Talk:List of converts to Christianity/Archive 4

message: The article was kept in the last AfD on the basis: "KEEP but remove all uncited entries to living people per WP:BLP". I plan to remove all unsourced entries in 24 hours or so, and so if anyone was planning to add any references now would be a good time. Of course under WP:BLP there is no need to give notice like this, I am merely doing it as a courtesy to those who have built the list, and anyone may remove unsourced info at any time. --Guinnog 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I apologize for the lack of work, one should note that the continuing conversation is, unfortunately, overly distracting. The unresolved state of the discussion itself is why the article is protected from editing in the first place. How are we supposed to add anything to the article in this situation- with the bickering on the talk page and the un-editable article on hold until the discussion has ended? --C.Logan 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, the page is currently being protected, thus preventing any references being added. For what it's worth, below is a list of all the names on the list that are currently unreferenced. I will try to bold those which are of living people. Also, at least some of the names below, including the Twelve Apostles (not blp), Constantine I, Polycarp, and Saint Angelus are individuals I know to be converts. I hadn't added references yet because the reference I have lists them as converts to Christianity, but doesn't indicate what they converted from. Anyway, these are the names, in order of appearance on page. I will shortly start bolding those names of living people. I am also putting them in a separate section to preclude any edit conflicts. John Carter 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of those names are easy to find sources for. I'll admit I've been a little lazy, but I feel it's likely more important to find sources for contentious or not-well-known conversions first- people like C.S.Lewis are generally known to have converted, and should take secondary priority to listings that have no certain place on the list. --C.Logan 19:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this, and I'm sorry if my first message came across as waspish. I hadn't noticed the article was protected. Thanks to John Carter's list (below), it will be easy enough to re-add names as they are sourced, but please consider the 24-hour part of my message above to be moot until the protection issue is resolved. Meantime there would be no harm at all in starting to add references here. --Guinnog 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (John- perhaps we should strike-out each name from the block list that is sourced below- or remove them, although I think it would be good to keep the block list in tact. If you don't mind, I'll strike-out referenced names now.)--C.Logan 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As the article is no longer protected, any sources should simply be added into the article. The above list of 'sourced names' will not be added to by me, nor removed, as I don't know if anyone may find it useful. --C.Logan 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is protected again, so adding references below is probably a good idea. FWIW, I note that Marie Dahnhardt is actually categorized as a convert to Roman Catholicism, not to Christianity. As I can't find any direct links to this page, I wonder whether we should actively try to reference that party or not. John Carter 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I have debolded referenced names of living people to make the search for sources easier. Note:Red links are bolded because I'm not sure if they are alive or not. 
:(John- perhaps we should strike-out each name from the block list that is sourced below- or remove them, although I think it would be good to keep the block list in tact. If you don't mind, I'll strike-out referenced names now.)--C.Logan 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article is no longer protected, any sources should simply be added into the article. The above list of 'sourced names' will not be added to by me, nor removed, as I don't know if anyone may find it useful. --C.Logan 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is protected again, so adding references below is probably a good idea. FWIW, I note that Marie Dahnhardt is actually categorized as a convert to Roman Catholicism, not to Christianity. As I can't find any direct links to this page, I wonder whether we should actively try to reference that party or not. John Carter 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of unreferenced names

message: *Khang Khek Leu - "The Killer and the Pastor" article from Time.com
*Norma McCorvey - , described as being "practical atheist" before conversion 
*Josh McDowell -  site describes conversion
*Alister McGrath - biography on official website describes him as a former atheist
*William J. Murray - statement of William J. Murray
*Barack Obama - My Spiritual Journey at time.com
*Anne Rice - Interview with a Pentitent from Christianity Today
*Monty White - My Spiritual Pilgrimage from Theistic Evolution to Creationism by Monty White
*David Yonggi Cho - Profile of Rev. David Yonggi Cho
*Jaruvan Maintaka - "God's on My Side" at nationmultimedia.com
*Tal Brooke - Spiritual Counterfeits Project page on Tal Brooke
*Sister Nirmala - "Indian-born nun to succeed Mother Teresa" at cnn.com
*Mathieu Kérékou - BBC- Benin's 'magical' leader
:As the article is no longer protected, any sources should simply be added into the article. The above list of 'sourced names' will not be added to by me, nor removed, as I don't know if anyone may find it useful. --C.Logan 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is protected again, so adding references below is probably a good idea. FWIW, I note that Marie Dahnhardt is actually categorized as a convert to Roman Catholicism, not to Christianity. As I can't find any direct links to this page, I wonder whether we should actively try to reference that party or not. John Carter 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: There are no sources to be found which are reliable saying he converted to anything apart from rastafarianism. The only thing spouted over and over again is the claim by the Archbishop Abuna Yesehaq, after Marley's death, which is hardly credible.
 Could an admin please remove him from the list? Pubuman 05:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and while you are at it, can you please remove Obama from the list as well?--Sefringle 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've templated out the edit request.  Administrators do not normally make changes to a protected page that would appear to favor one side over the other in a content dispute.  Please try to build a consensus for this removal and see m:The Wrong Version.  --Selket Talk 06:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a dispute as such, I am requesting a single name be removed because of the lack of sourcing, please put back the template and let the admins respond.Pubuman 12:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. According to this page, a friend of Marley states that Marley was actually baptized as a Christian shortly before his death. I acknowledge that the source is a Christian convert and involved in gospel music, but that does make at least two distinct sources for this statement. I hope we can avoid the argument about whether or not we have to produce baptismal records to verify this conversion. However, if there are other sources which specifically state that these other sources are fabricated, and can provide some justification of same, I would acknowledge that the name might be removed, or at least followed with a statement to the effect that the alleged conversion is a matter of dispute. John Carter 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed- while you may find certain sources and statements to be unreliable and fabricated, it would be appreciated if you shared the reasons for your belief with the rest of us editors. As far as I see it, things become problematic when we begin to reject testimonies because of religious beliefs. There seems to be three individuals who lend support to this testimony: Abuna Yesehaq, Judy Mowatt and Tommy Cowan. One could argue that Yesehaq is lying because of his purpose in profession, but that's an unsupported assumption. Concerning the other two, I'm unsure what motivation they might have to support the idea, beside the factuality of it. --C.Logan 14:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Marley 

message: I can see the rationality of having separate lists of people who were at one point members of one faith only to leave it later. As this page seems to be the page with most active current discussion, I thought it reasonable to include this question here first. What do we think the standards for inclusion on a list of former believers should be? My own proposal, and I would be grateful for any reasonable feedback, positive or negative, would be the following.
We are basically dealing with two separate groups of people here. Those who are currently living, or who have only recently died, and those who are basically historical figures. I'm not trying to insult anyone by spelling out the obvious, simply pointing out that different circumstances and rules apply to different parties.
For people who more or less qualify as "historical" figures, which I would roughly define as having died twenty or thirty years ago or more, I think the most reasonable and useful definition to use would be that to qualify for inclusion in that list a person should have converted from the religion in the "List of former x's" title before or during the period of their life for which they are most notable. Thus, their period of greatest notablity would at least include some of the period when they could be or were contemporaneously known as "former adherents of Faith X". My particular specialty is saints, and most if not all of those people by definition converted from whatever to Christianity before their period of greatest notability, particularly those who are canonized on the basis of being martyrs for Christianity. 
The guidelines for people still living or only recently died would I think be understandably more contentious, given the difficulties in determining when a living person's period of greatest notability is. Here I acknowledge my own comparative lack of experience, and particularly welcome any responses. I think the same basic rules could still apply, with the proviso that people who have clearly retired from "public life" or however you want to phrase it and converted to some faith during this private, post-notability period would probably not be included in that list, or at least have indications of the fact that the conversion took place after they retired from the public eye. However, in some cases which have already been mentioned elsewhere, such as David Berkowitz, who seemingly recently publicly converted to Christianity, would qualify, as this person is still considered notable enough that recent reports regarding his behavior are being published. Another example, Tom Cruise, would I think reasonably be included in the list of former Christians, as the majority of his time in the public eye has included a period when he is noted for being a Scientology practicioner.
Like I said earlier, I would welcome any reasonable responses, so that we can try to standardize the qualifications for these lists and thus reduce the possibility of contentious discussion in the future. John Carter 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people who converted after their notable period would fit if there are enough sources and their conversion was significant to their final years in some way. Alice B. Toklas's conversion to Catholicism ten years before her death is kind of notable considering the Church's view of homosexuality and certain other factors; Jaroslav Pelikan's conversion to the Orthodox Church in America occurred after most of his best-known books were written but is significant as he was a scholar of Christianity. Also I'm not sure "most" saints were converts. In particular I'd think most saints born from about 1000-1450 AD were people who'd always been at least baptized Christian.--T. Anthony 02:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree to the inclusion of the parties mentioned above, as they were I think both during their time of greatest notability, which is to say, after their primary works were published. I guess what I was poorly trying to indicate was that someone who, for instance, wasn't involved in issues relating to religion who converted well after they disappeared completely from the limelight might not qualify for inclusion, as their behavior then might be less notable and considerably much less publicized. And, if I was less than specific in clearly refering to those saints who specifically and clearly converted to Christianity from some other faith, my apologies. That was the group I was trying to "target", as such a conversion is the necessary requirement for inclusion in this list. And please note that those canonized figures I have added to date all were clearly converts from a non-Christian faith. John Carter 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifications for inclusion of "List of former (x)s" 

message: Former Christian converts do not belong on this list, because they are not Christians. For consistency with other "converts to religion X" articles, we cannot and should not include any former Christians on this list.--Sefringle 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might agree, but this seems to be allowed in other conversion lists. List of notable converts to Judaism includes Uriel da Costa who "came to reject formalized, ritualized religion" and was rejected as a heretic and I'm uncertain if Marilyn Monroe remained in Judaism after divorcing Arthur Miller. (Yeah I know Jewish rules might say you may still be Jewish even if you switch after, but regardless) Likewise List of Catholic converts includes people like Mary Frances Cusack who became Anti-Catholic. So we'd have to set-up a standard for what you propose. I'm not opposed to doing so, but I will say that it's good this list at least makes it clear who converted and then left as some don't.--T. Anthony 11:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a consensus. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why certain editors continue to beat a dead horse. Drumpler 08:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And as a side note, why don't these certain editors take a week or two break from this article? I took a break. It worked wonders. :) Drumpler 08:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good advice for any editor involved. Perhap's I'll take it. --C.Logan 09:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping it out of your "watch" list also helps. :) Drumpler 09:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do note that the other lists of notable converts do not specifically refer to any individuals who have since converted to something else. I assume that is because they have all stayed as members of the faith on whose list they are included. However, there are only two extant lists that I can find, List of former Christians and List of notable former Muslims, for individuals who have converted to some other faith from those two. I guess that maybe the best way to go would be to possibly make a formal request for opinions in the matter. The questions which might be asked include (1) whether these lists of converts should exist in the first place, (2) whether the lists of existing and former "Foos" should be maintained separately for all faiths, (3) whether people who theoretically qualify for inclusion on both the lists of converts to and converts from faith Foo should be included in both lists, and (4) if the lists are to be made more limited, what the specific criteria for inclusion on each list should be. Does that sound reasonable, and are there any potential questions which I may have missed? John Carter 13:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Former Christian converts to Christianity again

message: I'm putting this up here as the stuff below this is devoted to the mediation/argument deal. I edited Horapollo to explain the nature of his conversion, but then started wondering if he should just be dropped. On the List of notable converts to Islam there was a rough concensus not to include forced conversions. What's the feeling on the matter here? On that list those in favor of including forced conversions said it was necessary as forced conversions have some historical value. Others said forced conversions are usually rejected by the converted and don't count by the rules of Islam. Christian rules also traditionally forbid forced conversions, St. Augustine mentions this as do earlier Christians, so that could apply here too. Thoughts?--T. Anthony 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As only one source treats the issue, I'll look into it further, but he should probably be removed for now until more information can be found. I agree, forced conversions are not really considered valid, as many individuals often continue to practice their own religion in secret (the situation in historic Spain being an example). A more puzzling issue would be a 'forced conversion' that later became outspoken and sincere in the faith (which I'm sure has happened at least a couple times in history, though I'm unaware of notable examples at the moment). --C.Logan 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree that if his conversion was forced, and his personal beliefs unchanged as a result, he should be removed. There is a question, however, implied above, regarding forced conversions which might later become voluntary, based on the individual coming to believe that his "old" god, belief system, whatever, is "weaker" than the one he was forced to convert to. Certainly, such conversions based on the comparative power of the belief systems did happen somewhat regularly in the ancient world, although less often recently. That might be irrelevant to the case at hand, however. John Carter 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Forced conversions?

message: While looking into an WP:ANI report, I noticed the edit warring on this article and I've decided to protect it for the time being.  Discuss the issues, come to a consensus, and request unprotection.  This continual revert warring is in no way helpful.--Isotope23 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do so. However, the article was just recently removed from protection. So far as I know, the majority of the edits to it since then have been to place references in for the various individuals included, and add other names as they have been referenced. John Carter 14:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the edits today have been reverting back and forth over the addition of one section.  That is edit warring in my book.--Isotope23 14:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually hadn't checked the revisions for today. You have my sincerest apologies for my earlier misstatement. John Carter 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Given the level of rhetoric I'm seeing here, I'd say the request for mediation is a very good idea.--Isotope23 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agree--Sefringle 07:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sooner the better. However, a question. If the mediation is (once again) not accepted by one or more parties, what would be the next step? John Carter 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's premature to conjecture about that at this time.  Suffice to say that if no mediation happens, then other avenues of dispute resolution will need to be pursued.--Isotope23 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MedCab doesn't require one or more parties. Sr13 07:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I will try my hand at my first MedCab case and read the discussion... Sr13 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I am shocked to see that no one has tried to at least calm this over-a-month-long dispute. I believe that there has been too much talk and less resolution, so I will resolve by being straightforward. I will start a poll, discussion, and notes section henceforth. Sr13 07:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we have already asked in the past to (1) have the article deleted (by Bus stop - see the most recent AfD above), (2) requested comment for RfC, and (3) requested formal mediation. The RfC comments can be found on the archived page, and the request for formal mediation failed because one party would not sign on to it, as shown here. John Carter 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see...we'll see if MedCab can resolve this issue. Sr13 18:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator 

message: Several statements/questions will be presented, and there will be no discussion; that is appropriate in the discussion section. Say either Agree or Disagree, and give a concise explanation for your decision. 
===This is an article about a list of converts to Christianity, regardless of what has occured afterward===
*Disagree This is a list of people who converted to Christisnity and are Christians today, or when they died. This is necessary for consistency and to not confuse our readers into thinking someone who isn't a Christian is.--Sefringle 08:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh...--C.Logan 01:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: *Disagree This is a list of people who converted to Christisnity and are Christians today, or when they died. This is necessary for consistency and to not confuse our readers into thinking someone who isn't a Christian is.--Sefringle 08:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is an article about a list of converts to Christianity, ''regardless'' of what has occured afterward

message: *Agree - Ttiotsw 14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh...--C.Logan 01:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bob Dylan]], at one point in time, was converted to Christianity

message: None of the above statements have any significance because no one (of the above people) know the answer to the posed question. Agreeing or disagreeing is just guesswork. Bus stop 05:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that this is essentially how our court system works, you should probably get used to this sort of thing. We're weighing what evidence we see. Some find it unconvincing; others don't. You can feel free to cast your opinion on the matter. You already know what you believe. --C.Logan 06:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not the discussion segment. Raise the problem with the question elsewhere or, I believe, you're both out of order. (Note: I think the question is meaningless and maybe unanswerable, but again this isn't discussion)--T. Anthony 07:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is consensus related to what was said above. Drumpler 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From above

message: I may have been a little abrupt here, but I set up the process quickly so we could get a rough idea on the stance of users as well as a crude consensus of what is going on. The consensus will be final in the discussion, not the poll. In addition, I have taken into consideration Bus stop's comment, and we'll have to see how we can all arrive at an agreement. Sr13 10:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I'm doing the poll

message: We should not contradict ourselves. We should not put a Jew on a list ostensibly of Christians. Are these Christians who were born Christian, on the List of notable converts to Christianity? No, they are not. Are these Christians who converted to Christianity, on the List of notable converts to Christianity? Yes, they are. In order not to contradict ourselves we should not put a Jew on such a list. That would constitute a contradiction. Nor should we twist the parameters of the list to accommodate some goal that we think we rightfully should achieve. We should adhere to straightforward parameters. Note the parameters in place at the List of notable converts to Judaism. You won't find contrived parameters there. You will find straightforward parameters. The parameters that the List of notable converts to Judaism uses are straightforward. Does the List of notable converts to Judaism contain on it Jews who were born Jewish? No, it does not. Does the List of notable converts to Judaism contain on it Jews who converted to Judaism? Yes, it does. Does the List of notable converts to Judaism contain people who are not Jewish on it? No, it does not. We are talking here and now about the distinction between straightforward and contrived, as concerns parameters of lists such as these. We are talking about the importance of not contradicting ourselves. Contradicting oneself is a senseless thing. Please use the List of notable converts to Christianity responsibly. Please follow straightforward parameters. That will make for a great list. It will be a list of those notable Christians who converted to Christianity. It will not contain on it those notable Christians who were born Christian. Nor will it contain on it Jews, because Jews are obviously not Christians. Bus stop 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't we put a former Christian on a list? In particular, Bob Dylan? And what goal is being achieved? Remember, I'm not a Christian here, so I have no such goal. Drumpler 02:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should not contradict ourselves, nor should we create contrived parameters for lists 

message: --JJay 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Poorly worded, and on the verge of an attack. Nevertheless, Bus stop is being a little disruptive because he has repeated what he has said in a prior string. Sr13 10:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it. 
Criticism and praise in headings are strongly discouraged. A talk page is not a platform to browbeat other editors, engage in personal attacks or continually demonstrate failure to WP:AGF. This type of behavior is disruptive and makes achieving consensus and improving the article all the more difficult. Bus stop needs to understand that posting here is a privilege not a right. JJay 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should not start new threads when we have nothing new to say, nor should we make spectacles of our obsessions 

message: I'm ending protection on this article for the time being because I don't intend to keep the article protected indefinitely.  That is not carte blanche to resume the edit war here though, please continue the discussion on this talkpage.  This can easily be reprotected at any time.--Isotope23 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the mediator, I'll look out for edit warring and protect the page myself if it continues. Sr13 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I've partially restored the removed section, sans the Dylan text.  The dispute that is running here is essentially about Dylan's inclusion here (from what I have observed at least) and it appears the question of whether or not this section is appropriate is stemming from that dispute.  I don't see much in the way of arguments about whether or not Flynt converted/renounced and I don't see a case for his inclusion here being especially contentious.  I specifically left out Dylan for the time being as that is essentially the crux of the dispute.  Personally I don't particularly care if this section is in or out but I would strongly suggest that a consensus be formed here first before further edits (i.e. removal of the section or adding Dylan back in) to this section be done.  It's my opinion at least that continuing to revert war over this, even with 1 reversion, is disruptive to the ongoing discussion.--Isotope23 14:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial restore

message: Considering :Category:Converts to Christianity is already a subcategory of :Category:Religious conversion, I question whether the redundant categorization is required. John Carter 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to go through categories re converts rather than conversion but fine.  I've reverted and leave you guys to it.  --Wfaxon 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New categorization 

message: A thread started by User:Cleo123, which I believe was created in clear and explicit violation of the rules regarding no personal attacks, has been removed by me. I note that this user has also recently started another insinuation campaign implying that some other editor who happened to appear to support me elsewhere has since disappeared. The clear intention of this comment was to imply that that other user, who I did not see specifically named, was me. I cannot see how such a meaningless and unsubstantiated allegation serves any purpose other than possibly potential intimidation. As I have already told that editor, I will not be intimidated by such silly, unsupported allegations. I also note again that such unreferenced, unsupported allegations are I believe a clear and explicit violation of rules regarding personal attacks, particularly if the person making them seems to have no interest in following up on them in any meaningul way. If this user believes that they have an obligation to the community to make such unsubstantiative accusations, then I honestly suggest that they do so in the appropriate locations. Honestly, I cannot see how such unsubstantiated, purely hypothetical accusations, particularly on a specific article talk page, serve any useful purpose whatsoever. If that user honestly believes the accusations have merit, then I honestly and sincerely urge them to post them on a location which administrators have set up for such a purpose. However, I note that doing so would also bring in the spotlight the behavior of all individuals involved, including potentially that user him/herself. John Carter 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think John Carter should take his own advice in almost everything he says above. In particular John Carter should stop his petty personal attacks on those people whose opinions on the subject matter of the article he disagrees with. Concerning sock puppetry it is understandable that the likelihood of it increases in the presence of other forms of underhandedness. Sock puppetry is probably hard to prove. I'm sure there are many ways of avoiding detection. But when we find an editor with a low regard for other forms of propriety it, increases the likelihood of the presence of sock puppetry too. Cognitive dissonance can be relied upon (to an extent) to keep the honest, honest, and the dishonest, dishonest. John Carter should take note of the fact that I am not attributing any negative tendencies to him. I am speaking in the abstract. But we have to be realistic and cognizant that these personal conflicts do not emerge meaninglessly from the aether, either. Bus stop 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is my hope that the removal of such, I believe, clearly inappropriate content should function as a signal that the policies and guidelines regarding personal attacks be followed. Also, and here I am speaking directly to the user above, it is my hope that after having been blocked three times to date that perhaps that user has perhaps learned what sort of comments are acceptable on such pages. At times, he makes valuable comments. Unfortunately, his tendency for unsubstantiated allegations and blanket dismissal of comments of others based on such allegations, are, I hope, tendencies that they have now realized are problematic and do in no way help their purposes or contribute to the development of the encyclopedia. John Carter 14:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John Carter -- People in glass houses should not throw rocks. Bus stop 14:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you both perhaps move on to the article issues?  If you want to argue about editor conduct you both have usertalk pages to continue this on.--Isotope23 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, I didn't see the section you removed, but I doubt it was a case of personal attack.  You've cried "personal attack" before when it wasn't appropriate, and you seem to personalize these debates too much.  However, even if it was a personal attack of some sort, maybe you should just leave it in place.  I really can't see any reason to remove another user's comments from a talk page.  Your claim of a "personal attack" would be easier to substantiate if the relevant text was here for all to read, and in any case, Cleo123 is someone we should be seeking a compromise with, not someone to further alienate from the discussion. zadignose 00:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. However, as the admin whom Cleo contacted to have the text restored has seemingly allowed the deletion to stand as per his not restoring it as per the comment s/he made above, I think that the removal was justified. However, for those who were interested, the thread, entitled "Hypocrisy", can be found [here]. And, as I indicated to the admin who responded above, I think that the removal of these comments will hopefully cause any other parties who might consider making such clearly off-topic and at best questionable posts subsequently to consider whether their comments are entirely appropriate here, myself, and hopefully Cleo, included. John Carter 01:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of seemingly useless and unsubstantiated allegations by [[User:Cleo123]], which could reasonably be seen as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] 

message: I note in the Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Partial restore section of this page that the name of Dylan was kept out until and unless consensus for conclusion was reached. The mediator who came in has yet to make a final statement, and so to the best of my understanding we are waiting for consensus to be declared. Right now, the only two impediments to consensus seem to me to be User:Bus stop and User:Cleo123. Although the latter has indicated that several people have left the discussion, which is true, it is also true that such departures are seemingly standard in such discussions, and it is hard to categorically say that such parties, many of whom may have responded to the existing RfC, must inherently be consulted in a dispute in which they only weighed in as outside observers, and have not apparently felt any reason to continue in the discussion. If, of course, any party were to wish to contact those individuals to request their input on this matter, I personally would have no objections. Based on my understanding, then, the conclusion of the mediation seems to be what we are waiting for. As I am not the mediator, I think it would be improper for me to say when and if that point is or should be reached. I do however hope User:Sr13 weighs in on this matter shortly.
John Carter 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree. The conversion is sourced so that is not really the issue. What needs to be examined is the phrasing and potential sources for any statement indicating some extent of engagement with Judaism post conversion. To date, I have not seen any sources that explicitly indicate either a "reconversion" or a specific renunciation of Christianity by Mr. Dylan. --JJay 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, editors have been updating the tags and contents in an effort to find a middle ground and find a consensus, in an apparent attempt to placate (IMO misguidedly) editors like yourself.  Unfortunately, thusfar you prefer to react to these attempts to work with you to achieve consensus/mediation with rhetoric and accusations.  When editors modify the parameters/contents to try to assuage your concerns, you scream "contrived parameters" and throw accusations of anti-semitism.  As that has been going on for months, it's becoming apparent you'll never be satisfied until articles are written exactly per your POV: consensus and WP:RS + WP:NOR be damned unless Bus Stop is happy with it.  Ask yourself where on this talk page have you even tried to work with others on finding any sort of middle ground, and show the courtesy others have shown you (by even wanting to modify the list parameters just to placate you)--instead choosing to respond to any opinions/facts contra to your POV with vehement rhetoric, and refuse all attempts at mediation and discredit the moderator ad hominem when his conclusion was not to your lacking.  If you don't believe in [WP:CONSENSUS]], then eventually the consensus will be reached without you. Tendancer 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The statement above looks very much to me like an unsubstantiated personal attack. I would caution the above editor against making such statements. I note that at this point in the dispute resolution process, the only real step remaining is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I have no objections to seeing this matter brought before them. However, you might wish to read the content of the various pages involved before bringing this matter to them. Please let us know what conclusion you come to. John Carter 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * I agree. Like his "kangaroo court" comments above (,), this type of attack on Sr13 is not acceptable. Isotope23 previously indicated to Bus stop the proper forums for his complaints . He should consider those avenues, rather than further disrupting this talk page.  --JJay 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Sr13 did cross out a statement he made when I called him on being partisan. It's unfortunate that s/he's truly has been a bit partisan as it may prolong objection. Still partisan or not I think the concensus is real. I'm not entirely sure it's a good idea, but concensuses really aren't about what's best just about what's most agreed to. Plus there unfortunately never really was a debate about whether it's proper to include de-converts. I was, and to some extent still am, on the "no" camp in that non-existent debate. Although on reflection I think that if a person wrote a notable work of Christian philosophy, or even an important Christian hymn, they should probably count even if they left. Anyway de-converts are now to be included right or wrong and we probably need to add such a section to other convert lists. (I've done so with the Catholic and Jewish ones)--T. Anthony 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In his defense Sr13 has said that this was his/her first attempt at mediation. I believe anyone who tries to come into a situation like this one deserves some credit for subjecting themselves to the abuse they can expect to take place here, even if they do (I think understandably) make a few mistakes the first time out. And I too would like to see the larger discussion regarding de-converts (or re-converts) in general take place. I do get the impression that here might not be the best place to do so, however. If anyone can think of a page where such discussion might be able to talk place, I would welcome being informed of it. John Carter 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms required for reinclusion of Bob Dylan 

message: So may we put Dylan back on the page? I don't think we need to worry about the wording so much since we can hash that out in the edits and decide to choose the best edit. Likewise, this page is becoming 475 KBs long. Maybe its time to archive? Drumpler 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dylan and Archives

message: I'm not sure if I actually should be doing this, considering we already have a mediator on the case. However, I would like to propose the following:
*There is already a template on the top of this page that this page should not be used as a locus for making comments which are "off-topic". I believe that this specifically includes comments on the integrity and/or motivations of other editors. Also, given the extreme length of this page, and the likelihood of it getting even longer, I think it does make sense that we try to encourage each other to stick to the true purpose of this page, which is the discussion of the contents of this article. I am therefore proposing that, should this proposal be approved, we make it a routine practice to immediately delete any new comments or threads which fall within the following criteria:
*(1) Comments or threads which seem to be at best tangentially, if at all, related to the discussion of the article and its contents, and
*(2) Comments or threads which are clearly repetitious, in that they only repeat existing comments or threads. Note: I would not necessarily include in this group individual comments which are made which refer a given poster to an existing comment or thread on this page, or new comments or threads from individuals inquiring about whether comments on a given subject have already been made. There is always the possibility of someone coming to this page from the existing RfC, or elsewhere, and it would be polite to answer the well-intentioned questions or comments of such newcomers.
*Do the rest of you believe that it would be acceptable to conduct such a poll? John Carter 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're asking about a poll on whether or not to customarily delete off-topic or unproductive comments for the duration of the discussion? Well, I suppose I support that. We need to remain focused in this discussion, and I would hope that we can learn to focus on the progressive matters and not to repeat old and tired discussions. However, there can be a difficulty in realizing this due to the fine line in determining which comments fall into the acceptable range and which do not (I fear that some users may abuse such an implementation). However, as far as the poll is concerned, I believe it is a reasonable thing to attempt. Further development and discussion of this idea might define it and make it more useful. --C.Logan 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that such an idea is easily abused. My main support for it comes from the fact that all progress in this thread seems to continuously 'restart' when particular individuals revert to more primitive arguing points and essentially reinforce the same points over and over again, without any real progress. If only such postings could be ignored rather than entertained by editors interested in resolution.--C.Logan 03:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, although I forgot to specifically state this, for which I apologize, it was and is my belief that the last mediator more or less made a similar statement regarding what he would do. It would be my intention, were this to be enacted, that the privelege of removing comments (or, potentially, editing them) would lie at the sole discretion of the mediator. John Carter 14:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible poll to discuss the deletion of off-topic and/or clearly redundant comments or threads