Talk:List of converts to Christianity/Archive 7

message: 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)
thread_title: Archives

message: 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)
thread_title: Outside opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: Is this a policy? Drumpler 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is a tertiary source - please stop quoting Wikipedia ad nauseum to promote a view. 

message: Due to yet another edit war, I've protected this page for the time being.--Isotope23 00:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Been done. Drumpler 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I put up a notice on Bus stop here. Nick Graves 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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 [], 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)

text: Sources? Drumpler 07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 and "Seattle Pacific University Magazine" 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. Also I added him. See you later, well maybe.--T. Anthony 14:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected Again (revived version) 

message: 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  template formatted like this:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 [], 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)
thread_title: A suggestion re:[[Bob Dylan]]

message: Mitsuo Fuchida should be added to converts from Buddhism. - Athrash | Talk 07:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources? Drumpler 07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 and "Seattle Pacific University Magazine" 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dear Bus stop, regarding the removal of comments. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Citing a person's own website as evidence for anything is problematic Lurker 16:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reliability of source, Re: Tal Brooke