have such a hard time understanding the idea of conversion within evangelical non-denominational Christian churches. Hate to break it to you here, but formality and the invested importance of rituals is absent in much of Protestantism, and is even looked upon with disdain at times. Again, none of this quite matters in the long run, because we are required to say what the sources say- and like I've said, they say that he 'converted'.

You seem to enjoy splitting hairs about terminology, but only when it concerns sources which disagree with you. Everything which contradicts your belief is 'figurative', whereas all things which confirm your viewpoint, no matter how tenuous the information may be, is considered by you to be of such quality that you seem shocked that others give no merit to the sources which have been brought in favor of your argument.

I'm not arguing about Dylan's return to Judaism, as I think for any progress to be made here, we might want to assume the most extreme scenarios, here (i.e. he did convert and he did revert)- I'm merely reminding you that you are the one who continues to beat the dead horse by referencing his conversion to Christianity with unwarranted skepticism. You can read sources however you'd like, Bus stop- but reserve your thoughts for a blog. If you would actually like to have some input into this discussion, I suggest you drop your standard argument and start arguing from a more objective and cooperative standpoint.--C.Logan 20:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source - please stop quoting Wikipedia ad nauseum to promote a view.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Quoting Wikipedia to support your view is no evidence that those words are relevant to any other article. Repeating them like a dozen times does not make them any more relevant. Subtle hint Bus Stop. Ttiotsw 18:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this a policy? Drumpler 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw -- We should not be manufacturing parameters to generate the list we want to generate, which is all that all of the maneuverings we have seen here have been all about. The other 200 names did not require the recent name change to the article, because they were Christians. Only Bob Dylan required that name change to the article, because he is not a Christian. The name describes the article. The name of an article gives an indication of what an article is about, in this case the list's parameters. The recent name change is indicative of the importance Bob Dylan is to this article, in some editor's minds. But this is not a list of all of those notable people that ever had any passing involvement with Christianity, and changing the name does not make it that list. Changing the name only makes it a contrived list that needs work done on it to return it to the status of a valid article. A valid article is one that supports Wikipedia's neutrality agenda. Wikipedia is not to be used as a soapbox. I think some editors have to free themselves from the allure of celebrity status as found in Bob Dylan and return to compiling this list according to parameters that do not take meandering detours in order to include the celebrity of our choice. This is a compilation of those Christians who achieved that identity by way of conversion, as opposed to by way of birth. Those are simple parameters. Anyone can make up any parameters. The only reason why these are the correct parameters are because they are elemental, and they are not contrived. Bus stop 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's my confession. For every post he posts, I do not read it. Why? A casual glance reveals to me that he has said the same thing, almost verbatim, every time he has posted. If this editor wants to have a flippant "talk-to-the-hand" attitude, then IDGAF. Its about time we focus on the article's content and work around his filibuster attempts. Drumpler 18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with you on this one. I simply skim through his comments, and I see that they are largely the same, so I refuse to trace over the same tired points again and again. Bus stop may be including tender tidbits somewhere in there, but in that repetitive framework, he's drowning any good points (if there are any- like I said, haven't read through them in a while). I do, of course, read his shorter comments which seem largely original, and they are actually a refreshing contribution. Perhaps I, too, will make a template message to respond in kind to every repetitive comment he makes. Perhaps if he understands the mind-numbing effect of repetition, he may begin to mix up his points a bit and rejuvenate his argument. Then again, maybe not. Either way, it isn't the first time we've pointed out this habit of his, and he doesn't seem so inclined to change his presentation.--C.Logan 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected Again (revived version)

Due to yet another edit war, I've protected this page for the time being.--Isotope23 00:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• The issue has been talked to death and consensus has been repeatedly established. Protecting the page on a weekly basis because of the actions of one editor who refuses to accept that consensus is unfair to everyone who wants to edit this article in good faith. How do you expect us to resolve this type of disruption through page protection - particularly given the ongoing abuse of this talk page? --JJay 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• I second JJay. The issue has moved well beyond content or editing disputes. Those issues have been settled by all those here who have been willing to compromise and respect consensus. The issue is now solely about disruptive editing and one editor's refusal to respect consensus. Why should all users be prevented from editing this page just because of one editor's unwillingness to respect consensus? A more suitable solution would be to ban Bus stop from editing this article. How many times must we go through this cycle (talk, form consensus, unprotect, edit, revert, revert, revert, revert, protect, talk some more, lather, rinse, repeat, etc.) before something definitive is done? What's the next step?Nick Graves 01:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I already tried to report him here but then Drumpler piled in and basically said I was interfering in his Arbcom case. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear we are contending with a disruptive editor. Protection "until disputes have been resolved" just means more and more useless discussion, and unprotection means unending reverts. ArbCom seems like it won't touch this. What's the next step? Take a look at WP:DE#Dealing with disruptive editors. Let's decide how we can end this thing. Nick Graves 14:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the list and it looks like we've been as high is 5. I can possibly file a request at WP:ANI, but if possible, WP:BAN might even apply here. Drumpler 15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We follow process - WP:RFC on the user conduct is the first step. I never wish to see a user banned i.e. wikipedia isn't a battle ground but the spirit of what is consensus is what makes Wikipedia work and I see that as the rule of thumb that's being distorted here. Ttiotsw 19:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Been done. Drumpler 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This has to go to WP:ANI or WP:BAN, and soon. WP:BAN is probably the most appropriate. Bus Stop has already been blocked three times for edits relating to Bob Dylan's Conversion, we've had this page locked numerous times, we've requested outside comment on numerous occassions, we've had polls, moderated discussions, we've agreed to the form this article should take, we've established broad consensus, and it has made absolutely no difference to Bus Stop. He will, forever, continue to remove Bob Dylan from the list at any opportunity, regardless of consensus. He will continue to accuse me, and the rest of us, of antisemitism and devious plots to prosylitize through forced conversions. Attempts to reason with him are an exercise in futility. zadignose 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I put up a notice on Bus stop here. Nick Graves 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Sure is quiet around here... Maybe some of you have more familiarity with this community sanction process. How does it work? I mean, how are things decided? Who decides them? If this doesn't work, then what? A perpetually protected article? An eternal filibuster? Do we all just throw our hands up and walk away? Just curious. Nick Graves 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion re:Bob Dylan

First a brief bit about me, I'm agnostic and am saying this based on no religious agenda whatsoever.

Bob Dylan belongs in the list, he is a notable person who converted to Christianity. The article does not say (or imply) permanent conversion to Christianity though. Something tells me he isn't the first person on the list to change their mind, again. For him and those like him, I suggest adding the {{see also}} template formatted like this: {{See also|List of notable former Christians}} because Bob Dylan is also a notable former Christian too and in theory so should any ex-Christian member of this list. Anynobody 04:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a human being. I have no religious agenda either, however I do have an agenda to uphold Wikipedia's cherished neutrality policy. Bob Dylan does not belong on this list because he is not a convert to Christianity because he is not a Christian. "Permanence" is irrelevant; present status is. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. We should not contradict ourselves here at Wikipedia. Were he a Christian today he would most certainly be included on this list. As the Jew that he is he most certainly should not be on this list. Respect differences. Bus stop 05:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you disputing the fact that he ever converted? Anynobody 05:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly stated before, the statement "he is a Jew" is not necessarily supported by any reliable sources. It is true that he has been primarily (perhaps even exclusively) a practicing Jew in recent years. However, he has also made public statements, particularly referring to the Apocalypse of John in such a way as to indicate that he believes in its phrophecies, and accepting the "validity" of both Judaism and Christianity. These facts make the flat, unsupported statement "he is a Jew" problematic. And it should be noted from Bus stop's own contributions that he has no religious agenda is at best problematic given his history of edits [[4]], which indicate a pronounced tendency to edit articles, particularly talk pages, which specifically relate to Judaism, i. e. Talk:Antisemitism, Talk:Self-hating Jew, and Talk:List of Black Jews, and no similar edits to any other pages with religious content in the title. And, of course, his repeated unfounded accusations of antisemitism levelled against those who disagree with him is probably the strongest evidence against the accuracy of that assertion. John Carter 15:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mitsuo Fuchida

{{editprotected}} Mitsuo Fuchida should be added to converts from Buddhism. - Athrash | ^Talk 07:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources? Drumpler 07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

His conversion to Christianity is mentioned in the article and he apparently did something for Spire Christian Comics. I don't know if it says much on his previous faith. Although Christianity Today[5] and "Seattle Pacific University Magazine"[6] mention it. Although the second quotes him as saying “Since the American had found it in the Bible, I decided to purchase one myself, despite my traditional Buddhist heritage.” Which could just mean a Buddhist background more than him being Buddhist at the time of his conversion. Still it seems fairly clear he converted and probably did so from Buddhism. His book on it "From Pearl Harbor to Calvary" is mostly on evangelist sites, but if it's an accurate rendering of it that shouldn't be a problem.--T. Anthony 08:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm for favour of his addition then. ;) Drumpler 08:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. On an unrelated matter what does the "lock" thing near the University magazine link mean?--T. Anthony 08:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That the page is a secure link (you know, those annoying "this page is secure" pop-up boxes you get?). Drumpler 09:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Also I added him. See you later, well maybe.--T. Anthony 14:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bus stop, regarding the removal of comments.

As you make such a fuss when others move your comments to a position which robs their context, don't do the same by deleting your comments for no apparent reason, thus rendering all replies to them out of place and seemingly nonsensical. If you can, simply strike-out the comment- we'll know by that that you've rescinded whatever you've said, and it looks much less suspicious (considering that you haven't provided a reason for the removal as-of-yet, and we don't know why you're just erasing your previous statements). Alternatively, you could simply delete the entire comment chain post-yours, although it may irk some, so tread lightly with this option.--C.Logan 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove comments (everyone)

Bus stop, I'm assuming you are unaware of the rules regarding appropriate/inappropriate behavior on a talk page. And based on C.Logan's above comment, people have removed your comments at some point too. (Indicating others are unaware of this as well.)

We really shouldn't remove anything¹ from a talk page, but we definitely should not remove other's comments. If you (to be clear, I mean the indefinite "you", I'm not just talking to Bus stop) feel like others are ganging up on you the best action would be to bring the situation to the attention of an admin on the incident notice board.²

¹ = Unless it's personal information, or comments from an exposed sock puppet. ² = Be prepared to provide proof, and understand your behavior will probably be examined also. Anynobody 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him for this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR after warning him twice.--Sefringle^Talk 05:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one removed his comments. The log seems to demonstrate he removed others comments, however. He likewise tried to continually remove one of his own comments, an action I was the first to retaliate against as it robbed C.Logan's comments of their context. I believe the removal was deliberate, as the subsequent edit logs demonstrate that he likewise tried to remove all mention of it when caught. Drumpler 12:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should consider that he may have removed his own comment because he thought about it and decided it sounded wrong. Maybe we aren't allowed to withdraw our own comments, but I thought that was okay too so it could be an honest mistake. Although removing others comments isn't allowed so far as I know.--T. Anthony 12:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Then he could have corrected himself in a subsequent comment. Not deleted his own comment to change context. Drumpler 12:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is best to avoid having to change one's comments. Other users may already have quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise reacted to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your statement may look to others before you save it.

Changing or deleting comments after someone replied is likely to cause problems, because it will put the reply in a different context. In that case you have several options:

• Ask the person who replied (on their talk page) if it's OK to delete or change your text
• use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration.
  • Strike-through is typed <s>like this</s> and ends up like this.
  • A placeholder is a text such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]".

This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"

From WP:TALK; posted just so we know the recommended guidelines.--C.Logan 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant no offense to anyone here, I was trying to be emphatic about the fact that the rules apply to us all. Anynobody 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion (unrelated to the debate)

I know you're still fussing and a feuding, but I was wondering about something. Do you think it'd make since to have a section for converts who became clergy or theologians? I ask because List of notable converts to Judaism separates out Christian clergy and theologians, but of course as previous status as they converted to Judaism. Still it'd seem like separating out clergy and theologians is allowed going by that, even if what I'm suggesting is different.--T. Anthony 02:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what are you still doing here? Just kidding. :-) I think that's an interesting idea. It would introduce some more complexities to the list structure, though. I'd just as soon see other issues resolved before tackling that one. Nick Graves 02:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite my better judgment I'm still a bit curious how it'll all work out and what to do next.--T. Anthony 04:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember that the List...Islam article used to arrange the individuals by profession, and if I recall correctly, even presented the information in table form. Why not simply organize everyone by prior profession, in fairness? I believe that the special section for clergy is a little unnecessary, although it may prove to be a nice addition- however, I don't see what is insufficient about a simple description concerning the previous profession. Another problem with listing individuals by profession is that we'd need either duplicate religious sections under profession headings or duplicate profession headings beneath religious sections. I'm generally ambivalent about this idea.

One thing which does interest me is the listing of proselyte communities. A few editors are currently trying to add one particular example into the List...Islam article, but other editors are taking an issue with it. The idea seems to have been integrated into the Judaism article, however.

On a side note to all this, I was at a friend's house last night, browsing through the channel selection, and there happened to be a special about Bob Dylan- concerning his conversion to Christianity and his "Gospel" period. Unfortunately, I missed out on the interviews, and only caught the segment of other recording artists covering Dylan's songs. Keeping in mind that I can only take about a minute and a half of Aaron Neville's vocal assault, I soon changed it to another station. Just an interesting little coincidence I thought I'd bring up.--C.Logan 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want it to go by profession and I'm not sure profession even needs to be prominent. I just thought being in clergy or religious orders might be relevant to notability as a convert or of conversion. Just a theory.--T. Anthony 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping things simple, unless there's a demonstrated need for further subsectioning. Among other issues, there's the risk of needing more verification. E.g., I'd hate to have to provide sources for a person's conversion, their former faith, their current faith, their former profession, their later/current profession, and their participation in a particular community, for practially every person on this list.

Actually, as a list I'd rather see it as a barebones list without sections, except where there's a particularly special category that seems to demand sectioning out. But I'm not going to buck the trend, as most editors seem to feel it's valuable to divide the list into sections by former religion.

A reasonable alternative to sectioning, is to simply provide whatever notable or interesting details are available for each individuals in the form of notes beside their list entry. Not footnotes, but just some supplimental text. Anyway, that's how I see it. (note: there was an edit conflict, and this doesn't directly address the above reply) zadignose 04:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh probably. It was just a thought.--T. Anthony 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not be bold and add a section for converts who became clergy or theologians? I know expanding the list complicates matters a bit, but the complications could lead to a solution and I'll explain why. As an article gets larger Wikipedia:Summary style dictates that spin off articles be created to form a series.

Eventually the list could be so diverse everyone would get the section they've been fighting for above.

1. A spin off for notable people that ever converted.
2. One for converts who have stayed.
3. The framework is already set up, for example: List of notable former Christians, List of former Protestants, List of ex-Roman Catholics, etc.

T. Anthony I think we should for now have a section for clergy on each list rather than it's own separate list, unless the shear number dictates it's own spin off. It's possible to convert, become a priest, and then leave the fold but I imagine that happens less often.

In short, the worst that could happen is someone reverts you. Since you seem to be trying to break the Wiki habit I'd of expected a more reckless "I've got nothing to lose..." approach. I commend your restraint, but you may have a good idea if people could see it in the form you're discussing. Anynobody 05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Recklessness is mostly not in my nature. When I am reckless it's usually not in a way that would require a good deal of work as I think this would.--T. Anthony 06:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.

It seems that Bus stop's account has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing.--C.Logan 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe the article's protection status should be lifted? Drumpler 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How about not--Sefringle^Talk 06:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And why do you suggest not? A few of the editors here have wanted to move on for weeks now. Drumpler 06:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that you feel things have not been fully resolved so they should not be unprotected. Although I respect that I think articles can be unprotected even when a dispute is ongoing. I believe the protection was because of revert wars. I think we should consider it. Especially as the protected version is linking to a French list that doesn't actually exist. That's started to bother me.--T. Anthony 06:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While I don't see any problems with removing protection, as the editor who continuously caused the reapplication of the status back was, in fact, Bus stop, I believe we should be very patient in this process and should still consider alternative possibilities for the article before implementing anything with great force. Therefore, I could stand the protection status for a short time, if a moderator were so inclined to leave it in place. However, after the point where most discussions have resulted in solutions and agreed-upon courses of action, the status should certainly be lifted. This, of course, is just the more patient late-night side of me speaking.--C.Logan 06:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps maybe for a few more days (because there's a possibility that anon-IPs or new user names for Bus stop could pop up), but I don't think it should be indefinitely protected as it is often nice to directly edit the article if any other new names pop up. Drumpler 06:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit war was the entire reason for the article protection. Without Bus stop's disruptive edits, I don't think it would have happened. I'm for unlocking it and seeing what happens. I think some of you may be pleasantly surprised. Or has this whole process made you lose all hope? Nick Graves 07:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lost hope in this article? Certainly not. ;) Drumpler 07:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lost hope in the article? A little bit. That said I'd like it unprotected so we can fix any errors like the one I mentioned about the French link. I don't think people will start adding former converts willy-nilly if it's unprotected. If we still want to discuss what to do with former converts I think we can have that discussion without edit wars.--T. Anthony 07:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'll be leaving that discussion alone for now. I would like to improve the quality of some of these references, with some brief confirming quotes. Nick Graves 07:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually if Bus stop wants to send in a sock or start editing from an IP it'd be pretty obvious just by the changes made to the article who it probably is. So it doesn't make sense to punish good editors by proxy (unintentional though it may be) when the cause of the overall problem is one editor. Though some editors don't seem thrilled with the way the consensus went this time, none sound like they are going to make the same kind of trouble. (Even if they wanted to, it'd be foolish to think they would enjoy the same level of patience afforded Bus stop, and nobody here seems foolish.)

It seems pretty simple when one takes into account the "rights" (for lack of a better word) of all editors involved. We're all equally entitled to edit as long as rules of content and conduct are followed. When it has been established that an editor is no longer worthy of good faith the focus should move from protecting the article involved to dealing with the rouge editor. (I see protecting a page as a solution to editors in a war who all have the best intentions because it's a problem with the group. This problem is now about one editor, so protecting the page gives Bus stop the ability to control whether or not this list is edited And keeps good editors from being able to accomplish anything. Anynobody 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've unprotected it per this discussion and on the presumption that the edit war is basically over for the time being.--Isotope23 13:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of source, Re: Tal Brooke

I don't really know who Tal Brooke is, but I wonder, is it really problematic to cite a person's own organization for evidence of conversion. It seems unlikely that a person would explicity state, through their organization, that they had converted to Christianity, if they hadn't. I'm asking, not because I have an opinion on this, but because I'm unsure. It may not be the most sterling of sources, and I wouldn't use it to base a claim of notability, but does this disqualify it as an indirect statement from the person himself, to the effect "I converted?" here's a dif.zadignose 15:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's his personal site, so I don't think misinformation would be presented regarding his personal experiences. As far as I see it, things posted on the personal site of the individual in question have the assurance of factuality from the individual's perspective. I could be wrong, but I'm confused over this removal as well.--C.Logan 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing a person's own website as evidence for anything is problematic Lurker 16:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, I think that that source probably qualifies as an acceptable source. The only provisions that I think might even remotely be invoked are "not contentious" and "not unduly self-serving", and I'm not sure if either of those provisions qualifies here. John Carter 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

We all know that Bus stop has been blocked, but it seems he's trying to reverse that decision. In this process, he's already been denied once, after a moderator had to explain to him again why he was blocked in the first place. Now he seems to be compiling a great essay for whatever purpose. I shiver at the thought of this discussion returning to its prior state, so if anyone is so inclined, they should correct the misrepresentation of the issues laid out here by Bus stop. From the first sentence ("I was not blocked for being disruptive."), you know that this one is going to be an interesting read.--C.Logan 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, now would be a good time for all of us to remain uninvolved in this issue, and leave it in the hands of the administrators who considered the case. For one thing, it's generally recommended to allow a blocked editor to withdraw as gracefully as possible. If he wants to make some claims in his defense, that I don't necessarily agree with, still I have no reason to badger him or add to his frustration. On the other hand, we should also not be making requests to soften the response, or to negotiate terms. That's all up to the capable admins to consider. Besides, if editors move to have someone blocked, then it makes little sense for those same editors to try to get the block removed upon certain imposed conditions. Let's just let it be. John, sorry to point fingers, but I think you perhaps experienced the greatest amount of frustration in your prolonged interactions with Bus Stop, and I know you are always looking for the most reasonable approach, but in particular you may want to remain as "hands off" as possible now. The entire history of what has transpired remains on record for anyone who wants to review it, and they may consider the claims of any of the various parties... though it is quite a tangled mess and a long read, it's all there. zadignose 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with zadignose; I would suggest that spending time at User talk:Bus stop continuing this argument is just going to ratchet up the level of rhetoric. It's time for a cool down. Let uninvolved admins and editors deal with the situation.--Isotope23 18:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but even beyond this discussion, I would prefer that Bus stop realize his own problems and see the flaws of his impression of the discussion- after all, we must remember that his fervor is based almost entirely on his own unwarranted assumptions in regard to the editors involved- of which only a few are even Christians, though he prefers to characterize any supporters of the inclusion as such. Bus stop has a problem in this respect.

He has recently added a paragraph which portrays the move to get him blocked as a response to the cogency of his argument- apparently, he believes that his argument was so incredible and invincible that the block was merely a last-ditch effort on the part of editors who were otherwise helpless to overturn his assertions. Pardon me if I am misreading this, but this seems to be a flourish of narcissism and delusion.

This user is a painter, and he enjoys showing things in a certain light- one which may not reveal the true nature of a subject. Users have been misled by his presentation of events before, and I would prefer to answer his claims rather than to let other users become convinced that Bus stop is an innocent victim of 'conspiracy', or however it is he prefers to portray it. Once this user wakes up and begins discussing things reasonably, and perhaps admits his own errors, then I believe the business can be left alone. This, of course, is just my opinion of things.--C.Logan 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)