Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable converts to Christianity (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP but remove all uncited entries to living people per WP:BLP -Docg 11:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable converts to Christianity (3rd nomination)[edit]

List of notable converts to Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (3rd nomination) – (View log)

This page is not being used for it's intended purpose: a list of notable people who have come to the Christian religion by way of conversion, that is, instead of by way of being born Christian. I would describe, figuratively, what is going on is a form of Christian imperialism, in which known Jews are being put on the list. Actually, just one prominent case: Bob Dylan. This page could serve a legitimate purpose but it is not. Instead of listing noted Christians who have arrived by way of conversion, editors have taken it upon themselves to include Bob Dylan in this list. They have rejigged the definition of the list to include anyone who has ever converted to Christianity, to include Bob Dylan, for whom sources (flimsy) have been found for conversion in 1979. The big offense is that he is clearly a Jew. His "Christian phase" can be handled in a properly detailed context such as in the Bob Dylan article. But starkly listed here is an offense to Judaism. There is no justification for committing that offense. And the editor's "disclaimers" do not correct the problem. The very need for disclaimers is indication of the initial wrong.Bus stop 04:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be the 3rd nomination?
It seems that "it's intended purpose" is actually the purpose which you, Bus stop, have dictated it to be. You choose to ignore our reasoning in the criterion for inclusion, which has never had to be so clearly defined until this argument came about. Dylan and Duleep Singh and everyone else on the list are included because of their conversions, not because of their continued faith. A simple question: If Abdul Rahman converted back to Islam, would you suggest removing him from the list? Would you say that his return to his former faith erases the fact that he converted to Christianity in an oppressive country, and therefore received a death sentence for his actions? Is this conversion not notable enough to include on this list, regardless of the man's current faith? It would be silly to ignore the profound change which occurred in this man's life, simply because you believe that including him would be a form of 'advocacy'.
And so it is with Bob Dylan. Dylan, whose conversion caused much controversy in 1979, went through a profound change in style and behavior following his conversion. He released three 'Gospel'-themed albums, he proselytized from the stage, he caused much upset amongst fans and critics, and he professed exclusively Christian beliefs in interviews and conversations with others. And, concerning the "flimsy sources", here is the list of sources, taken directly from the List of notable converts to Christianity:
I'm curious as to why you've never made an argument concerning Duleep Singh, who is also on the list. The fact that you seem deeply offended by the assertion that a Jew could convert to Christianity appears to be the driving factor in your persistence in the argument. It should be noted that you provide no sources which support your assertion that Bob Dylan did not convert to Christianity. Sincerity is a reasonable issue, but it is yet another instance of you using your selective interpretation of a text, which can be quite clear and explicit, to argue your point. Should I also mention your ridiculous assertion that someone "must be baptized to be considered a convert to Christianity"? This is not a list of converts to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, or traditional Protestantism. I have already explained the lack of importance baptism is assigned by many non-denominational churches. And considering that the sources clearly state that the Vineyard Fellowship (with which Dylan was involved) 'peddled a New Age Christianity', it's likely they didn't hold to the traditional beliefs. Still, several of the sources mention baptism, but you assert that it must be false if the time and the place is not specified. If I recall correctly (and forgive me if I don't), you even suggest at one point that we provide baptismal records to prove the baptism! How many times must you raise the bar so that you might still consider the sources "flimsy"? Will you next demand a birth certificate for each living person listed on Wikipedia? Never mind the fact that User John Carter challenged your point by noting that, even if we humored your demand, baptismal records can be lost or not even kept in the first case, and by the inability to produce the relevant documents, certain televangelists and missionaries would be considered 'non-Christians' by your standards.
Your persistence in assuming that we are making our edits for the sake of proselytizing reveals either your bias or your lack of interest in actually listening to what we have to say. How can you honestly argue that adding someone who has supposedly 'left' Christianity and returned to Judaism (once again, you provide no sources) would be an 'endorsement' to Christianity? Is it so difficult to assume good faith and listen to us when we tell you that our insistence of the present criterion has nothing to do with proselytizing? List of vegans lists both current and former vegans. Their election of a vegan dietary lifestyle is unique and notable, regardless of their current dietary preference. Similarly, the List of notable converts to Christianity includes people who converted to Christianity, regardless of their current faith. There are many notable people who have converted and many people who have become notable because of their conversions. We intend to list them. I would argue the same criterion argue that the same criterion be used (as it has been) in the other religious conversion lists. It should be noted that many other 'listings by religious affiliation' note redundantly that a current adherent is a convert.
Actually, perhaps you should rather take note of (or rather focus your efforts on) the fact that articles like List of Baptists and List of notable American Presbyterians,which by the title would seem to indicate current believers, lists certain people who have converted from the List's religion in question. I just became aware of this, and I wonder if you would argue so fervently in these instances as well, or if your bias (apparent, in my opinion, in many of your comments) causes you to concentrate only on a Jewish-born entertainer. --C.Logan 07:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: C.Logan -- It is only in the early hours of today, May 8, 2007, that it occurred to me to look at the history of this article. I see that this article was begun January 17, 2006. In that first iteration of this article Dylan was already present, prompting me to consider -- which came first -- the idea to indicate Dylan as a convert to Christianity, or the idea to create a list of converts to Christianity? There are only two other people on there with Dylan, in that first iteration. Bus stop 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither- I believe it would be the idea that having a list of converts to Christianity should contain a list of people who have, at one point in their lives, converted to Christianity. Notice that even the earliest iteration of the list does not attempt to trick the reader into believing Dylan is a Christian, but clearly states that he later reconverted to Judaism (despite the lack of reliable sources to support that point). --C.Logan 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: C.Logan -- Those are arguably bogus criteria, designed to capture Dylan on your list. Realistic criteria are "Those notable Christians who have arrived at their religion by way of conversion." But of course those normal criteria would not include Dylan. Bus stop 02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's always good to know your opinion, Bus stop. However, I find the criterion realistic and much more helpful for reference. There is no agenda involved. If a person can operate a web browser, they can understand the introductory paragraph and the explanations given by each entrant's name. --C.Logan 02:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is is fine. It links to other conversion lists. --Knulclunk 11:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong & Speedy Keep Considering the reasons given above, and considering equality with all the religious conversion lists.--C.Logan 11:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Nominator is emotionally motivated because they dont want Bob Dylan in the list. That dispute doesnt mean the list has to be deleted. We have these lists for other religions as well. The conversion of a person is a notable fact, e.g. List of former Muslims. I dont know why people have to AfD an article when all previous nominations have failed. You should have read them before thinking of nominating again. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: It is my contention that there is such a thing as "naturally arising" parameters (criteria) and "contrived" parameters. Furthermore it is my argument that the parameters that editors have imposed on this list are "contrived." Natural parameters for this list do not involve the placing of Bob Dylan on it. The natural parameters are that it is a list, firstly, of Christians. The second quality that naturally defines this list is that of conversion. It is a list of those Christians who have arrived at Christianity by way of conversion. The aforementioned two criteria that naturally define this list apply to living people who can express their chosen belief systems. In the case of Bob Dylan there exists a person with the past 25 years of a history of life lived that has not been Christian. In the case of Bob Dylan there exists a person with the past 25 years of a history of life lived that has in fact been Jewish. From where does this article get the chutzpah to include a living Jew on a list of Christians? The answer to that question is that some editors have contrived to add criteria that are a contrivance and do not naturally apply to this list. They have decided that this list should include all those who have ever converted to Christianity. So they have found sources, decidedly flakey sources, that there are legitimate grounds to assume literal conversion to Christianity for Bob Dylan in 1979, and on the basis of such assumed "conversion," have argued that under their newly concocted criteria, Bob Dylan belongs on this list of converts to Christianity. Assuming good faith is important around here, so I am not sure whether to attribute negative motives to this or not, but others have pointed out, as I am now pointing out, that this whole charade is patently wrong and needs to be set right. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of facts. Just because something is true does not automatically mean it gets to have a place on Wikipedia. In this case it is only by manipulation of the criteria that should naturally apply to this list that the freaky collection of facts that some editors argue for result in the inclusion of a living person who is clearly a Jew, on a list of converts to Christianity. Please see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Also, if it is to be assumed that motives such as proselytization or even antisemitism are involved, then also applicable would be violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. But I am assuming good faith, and I think WP:NOT#INDESCRIMINATE is all that is applicable here. WP:NOT#INDESCRIMINATE says, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Bus stop 12:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me why its ok to have List of former Muslims but not this list. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flaky sources... okay. If you say so. What would be an 'acceptable source', in your opinion? A signed statement from Dylan himself? It seems as if we are getting closer to the point where you may demand just that. I have compiled excerpts from the published sources here so that the users can see what these sources say as well. I am very puzzled as to why these sources are unacceptable to you. The internet sources are one thing, but considering that there are three books, an encyclopedia excerpt, an article from one of the biggest newspapers in the country, and a lengthy article which covers Dylan's faith in a Jewish newsletter, it is difficult to take your opinion over the clear statements found within these sources.
Again, please present the sources which claim that Dylan has returned to practicing Judaism. As far as I have read, Dylan has no clear religious affiliation nowadays, being very protective of his privacy. For all we know, he could be a Baha'i. As I've always said, your arguments will hold a lot more weight if you actually present sources.
As far as the "contrivance of parameters" goes, I don't see how you can see your interpretation as any less contrived. As you seem to see first 'Christians' and 'who arrived by conversion', I see the name of the list quite literally: 'notable converts to Christianity'. Abdul Rahman is a notable convert to Christianity. St. Augustine is a notable convert to Christianity. Anne Rice is a notable convert to Christianity. The fact that these people could later leave this faith does not rescind their conversions. It does not erase that fact that Abdul Rahman received a death sentence and made world news for his plight. It does not erase the fact that Augustine left the Manichaeans and became one of the greatest writers of Western Christian thought. It does not change the fact that Anne Rice went from writing about vampires exclusively to writing about the life of Jesus Christ. If these people leave (or would have left) their faith, their conversion and the events which were a result of it are undoubtedly notable. And again, Bob Dylan is a notable convert to Christianity. Whether or not you feel he was sincere in his conversion is another matter(and as the list includes converts like Carlos Menem who may or may not have converted for political reasons), it is unfair to make that a deciding factor as well.
If you are going to quote a Wikipedia policy for your advantage, please quote it in full. Here's what WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE actually says (if you really need elaboration on what the numbered items mean, feel free to check):
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:
  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions.
  2. Travel guides.
  3. Memorials.
  4. Instruction manuals.
  5. Internet guides.
  6. Textbooks and annotated texts.
  7. Plot summaries.
  8. Lyrics databases.
  9. Statistics.
Bus stop, what exactly on this list do you feel we are violating? You should probably make sure that when you're quoting something important, like a policy, you include enough information so that the reader can fully understand the context.
Additionally, I've already noted that it's amusing to assume that including someone on a list who has converted to, and apparently left a religion is a kind of advocacy, or an endorsement. How exactly does one come up with this idea? It is only a few steps from saying that "Having a list of ex-Christians endorses Christianity". How could you possibly say that we're arguing for Dylan's inclusion because it 'makes Christianity look better'? If I were to try your product, and I found it dissatisfying, would you use me as a testimonial? That doesn't make much sense. Personally, I've tried to make it clear that Dylan is not likely still Christian to satisfy your viewpoint (a sourceless one, I might add), but whoever happened to change the note at Dylan's entry seems to have stayed very truthful to the sources at hand. Here is what the article currently says:
Bob Dylan - popular musician (While it is a generally accepted fact that Dylan converted to Christianity in the late 70's, he has never renounced his Jewish roots and appears comfortable in both Jewish and Christian contexts.)
I think that this is an extremely correct representation of what the sources say. If you would please bring sources which clarify your point, a change of this text would be in order. Until then, it seems that you should probably take note of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, number 1, last sentence: "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." --C.Logan 13:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see that Matt knows how to make compromises. I support his changes. --C.Logan 13:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep - the nominator's position that there are "natural" parameters and "contrived" parameters is I think the best example of "contrivance" I have seen yet. Certainly, if it were to be argued that Dylan should also be on the list of Christians who converted to Judaism, possibly with the same parameters, I would agree with that to. I also believe that having such lists of converts provides a "short list" of people who are demonstrably familiar with both faiths, and that having that information available does actively serve the interests of wikipedia. And, the fact is that of the 18 people who have expressed opinions regarding this matter, 11 have supported the inclusion. Presumably, all 11 on that basis are actively involved in promotion of Christianity. My personal interests are improving the coverage of religion in all its aspects. It is unfortuante that my own limited knowledge relates to Christianity, and that I am less than qualified to effectively contribute in many other areas, but I am not sure I should be criticized for "doing what I know". In the same way, including Dylan on this list, when his Christianity, at least for a while, was popularly known is reasonable. And I believe to nominate the entire article for deletion, seemingly on the basis of the inclusion of this one name, is about the most ridiculous thing I've seen on wikipedia yet. John Carter 13:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: "Comfortable in both Jewish and Christian contexts" is gobbledygook. Please don't reduce the respective religions to the point of meaninglessness. Please don't blur lines that matter. This is not an article defined flabbily. It happens to be an article on Christianity. Christianity and Judaism are two different religions. Have you considered starting an article on List of converts to religion undefined? On an article of those parameters one could feel free to put any person of one's choosing. If these religions mean anything, and I assert they do, then it is not in the interests of anyone to run roughshod over what defines them. In common parlance we (people) are all the same. I reject that as unconstructive. I think we should see who we are. This article has the word Christianity in the title. This article is a subsection of the Wikipedia Christianity project. Discarding basics serves nobody's interests. Disregarding what Judaism is and disregarding what Christianity is, is not encyclopedic. Including a Jew on a list of Christians does damage to the aforementioned distinctions. Let me elaborate on some of the central ones, and which I think are very relevant to this dispute. Please do not zone out as you review these distinctions. A primary problem here is that basic facts defining religions are discarded. Christianity is powerfully founded on the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. Judaism totally rejects this. We are not talking about an area of unclarity. We are not talking about a grey zone. These are differences. These are real differences. You are not serving anyone's interests by conflating things that in point of fact are mutually exclusive. They conflict with one another. One notion is a direct contradiction of the other notion. Is it any wonder that passions run high surrounding these issues? Please feel free to focus your editing energies on writing about Bob Dylan's "Christian phase" on the Bob Dylan article. Or, here is another suggestion: Consider starting an article on specifically the dispute presently at hand. I don't know what title to suggest for it. I think it is a telling point that that would be difficult to do. It would be hard to define an article on the subject of this dispute. But you could try. But it is patently false and wrong to slip Bob Dylan into an article that is ostensibly a list of converts to Christianity. That is deceptive. I won't attribute motives to anyone for doing this. But clearly it is destructive to applicable distinctions. Wikipedia shouldn't be about creating confusion. Wikipedia should be about clearing up confusion. Wikipedia should be about making sense of the world. Bus stop 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - per the statement above that this article is a part of the Christianity project, I would simply note that that statement is a conclusion based on absolutely no hard data. In fact, the project has yet to be tagged with any banner, and neither User:C.Logan nor User:Scottperry are members of the project which he says this article is a "subsection" of. I believe that this kind of sloppy argumentation and dubious reasoning is both a regular aspect of Bus stop's conversation and in and of itself a serious impediment with reasoning with him. I believe it also completely fails to assume good faith or cite references, but we are unfortunately used to that by now. John Carter 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - I'm unsure what you mean by 'discarding basics'- I can assure you that List of ex-Christians and the various other more specific 'ex' lists are all part of the Christianity project as well. The articles and lists must be Christianity-related, but the lists do not have to contain Christians. Obviously, lists like the above shouldn't.
There is no real reason that including Bob Dylan, an entertainer who, considering what the sources clearly state, converted to Christianity in 1979, is somehow 'discarding the basics'. The article deals with notable converts to Christianity. The listings do not have to include current Christians. The list of ex-Christians deals with people who have left the Christian faith. The listings most definitely do not include current Christians. You seem to be assuming that, because of a nominal relationship to 'Christian(ity)', and their inclusion within the Christianity Wikiproject, that these lists should only contain current Christians or else they are intentionally misleading readers or 'discarding the basics'... once again, this is what you seem to be saying, so I apologize if I'm misreading your point... If this is what you are asserting, then it is ridiculous.
A list of notable converts to Christianity is certainly relevant to the Christianity Wikiproject, and there is no foundation to the assertment that including a person who (may or may not have) lapsed in this faith is somehow 'discarding the basics'.
Again, and I find it humorous that you ignore me every time to explain this, but as I've said before, your claim that Judaism and Christianity are in direct contradiction to each other is an opinion, not a fact. You are ignoring the fact that, first and foremost, Jesus and the Apostles themselves were most certainly Jewish, and almost all of the earliest Christians before Paul's missions to the Gentiles were also most certainly Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah. These were Jews who believed quite clearly that Judaism and the belief of the Messiah-ship, death, and resurrection of Christ were fully compatible, and indeed essentially intertwined.
You are also ignoring the large body of current-day congregations which could be categorized as 'Jewish Christians'- although that term itself refers to a specific group. There are around 1,000,000 Messianic Jews (according to adherents.com) who believe that Judaism and the belief that Jesus is the Christ are not antithetical concepts. It is very unfortunate that you express your opinion as a fact, as there seem to be nearly a million people who would disagree with you about this point. It is very unwise that you would seek to apply such stark distinctions to this religious situation when a million people, and possibly Dylan himself, do not make these same distinctions.
Again, please consider Dylan's own quotes:
"Well, Jesus is mighty to save, if He's in your heart, He'll convert you."
"What we're talking about is the nature of God, and I think you have to, in order to go to God, you have to go through Jesus."
These are Dylan's words. You expect us to take your own words over his in matters of belief, and that's fine if you think that way, but once again, I suggest considering: "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."
Through clear conversion and clear expressions of faith, it is quite apparent to the unbiased reader that Dylan converted to Christianity in 1979, and seemed generally sincere about the matter.
We have already gone over the reasons why we feel his conversion is very notable, and why it could be seen by some as more notable then many of the other conversions featured on the list. Most people may not have thought much about Joy Gresham's conversion to Christianity, but many people certainly did some thinking when Bob Dylan did the same, and there were strong negative reactions from many old fans and critics. Many people were outraged to attend a Dylan concert where he refused to play his pre-conversion material. Atheists protested Dylan's new stage proselytizing. He managed to put out 3 albums, essentially gospel music, which stand as a much more in-depth record to the personal changes in Dylan which resulted from his conversion. We are listing Dylan because he is a notable convert to Christianity.
We are listing everyone here because they are notable converts to Christianity, not because of their current religious beliefs. --C.Logan 17:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that a user has created a subsection titled "Controversial" which includes Dylan (and I believe would be a good home for the Twelve Apostles, if any more disputes come up over their placement). --C.Logan 17:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the criteria for inclusion in the list is clear. About the only thing controversial is what they converted from but that can be fixed with cites. The Dylan example will always be a problem with musicians/artists/actors etc in trying to break out the person so we can brand that person as an 'x' from what the message of their art is saying. But with reliable cites rather than WP:OR interpretations of the persons art this can be fixed. Ttiotsw 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid list and whether or not Bob Dylan should be on it is irrelevant. Take it to the talk page, take it to RfC if you have to but don't delete an entire article because you disagree with whether one line should be included — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since no argument is given for the deletion of the article, and no reference is given to a policy of the Wikipedia for which this article is in violation of. Editing disputes regarding the inclusion criteria for List of notable converts to Christianity in general, or the specific case of Bob Dylan, belong on article's talk page not in AFD. patsw 17:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: It should be deleted if it has become the locus of abuse. And do not underestimate the importance of Bob Dylan to this article, in the minds of some editors. I think that to some editors, Bob Dylan is this article's raison d’être. I feel that the article should be allowed to revert to being an article about Christians who have arrived at Christianity by means of conversion. Dylan is neither Christian nor a convert. He was born of the union of a Jewish father and a Jewish mother. The necessity for "disclaimers" should make it abundantly clear that the initial act of putting Dylan on this list is riddled with problems. This article is jealously guarded by a contingency of editors hailing from the Wikipedia Christianity project. It is those editors who have controlled this list. This list has become the locus of abuse; it is abuse to put a Jew, such as Bob Dylan, on this list of Christians. That is abuse. If this article is deleted I will only be the proximal cause. The real cause will be the abuse wrought by some of the very editors who are presently arguing that Dylan belongs on a list of converts to Christianity. I hope the administrator that adjudicates this can see the narrow and lopsided reasoning involved in inserting a non-Christian whose brief and not lasting involvement with Christianity was already over 25 years ago. Bus stop 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:It is clearly the case that Bob Dylan is the primary reason the article was nominated in the first place. However, that does not mean that on the basis of that one entry, which has been justified for inclusion according to wikipedia guidelines, whether or not those official guidelines agree with any specific individual's unsubstantiated point of view, is even remotely justified. Wikipedia articles cannot conform to the point of view of every individual editor, nor are they supposed to. John Carter 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main reason we have invested so much time is not because we are so eager to include Dylan in the article, but because it would be ridiculous to remove him from the list because of the personal opinion of one particular editor (who has exhibited a clearly Jewish bias, with your apparent belief that the argument for Dylan's inclusion is "Christianity [is attempting to] win a victory over a Jew", to paraphrase you) who demands that the article be changed in his favor, offers no sources himself, and accepts no opposing sources as 'valid', whether they be internet sources, respectable publications, encyclopedias, or even books- not merely a single biography, but 3. Three biographies with corroborating information (which also corroborates with the information provided in some of the internet sources).
The fact that we have presented 14 sources to support our claims while you have produced none is troubling enough, but the fact that you then claim that he is 'not a convert' is really quite astounding to me. Additionally, the fact that you then attempt to attribute our stance to our 'advocacy of Christianity' shows quite clearly that you have not, at any point, attempted to understand the words we have been typing in response to you.
Additionally, instead of simply offering sources which lend support to your claims, you continue to make this into a religious issue. You compare the philosophy, theology and history of Christianity and Judaism, and it appears that you formulate your argument from what you perceive as the 'injustice' of suggesting that a man of Jewish birth such as Dylan, whom it appears you are very fond of, could actually and honestly convert to Christianity. You continuously claimed that there was no conversion. We found sources which stated so. You claimed it was only a persona, and you brought no sources to back up this claim. You demanded proof of baptism, claiming that it was the only 'valid' way to prove conversion, clearly showing that you know very little about the heterogeneous nature of Christian ceremony and practice. When several published (i.e. book) sources claimed baptism, you declared them as 'unreliable' At one point, it seems that you would not stop short of demanding actual baptismal records.
You continuously ignore any reasoning put forth by your opposing editors. You accuse of of endorsing Christianity with a person who is apparently no longer a Christian. How can this possibly be an endorsement? If I were to try your product and be dissatisfied with it, would you use my testimony to promote what you were selling? Please assume that we are acting in good faith.
And perhaps you should note I am not even a member of Wikiproject Christianity, and I have surely been the most vocal of your opponents.--C.Logan 22:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong keep This 3rd AFD deletion nomination has been submitted by an editor who appears to be more interested in removing the Dylan entry in the article than following standard Wiki policy and etiquette. This editor, Bus stop, has had temporary bans placed on his account for edit-war behavior over this entry at least three times. He has refused to respond to any requests to provide any documentation as to why Dylan should be removed from the list. Several editors have spent, probably several hours upon hours trying to reason with Bus Stop about this. Now because he has failed at bullying us into submission by sheer persistence in his position, he is attempting to have the article deleted, wasting more editor's time in the pursuit of his vested interests that happen to conflict with Wiki editorial policy. I personally feel that if Bus Stop continues to be this disruptive, he should be banned again, and possibly permanently. -Scott P. 01:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Scott P. -- Dylan is Jewish, is he not? If he is Jewish, why do you want him on a List of converts to Christianity?
Comment - Ethnically/culturally, sure. But religiously? Sources... --C.Logan 02:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, a brief summary: Yes, Dylan is Jewish culturally by birth and heritage. He went through a Christian, "born-again" experience in 1979 when he made very public statements of his new Christian faith. After a few years, he became less public about his faith, but never denounced Christianity.
Several WP editors feel he "Converted from Jewish to Christian"
Several others feel this is and overstatement, incorrect, or an agenda driven distortion. That it was a "stage" or "fad".
In response, other editors feel this is an agenda driven denial.
--Knulclunk 02:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but set higher standards of evidence. One of the problems with secondary sources is that they are often merely citing each other, sometimes in endless circular loops. --Metzenberg 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I doubt if there will be reform here. Not judging by the intransigence of the very small clique here who control this page. Not judging from the history of this page. Not judging by the obsession with putting a Jew (Dylan) on a list of converts to Christianity. No involvement with Christianity since 1980 -- and they consider him a Christian. It is forced virtual conversion. It is forced conversion, Wikipedia style. Bus stop 05:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please provide your sources which state that Dylan has returned to practicing the religion of Judaism. I know he's culturally Jewish, ethnically- what have you. But we're talking in terms of religion. You are selectively interpreting sources which we present and providing none for your own assertions. As long as you continue to claim Dylan's current religious beliefs without providing any reliable sources, it seems that the only one 'forcing' Dylan into any religion is you, dear Bus stop. Thank you for the late night show of gravitas, anyhow. --C.Logan 06:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, excuse the changes which have been brought about by Demong. I'm not sure why he's returning everything to it's original state. I'll ask him what his reasoning is concerning these changes. --C.Logan 06:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and the nominator should take a cold shower. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: :: Objective people do not consider Dylan a convert to Christianity. Antisemites might consider Dylan a convert to Christianity at present time, and those who see themselves as proselytizers for Christianity might see Dylan as a convert to Christianity at this time, but objective observers would not. Any objective observer sees Dylan as a guy who performed in Christian mode 25 years ago. Thats the sum total of the Christian Dylan. But to get maximum mileage of of that, some people need to distort that in their own special way. That is all that this Wikipedia entry is about. It is not Wiki encyclopedia. It is Wiki distortion. It is a ludicrous travesty of encyclopedia purpose to stick Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity because he is a Jewish guy who had the temerity to explore Christianity 25 years ago. Even if we accept that there was substantial conversion 25 years ago, an utterly laughable concept, the lack of the Christian element in his life for the succeeding years should set someone's mind right about that. But the proponents of this travesty have latched upon an excuse for getting a Jew onto their list of converts to Christianity, and it is wrong. There ought to be a bit of shame experienced by anyone who perpetrates such bold faced lunacy.
It's too bad that I am one of the only people speaking out about this. But I don't engage in Wikilawyering. Wikilawyering is abiding by technicalities and ignoring spirit. Any objective observer knows that Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity in 25 years. What does that say to you? Any objective observer has seen that Dylan has had involvement in Judaism in the past 25 years. What does that say to you? And of course there is the minor fact that he was born Jewish. What does that convey to you. What does it say to you that there wasn't an iota of evidence of a Christian life lived even during the at most 3 years during which Dylan was producing Gospel music? I'm not talking about "sermonettes" delivered between songs. I'm talking about actual evidence of a Christian life attributable to the man. Nothing. All we have here are those with a need to misrepresent reality. Is that what an encyclopedia should be used for?
Oh, and by the way, before you remind me about assuming good faith. One need not assume good faith when the preponderance of evidence indicates the opposite. Since this article is clearly about abuse, it indeed should be deleted. I don't assume good faith when I see abuse. Bus stop 12:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I note the above editor is making blanket claims without pointing toward a single piece of objective evidence to support his contentions. Evidently, these rules do not apply to him personally. John Carter 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: John Carter -- Does any evidence exist for Dylan being a Christian since approximately 1980? Can you mention anything of a Christian nature Dylan has said or done since approximately 1980? That is, of course, a period of 27 years. Why would you be calling him a "convert to Christianity" if no evidence for him doing or saying anything that can be identified as being of a Christian nature can be found for him for a period of time stretching back 27 years from the present point in time? Aren't you using overblown language to refer to him as a "convert to Christianity?" Isn't it patently false to refer to him as a "convert to Christianity," if you can find no evidence that he has done or said anything of a Christian nature for a period of 27 years? I look forward to your response. Bus stop 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Let's answer both parts of your question. First, you're going to have to stop assuming that, if no sources are presented to show Dylan's involvement with Christianity during these past '27 years', then it means that Dylan has returned to practicing religious Judaism. As Nick said, it appears that you believe Dylan's religious affiliation to be inseperably tied to his mitochondrial DNA- you believe that if Dylan is not showing any overt signs of belief in Christianity, then he is automatically Jewish. No, not culturally Jewish, or ethnically Jewish. You assume that he is religiously Jewish. With that being said, you seem to believe that this is the logic of the argument:
1. Bob Dylan was born into a Jewish family.
2. Bob Dylan converted to Christianity in 1979 (Actually, you refuse to believe this).
3. Bob Dylan has not overtly expressed his belief in Christianity since the early 80's.
4. Therefore, Bob Dylan is religiously Jewish.
You seem to believe that you don't even have to provide sources, because to you, Dylan magically reverts to religious Judaism if he is not overtly and explicitly Christian. Never mind the fact that the sources we've compiled view any participation in Jewish rituals in the period after his conversion as being for culturally purposes, or from a Jewish-Christian perspective. Indeed, many Messianic Jews see Dylan as one of their own- they see no conflict with Christian beliefs exhibited in Dylan's actions.
By your standard, we would probably have to remove some of the people on the list who are, in actuality, still Christians, by the fact that they haven't thrown their religion into the public eye since the time of their conversion. Once again, I welcome you to provide sources, as we have for every argument we've made. If you have a source which clearly states that Dylan has renounced his Christian beliefs, then that's splendid. However, if you continue in attempting your 'argument from ignorance', no reasonable person on Wikipedia is going to take your arguments or your suggestions seriously.
Secondly, we've already gone over the criterion for this list. We've included examples on why we wish to continue including this criterion, as the list has since long before you became involved. There is no argument regarding Dylan's current faith and his inclusion in the list, considering the parameters that are, and have been, in place. Dylan converted to Christianity. Dylan is notable. Dylan's conversion is notable. Dylan is a notable convert. Dylan is a notable convert to Christianity. This is a list of notable converts to Christianity. --C.Logan 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the best of my knowledge, no. However, that argument has already been gone over repeatedly. The fact that there was abundant evidence in contemporary publications during the late 70s-early 80's can be enough for inclusion on that list, as per the guidelines involved. Now, I have a question for you, Bus stop? Can you provide any real evidence for your repeated insults and other attacks on the integrity of the various people you so regularly impugn, at least possibly to the point of personal attacks? I look forward to your clear response. John Carter 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: John Carter -- I've "impugned" no one. I am an arguer for truth. If you feel impugned it is probably your dawning awareness that the characterization of Dylan the convert to Christianity is more about point of view pushing than reality. That is a hopeful sign. We can both agree there was a period of time that Dylan indulged in Christianity. The question remains: does that constitute Christian identity? I say clearly not. Not given a variety of factors, which I'm not going into right here, right now. You would be perfectly justified in the use of prose language to lay out a complete and thorough description of that period in Dylan's life. You would in that setting have ample opportunity to enunciate the appeal that Christianity held for him. You could explain the beauty he found in Christianity, if sources supported that. But that all applies to a prose situation. That all applies in an article written in a multitude of words. Many paragraphs could be used to fully flesh out all aspects of that. Other editors could join in in such a setting. Balance could be created. Different points of view could be presented. But bear in mind this: A list is none of that. A list is stark listing, nothing more. A list does not justify the placing of an individual on it unless they incontrovertibly belong on that list. Can you say incontrovertibly that Dylan belongs on a list of converts to Christianity? I think it is a complete misuse of the list to put Dylan on it. It is just using the list for a purpose for which it was never intended. It was never intended to promote a point of view. You could even start a separate, freestanding article called, for instance, Bob Dylan, the Christian years. The reason why that would be acceptable is because it would be visited by people interested in Bob Dylan, in addition to people interested in Christianity. The present article is, in a sense, a stealth assertion that Dylan is a convert to Christianity. It is a stealth assertion because no one is going to be perusing the List of converts to Christianity article out of an interest in Dylan. It is Christianity and religion in general that brings someone to this article. And it is stealth because this bombshell of an assertion is slipped in that Dylan is a "convert to Christianity. It is a list. Disclaimers are feeble attempts to turn a list into an article. Please don't tell me that a list is considered an article in Wikipedia parlance. List and prose article are very different things. Bus stop 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: The people who have been contacted regarding the possibility legalities of this subject have declined to respond directly, which was the reason offered to potentially keep it open. There is no reason to keep this discussion open for the possibility of their input, as they have declined to offer any. John Carter 00:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 1[edit]

Hmm... let's see.
  • Did Bob Dylan convert to Christianity? Yes.
  • Is Bob Dylan a notable person? Yes.
  • Is Bob Dylan's conversion notable? Yes.
  • Is Bob Dylan a notable convert to Christianity? Yes.
  • "Can you say incontrovertibly that Dylan belongs on a list of converts to Christianity?" Yes.
We are not attempting to proselytize. These are logical parameters. And for the umpteenth time, it's called List of notable converts to Christianity. --C.Logan 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: C.Logan -- Dylan converted to Christianity only according to minimal Wikipedia standards. That means citations support that contention on Wikipedia. The list is a misleading place for that assertion, because there are serious reasons to question that assertion. No reasonable person considers a person who shows no interest in being a Christian, to be a Christian, especially if that person also happens to be a Jew. You support inclusion of Dylan on that list because you have an ulterior motive. I don't know what that might be. But just like the existence of dark matter in the universe, we have to assume it exists. Reasonable people don't minimize the importance of an absence of Christianity from a person's life for 27 years unless they've got some serious issues to either promote or suppress. If you feel that Dylan incontrovertibly belongs on this list, you apparently are not taking into consideration all the relevant information. Bus stop 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in all of the above the above editor has not yet, despite a specific request for same, supplied any evidence of his oft-repeated allegations of the article in question being used for prosletyzation purposes. And such a person, who refuses to ever substantiate their own allegations regarding others, can call themselves an "arguer for truth"? I see no reason to engage in any further conversation with the above individual regarding this subject on this page, and it is my clear and express opinion that the remaining comments on this page actually address the matter at hand, the proposed deletion of the article. If the above editor wishes to continue indulging in his expressly stated "obsession", I suggest he sign on to the mediation that has been offered. Otherwise, I see no point in any further direct conversation with someone who does not even have the character to point toward a single source of his own allegations. John Carter 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: John Carter -- Of course I don't specifically know what anyone else's motivations are. But if there is clearly not reason to support an action, one wonders what motivated given action. It is like the presumption of dark matter in the universe. No one can see it. But it is presumed to be there, because the universe in it's known constitution could not exist without it. I can't help but wonder why Dylan, a Jew, would be on a List of converts to Christianity. I don't know why you want him there. Only you can tell why you apparently feel so strongly about this. I don't think it is my obsession. I think keeping Bob Dylan on that list is your obsession. You seem to have latched onto an occurrence of 27 years ago, which is clearly no longer applicable today, but you want to assert it as if it were encyclopedic quality truth. It not encyclopedic truth. That is what this issue is about. I am objecting to an assertion that is highly suspect. The importance of Dylan on that list can't be overestimated. That is also why this is such a big issue. I am here to tell you that there is little to no indication Dylan rightfully carries the title "convert to Christianity." Not in the sense that this list is constructed. This is not a list of "all those who have ever dabbled in Christianity." The editors are contriving in the first place to redefine the parameters of the list to include "who have ever." That is not a legitimate parameter for a list such as this. The obvious parameters are those who have converted, period. Many other people have pointed this out on the Bob Dylan Talk page. It is actually a very small group who have argued both on this article's Talk page and on the Bob Dylan article Talk page for the unusual definition that includes "who have ever" converted. Those are bogus guidelines. I think you know that there is not a Christian in the person Dylan. Not at this time, anyway. It is a misuse of the natural parameters of this list to put on it someone you know not to be a Christian. Bus stop 18:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, from the above you make it clear that:
  • You erroneously believe that cultural and religious Judaism are one and the same.
  • You believe that, considering the above, you do not have to offer any proof of Dylan's return to Jewish faith.
  • You have continued to ignore the clear parameters used in this list, and present your own parameters as the guideline in your argument.
  • You believe that the only legitimate parameters which can be used are your own, and you are oblivious to the reasons why many users disagree with you.
I agree with you on one thing- "This is not a list of 'all those who have ever dabbled in Christianity.'" You're right, it isn't. It is a list of notable converts to Christianity.
Now, lets repeat the step-by-step I've shown above:
  • Did Bob Dylan convert to Christianity? Yes.
  • Is Bob Dylan a notable person? Yes.
  • Is Bob Dylan's conversion notable? Yes.
  • Is Bob Dylan a notable convert to Christianity? Yes.
  • "Can you say incontrovertibly that Dylan belongs on a list of converts to Christianity?" Yes.
As you have said yourself, "There is no evidence that Bob Dylan practices any religion." Why, then, do you insist that we are placing a religious Jew on a list of Christians? Is it, as Demong assumed, because you are more concerned with placing someone who is ethnically and culturally Jewish on a list of Christians? If the that is the case, then it is correct of Demong to accuse the suggestion of being illogical and mildly offensive. If it is not, then please bring the sources which provide evidence to support the assertion that Dylan is currently a religious Jew.
We are considering conversion, not current beliefs. It is undoubtable that many people on the list no longer practice their faith (or never even practiced it at all). It is not our goal to consider their current religious state of an entrant in respect to their historical conversion. --C.Logan 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: C.Logan -- They are hardly my parameters. They are logical. That is all that recommends them. You don't assert that a Jew is a Christian. That is a patent contradiction. And again, the "conversion" that you've found sources for, are decidedly flakey. Yes, they may meet minimal Wikipedia standards to support the use of the term "conversion" in an article (a prose article). But they do not support the factuality of conversion. All you found was someone's incoherent mumblings about something that happened over a several day period of time. They didn't even know where it took place. But, based on that, you have "proven" that "conversion" has taken place. There is not even one witness to the Baptism being referred to. I repeat: There is not even one witness to the Baptism being referred to. That sort of gibberish doesn't support inclusion of Dylan in a List of converts to Christianity, most importantly because he isn't even a Christian. The conversion/Baptism event or nonevent is not the important factor here. The important thing is that Dylan simply hasn't been a Christian. If you were not motivated by some bias (I won't hazard a guess as to what that is) you wouldn't be making the strange assertion that someone with no involvement in Christianity for 27 years, is a convert to Christianity. It is an absurd assertion. As far as Dylan not practicing any religion, there actually is evidence of Dylan participating in Jewish holidays, associating with observant Jews, visiting Israel. There is a picture of him wearing "phylacteries," and wearing a skullcap. And all of this is in the intervening years between approximately 1980 and the present. That matters. Please don't tell me that we are not concerned with current religious beliefs. We most certainly are concerned with current religious beliefs. You can't be a "convert to Christianity" if you are a Jew. That is an absurd contradiction. The two religions hold opposite beliefs about certain aspects of supernatural explanations for existence. Most of your arguments depend upon blurring distinctions. And you apparently have a higher tolerance for contradiction than I do. And, again, we are talking about a list. There is no room for complexity of presentation in a list. That is why you and others have found it necessary to resort to placing "disclaimers" throughout the list. The disclaimers are an absolute indication that the thing shouldn't be on the list in the first place. If it incontrovertibly belonged on the list, there would be no need for disclaimers. Bus stop 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You don't assert that a Jew is a Christian. That is a patent contradiction."
First, you must clarify what you mean by 'Jew'. A religious Jew? You're going to have to provide sources for that one, and even then, the parameters which we are logically using and the introductory sentence makes it clear that a person's listing in the article does not dictate that a person remains a practicing Christian. If by 'Jew', you mean someone who is ethnically or culturally Jewish, then your reasoning is completely senseless. It is not a contradiction to include someone who is ethnically or culturally Jewish on a list which pertains only to religious conversion.
"And again, the "conversion" that you've found sources for, are decidedly flakey."
I have presented the sources here so that everyone can judge for themselves whether the 14 sources, which offer corroborating evidence, are flaky. Your opinion in the matter is, sadly, of no real value to the verifiability of the sources we've presented.
"Yes, they may meet minimal Wikipedia standards to support the use of the term "conversion" in an article (a prose article). But they do not support the factuality of conversion."
From Wikipedia:Verifiability:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
Our consideration of the sources at hand is perfectly in line with policy, and also to any reasonable person who actually reads what the sources say.
"All you found was someone's incoherent mumblings about something that happened over a several day period of time. They didn't even know where it took place. But, based on that, you have "proven" that "conversion" has taken place. There is not even one witness to the Baptism being referred to. I repeat: There is not even one witness to the Baptism being referred to."
As I've already said before, you're committing an error in logic. You assume that because the people who wrote Dylan's biographies arrived at the information concerning his baptism from someone who was not present, then it is unlikely (or to you, impossible) that such a baptism occurred. Need I remind you of the constant fact that one can know truthfully that an event occurred without knowing the place and time of it's occurrence? If I were to tell you that my friend got married, would you assume that my statement was false if I didn't know the place and time at which the marriage occurred? This is fallacious reasoning.
"That sort of gibberish doesn't support inclusion of Dylan in a List of converts to Christianity, most importantly because he isn't even a Christian. The conversion/Baptism event or nonevent is not the important factor here. The important thing is that Dylan simply hasn't been a Christian."
The fact that the sources which we have presented provide verifiable evidence that Dylan did indeed to Christianity does support his inclusion on the list. Additionally, you are assuming that the importance you place on certain factors is the importance everyone should place on them. This would be reasonable of Dylan were on List of Christians, as his status as a Christian today is debatable. This is not reasonable in an argument regarding Dylan's listing on List of notable converts to Christianity, considering that, in light of the sources at hand, it is not debatable whether or not he converted to Christianity. He is a notable convert to Christianity. He is rightfully listed on the list of notable converts to Christianity.
"The important thing is that Dylan simply hasn't been a Christian. If you were not motivated by some bias (I won't hazard a guess as to what that is) you wouldn't be making the strange assertion that someone with no involvement in Christianity for 27 years, is a convert to Christianity. It is an absurd assertion."
First and foremost, you are using fallacious logic to assume that because there is a dearth of evidence for Dylan's continuing involvement with Christianity, then it must be assumed that he is not a Christian. Additionally, I wouldn't suggest you bring bias into the picture, considering the fact that many of the arguments you have made are tied to claims that Christianity is trying to "win a victory over a Jew". Dylan converted to Christianity in 1979. Dylan is a notable convert to Christianity. Read the previous sentence, and think about it before making any more arguments like the one above.
"As far as Dylan not practicing any religion, there actually is evidence of Dylan participating in Jewish holidays, associating with observant Jews, visiting Israel. There is a picture of him wearing "phylacteries," and wearing a skullcap. And all of this is in the intervening years between approximately 1980 and the present."
Did you miss the part of the discussion where I reminded you that your evidence should not concern participation in rituals, because a.) the sources we have submitted consider these actions and re-affirm his Christianity (in light of the following point), and b.) Jewish believers in the Messiah-ship of Jesus (whatever name you prefer to call them) participate in these same rituals. Non-Messianic Jews do not have a monopoly on these practices. Additionally, you're going to want to quote some secondary sources which explicitly state that Dylan has returned to Judaism, as your personal interpretations don't quite work.
"Please don't tell me that we are not concerned with current religious beliefs. We most certainly are concerned with current religious beliefs. You can't be a "convert to Christianity" if you are a Jew. That is an absurd contradiction. The two religions hold opposite beliefs about certain aspects of supernatural explanations for existence. Most of your arguments depend upon blurring distinctions. And you apparently have a higher tolerance for contradiction than I do. "
Please don't tell you? I'm sorry, but we're not. You are. And your concern has no relevance as to whether or not Dylan should be included, considering that the parameters at hand make it quite clear that he belongs on the list. Additionally, you again forget to differentiate between cultural and ethnic Judaism and religious Judaism. You can most certainly be a convert to Christianity if you are a Jew (ethnic/cultural), and Messianic Jews most certainly believe that you can believe in the Messiah-ship and salvation of Jesus Christ and be a religious Jew. The contradiction is only an opinion shared by some, yourself included. Please don't present it as a fact.
"And, again, we are talking about a list. There is no room for complexity of presentation in a list. That is why you and others have found it necessary to resort to placing "disclaimers" throughout the list. The disclaimers are an absolute indication that the thing shouldn't be on the list in the first place. If it incontrovertibly belonged on the list, there would be no need for disclaimers."
No, that doesn't quite work. I'm sorry. List of vegans produces a similar disclaimer. Where is your fervent argument that those who once practiced veganism, but do so no longer, do not belong on that list? You are misinterpreting the purpose of the list, and in doing so, turning the need for a disclaimer into a negative attribute. The fact that the List of vegans article has a disclaimer which states that those who are listed are or were once vegans does not mean that current non-vegans should be removed from the list. Again, Dylan is a notable convert to Christianity. This is a list of notable converts to Christianity.--C.Logan 21:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I'm objective, I'm an athiest, I have no former connection to this debate, and it's very clear that this nomination is motivated by a strong emotional attachment to a particular position, that stands in stark opposition to fact. It doesn't make me, or anyone else, an anti-semite to recognize the fact that Bob Dylan did convert to Christianity, and that's all this list purports: those people listed have at some point in time converted to Christianity. The other, very, very clear point is that the argument over whether Bob Dylan should be included does not in any way indicate a reason to delete the article. zadignose 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: zadignose -- First of all, conversion is 99% meaningless. That has been established. Those who argue for the fact of conversion cite anything and everything as constituting conversion. And Wikipedia's minimum standards in substantiality of citations to support assertions are not to be relied upon for the fact of Dylan's conversion. Wikipedia requires citations to support assertions. But we very well know that assertions are not facts. Not necessarily, anyway. Conversion has been clearly shown to be a word vacant of meaning. It can have meaning. It certainly can be used meaningfully. But when people say that Dylan is a "convert to Christianity," they are speaking several untruths. Wikipedia guidelines may support the making of those incorrect statements. But how can someone be a convert to Christianity if they are not even Christian? That is a distorting of facts. That is a misrepresentation. Is that using Wikipedia in an honest way?
There is nothing whatsoever Christian about Dylan. Since he stepped down from the stage in 1980, not a Christian utterance has emerged from him. Or, can anyone cite instances or evidence of Christianity being a presence in Dylan's life in the past approximately 25 years? Conversion was established on the grounds of anything. The editors would have arrived at the conclusion that conversion had been established no matter what evidence had been unearthed for it. The fact of conversion was a forgone conclusion from the "get-go". Aren't we being a little disingenuous here? The conclusion that conversion transpired had to be arrived at. It is unthinkable that the mindset in operation here could have concluded otherwise. Bus stop 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Wikipedia requires citations to support assertions." It's good to know you've finally realized this. It's a shame you still haven't put it into practice.
Additionally, you continue to misrepresent the title of the article. It is called the List of notable converts to Christianity. Consider this, yet again:
  • Did Bob Dylan convert to Christianity? Yes.
  • Is Bob Dylan a notable person? Yes.
  • Is Bob Dylan's conversion notable? Yes.
  • Is Bob Dylan a notable convert to Christianity? Yes.
  • "Can you say incontrovertibly that Dylan belongs on a list of converts to Christianity?" Yes.
Now, do we know if Dylan is a religious Jew? No. Do we know if Dylan is still a Christian? No. The only thing of which we are certain is that Dylan converted to Christianity in 1979. The parameters of the list are intended to be static. As I have said, it would be ridiculous to remove someone like Abdul Rahman if he were to return to Islam (or more ridiculous if he were removed because of a lack of evidence for his current religious state). The man made world news for his conversion and subsequent death sentence because of it. There is no expiration date on the historicity of religious conversion. This applies to every 'notable converts' page, not just Christianity's.
Additionally, the incredible irony of the latter half of your comment is disturbing. Despite the fact that we have present 14 sources which support Dylan's conversion (including newsletters, newspaper excerpts, encyclopedia entries, internet articles, and three widely-available biographies), you still vehemently doubt the historicity of it. It seems that you are the one who has assumed that the actuality of his conversion was a falsehood 'from the get-go'. It is even more unthinkable that you continue to assert these beliefs without providing a single source to back up your own arguments. --C.Logan 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: C.Logan -- You don't have sources for conversion. You only can be said to have sources for conversion if conversion means nothing. And you (or others) have made precisely that argument. Your "sources" go back to someone who knows not time nor place of said occurrence, nor was he present. It reads like a bunch of nonsense. It doesn't mean anything to me. It does not seem factual. It seems more like someone's offhand comment. Or, it very well is total fabrication. But that is not important. The 27 year gap is important. He is not a Christian. Your arguments rely upon reducing everything to meaninglessness. He happens to have been born a Jew. That is applicable in this case. Any reasonable person would say that the life lived for 27 years having nothing to do with Christianity has bearing on this. It shows that Christianity is not meaningful to him. How can he be a convert to Christianity if it is not even in his life for that long a period of time? Just write an article on Dylan, the Christian years. Stop foisting the untrue notion that Dylan is a "convert to Christianity" on the world by writing that notion on the list of converts to Christianity. Bus stop 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to us to judge what information the sources say. You can't cite a body of text and add "but he's probably making this up", because you feel the article lacks factuality. Remember, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." You can personally doubt the information relayed in the sources if you'd like, but your personal opinion/interpretation of what the sources say has no bearing on the article. And, even beyond what the sources say about Gulliksen's account, please tell me: what reason do you have to doubt this man's testimony? It seems you are satisfied in rejecting information relayed by anyone remotely involved with Christianity. Is this correct?
I believe that the conversion itself is very important, as it is the criterion for inclusion in the article. Why is it that you find it unimportant?
Additionally, I'd like to know where you get your information. Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity for the past 27 years? Wow! You must hang out with him 24-7-365 to know something like that. As you know, Dylan is a very private person. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, and especially so in the case of a man who prefers to keep his privacy. Once again, the argument that because the man has not publicly expressed involvement with Christianity in 27 years he is not currently a Christian is a fallacy- it is foolish to present this assertion as a logical statement. --C.Logan 07:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure what the point of having the page is, but this nomination seems to be in bad faith. Kolindigo 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: My input to this article doesn't matter. This article is guarded by an extremely small clique. This article isn't an article entitled Bob Dylan's Christian period. Such an article would receive traffic from those interested in Dylan, as well as those interested in Christianity, or, religion in general. That is an important point. I have no input to this article. It is an impossibility. Whether the editors arguing this case claim they are part of the Wikipedia Christianity project or not is besides the point. They have a clear agenda. They all agree. There are no exceptions. Dylan has to be listed on their list of converts to Christianity. It is just a forced conversion brought to you by an updated version of the same old mentality that performed that function several hundred years ago. This time it is the virtual forced conversion, brought to you by Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong. I like Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia a lot. In fact one of my reasons for resisting this is that it is a corruption of Wikipedia. It is in this narrow precinct of Wikipedia that they do this. If they tried to write an article such as I suggested, Bob Dylan's Christian period, they would have input from a much wider element of the community. Under such an open setting they would never succeed in foisting such assertions. Bus stop 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how you transform a normal discussion into a battle between good & evil. Please be realistic. Have you ever considered that the reason we happen to agree in unison against your argument is that your argument is baseless? You have provided no citations to support your assertions (remember that you yourself suggested this should be done), and it seems that you have ignored every point we have made, merely being satisfied to reheat the same assertions with a pinch of illogical arguments and a sprinkling of drama to taste. --C.Logan 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Excellent point. What does Bob Dylan's notability have to do with his (supposed) conversion to Christianity? Bus stop 23:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Having reviewed the list, I find that they are almost all blue links, indicating that the individuals in question are notable enough to have their own content, at least in the cases where there are blue links. Of the total 313 entries, only 9 are red links, and of those only three, Perry March, Heinrich Marx, and possibly Hossein Soodmand, are individuals who are not already clearly qualified to have their own article, even if they don't yet. On that basis, I think the implicit argument above that non-notable names are included is not supported by the extant content of the article. John Carter 15:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, you apparently fail to understand what I was attempting to convey. My statement is a criticism of the article because it contains what would normally be at List of converts to Christianity (which is presently just a redirect to this list), but with the added requirement that editors exercise POV-based decision-making in the determination of sufficient "notability" for inclusion in the list, which is unacceptable. A List of converts to Christianity, however, would potentially include the names of millions of people, the vast majority of which could never be verified. The list should also be nuked, because it does an incredibly shoddy job of duplicating the contents of Category:Converts to Christianity, a category which addresses both of the two objections I just raised. The other issue I raised in my !votenotes is that there is room for a collection of names of people who are notable because of their conversion to Christianity. (Augustine of Hippo comes to mind.) This list, however, is not designed to be a collection of such people, nor does the lamely-worded disclaimer atop the list even attempt to try to make it credible in that way. Cheers, Tomertalk 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The list is notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. ---Gloriamarie 02:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is this list notable, other than for the fact that its name itself explicitly violates WP:NPOV and its contents violate WP:NOR? Tomertalk 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep per above--Sefringle 03:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Why don't you name the article, List of converts to Christianity, such as Bob Dylan. That would be more honest. And if someone was searching for stuff on Bob Dylan, they might find their way to this article. Right now, in it's present name, no one searching for "Bob Dylan" even finds this article. The editors here have a clear agenda, and input from an individual such as myself would be overridden every time. Besides, the importance of "Bob Dylan," to the editors at this article, outweighs the importance of all the other individuals on the list combined. That is another reason to rename it, for instance, Bob Dylan and other converts to Christianity. And besides, the parameters have been deliberately skewed to contain Bob Dylan. A logical parameter concerns itself with the distinction between whether a person was born of a given religion or if their arrival at that given religion was a life choice. That is a naturally arising parameter. It is meaningful. It is relevant to people. Being born is easy. It is not a conscious choice. It is not reflective of our own will. But choosing to convert to another religion as an adult or as a young person has inherent interest. The convoluted argument made, that we are interested in anyone who ever converted to a religion is a contrivance. Most lives contain trying various things. If those experimentations don't stick, we don't attach much importance to them. It is particularly sophomoric to put Dylan on this list because Christianity was just a passing interest of his. He rolled over that stage more than 25 years ago. That does not make him a Christian, in most people's eyes. This article's concern is (or should be) Christian identity and how it is arrived at. In the person Bob Dylan you do not even have Christian identity. The primary subject for this article should concern itself with the distinction between those who are born Christian and those who find Christianity later in life. Therefore it follows that only Christians should be included on the list. Bob Dylan's religion was Jewish before his so-called Christian phase. And his religion remains Jewish after his so-called Christian phase. The reason why this article is deserving of deletion is because it is an agenda article. It is maintained by an actually very small clique with a narrow agenda. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Someone such as myself has no hope of having any input into this article. There is a small circle of editors who carefully guard this article. That is demonstrably the case. The same small group of people have responded to my attempts to make changes. There is not wide input. I would submit that the question of Bob Dylan's religious identity is an important question. Since it is an important question, it should not be answered by a small clique of like minded editors. Bus stop 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"But choosing to convert to another religion as an adult or as a young person has inherent interest."
Hey! Looks like you're finally starting to get the point! It's a shame that the following sentence returns to your standard argument. --C.Logan 22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for the article, Speedy Keep for the WP:Point nomination. It always saddens me when edit warriors, POV crusaders or historical revisionists seek salvation on AfD, because it violates the purpose of AfD, which is to assess the suitability of a given article for inclusion on Wikipedia. The nominator here may be acting in good faith (although his edits to the article do not argue in his favor [9], [10], etc.), but he still has an obligation to present a coherent, policy-based case for deletion – particularly as this is the third go round for this article. Clearly no serious policy argument is being made against inclusion: (i) the subject is obviously important; (ii) the list adheres to policy and guidelines; (iii) comparable lists exist for other faiths (i.e. List of converts to Judaism, List of converts to Islam, etc.); (iv) the subject/format has been included in other encyclopedias.
  • Instead of making a case for deletion, the nominator has filled this page with a series of emotional accusations and frankly bizarre and offensive statements regarding the article: (i) a form of Christian imperialism, in which known Jews are being put on the list; (ii) an offense to Judaism; (iii) motives such as proselytization or even antisemitism are involved, (iv) This article is jealously guarded by a contingency of editors hailing from the Wikipedia Christianity project; (v) It is just a forced conversion brought to you by an updated version of the same old mentality that performed that function several hundred years ago.
  • Since absolutely no diffs have been provided to support any of these inflammatory remarks, I have to assume we are dealing with a “partisan, biased, skewed” POV in the WP:TE sense (an essay this nominator should read closely along with WP:DE). I also find it sickening that the nominator has chosen to use this AfD as a platform to portray this article as some kind of Christian- Jew battleground. For my part, I hardly think that the Jewish Encyclopedia was engaging in “proselytization” or “anti-semitism” when they printed a comparable list entitled “Converts to Christianity” in 1911 [11]. Regarding the specific case of Bob Dylan, I tend to doubt that the Washington Jewish Week was striving for a “forced conversion” or an “offense to Judaism” when it stated in 1991 that Dylan’s “widely-publicized conversion to Christianity made him perhaps the most famous Jewish apostate in American history” [12]. I can't believe that the Washington Post was "jealously guarded by a contingency of editors" with a taste for "Christian imperialism" when it wrote in 1980 that: "Bob Dylan has finally confirmed in an interview what he has been saying in his music for 18 months: He is a born-again Christian". [13]
  • Wikipedia is not a battleground and the attempts by this nom to stoke religious discord or import personal conflict in the context of a content dispute have to cease. Content inclusion is based on standards (i.e. WP:V, WP:NOR) and principles ("verifiability not truth"), not on subjective opinion or negationist rancors. I note that a mediation has been opened regarding this article at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of notable converts to Christianity. The nominator has so far chosen not to participate. I would strongly suggest that it would be in the nominator’s best interest to participate in that mediation if he intends to maintain the same editing approach at Wikipedia. --JJay 17:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Unfortunately, a hostile clique of editors dedicated to the Pro-Christian POV have made it one. I question the sincerity of their request for mediation. This group of editors initially, unsuccessfully, attempted to get a community ban agianst User:Bus stop, because they "didn't have time" to address his opposing point of view. Talk page discussions revealed a proposed conspiracy to set User:Bus stop up for blocking. Only after their attempts to get Bus stop banned from the page failed, have they requested mediation. Many other editors on the Bob Dylan article have sided with User:Bus stop's views, yet the proposed mediation includes only User:Bus stop. The mediation appears to be yet another attempt to stack the deck against User:Bus stop by outnumbering him (and his view) in the debate. There is an inappropriate gang mentality on the two pages in question. Although I have made a very minimal number of contributions to the discussion; my own experience has been one of harrassment and intimidation on the part of Pro-Christian editors. Cleo123 23:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nothing you said in any way obviates the misuse of AfD evidenced by this nomination. Nor have you provided any evidence, diffs or anything else to support your opinion. Considering that the article is not going to be deleted, I would suggest you participate in the mediation to make your case regarding "pro-Christian" POV, the "hostile clique", the "proposed conspiracy", the "innapropriate gang mentality", "harrasment", "intimidation" and anything else you think needs to be addressed. But this is the entirely wrong forum for those types of comments. --JJay 00:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"No, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Unfortunately, a hostile clique of editors dedicated to the Pro-Christian POV have made it one."
What leads you to believe that we are dedicated to a Pro-Christian POV?
"This group of editors initially, unsuccessfully, attempted to get a community ban agianst User:Bus stop, because they "didn't have time" to address his opposing point of view."
This is misleading. We did address his point of view many, many times, with absolutely no progress in the discussion- and this lack of progress was partly due to Bus stop's unwillingness to assume that our viewpoints were coming from a neutral point-of-view (he continues to assume this). Because his reasoning seems motivated by a personal bias and because he has refused to present any sources in the discussion, we "didn't have time" to continuously address the same unsupported points over and over again. If the language seems disrespectful, then I apologize, but putting the statement into context is necessary unless you are attempting to portray us as conspirators.
"Talk page discussions revealed a proposed conspiracy to set User:Bus stop up for blocking."
You are describing the suggestions of one particular user, which were neither endorsed nor entertained by myself or anyone else. You can damn that user if you'd like, but it should be clear that no one else was involved in the suggestion.
"Only after their attempts to get Bus stop banned from the page failed, have they requested mediation."
This is, of course, the same Bus stop who finds it acceptable to propose an article for deletion in what seems to be a simple attempt to prove his point, fueled by his personal bias and frustration.
Why didn't he request mediation before proposing to delete the article? You may disagree with our opinions, and you are certainly entitled to do so, but we believe that Bus stop is motivated by his own bias and his unwarranted assumption that we are using Wikipedia to proselytize. If Bus stop is willing to act in the best interest of this article, then I suggest that he participate in the mediation, which he hasn't yet agreed to do, it seems.
Additionally, I'm unsure who set up the request for mediation, but perhaps you can take issue with that person in the listing of the parties involved. It appears to be a listing of the most vocal contributors, but I could be wrong about this (since I don't know of a way to measure such a thing). In any case, it's ridiculous to propose the deletion of an entire article because one entry is in question. --C.Logan 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Nothing emotional at all. How does one determine the emotionalism of another editor on Wikipedia? The article should be deleted because it is little more than a mouthpiece for a biased Christian agenda. That is not said emotionally. That is a powerful statement. That is a damning condemnation. But I can assure you the only emotion present is one of indignation. I am indignant about seeing Wikipedia turned to the service of a special interest group. There are contrivances at work here. First and foremost is the contrivance that it is a list of anyone who has ever converted to Christianity. That is not the logical parameter for this list. The logical criteria for this list is those notable Christians that have become Christians by means of converting to Christianity, as opposed to the only other means to becoming a Christian, which is by being born a Christian. That is distinguishing between being a Christian as a result of being born a Christian, and being a Christian as a result of conscious choices in life. That is a powerful parameter. It is my contention that this is not a list of trivia items. We are not concerned with including all people on this list that have ever converted to Christianity. That would be a much longer list, and it would point out unimportant things. That list would be a list that delved into trivia. Just because a person once expressed an interest in Christianity is not significant enough to warrant being listed -- on any list on Wikipedia. We here at Wikipedia do not compile lists of trivia. Bob Dylan moved on by 1980 from his Christian phase. He is not a Christian, by anyone's assessment, at this time. No reasonable person considers Bob Dylan a Christian person at this time. That is precisely why the editors of this article had to change the parameters to read, "anyone who has ever converted to Christianity." I think the article should be deleted because it is being controlled by a clique of editors with a Christian agenda decidedly at odds with Wikipedia principles, first and foremost the neutrality principle. This is a special interest article that has demonstrated repeatedly it's disregard for the truth and for neutrality, and it has little input from the larger Wikipedia community. It's narrow base of support means that someone such as myself has a hopeless chance of injecting any note of reality into it, concerning the said Bob Dylan conversion. Wikipedia is not a list of trivia items. If the editors of this list feel compelled to include "all those who have ever converted to Christianity," then they are turning this list into a compilation of trivia items. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE says that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." On careful perusal of the wording in that Wikipedia policy I can't find specific applicability of it to my point. But the spirit of that policy is applicable to the point I am trying to make. The editors have expanded the criteria for inclusion on this page to "anyone who has ever converted to Christianity," and that is moving into the realm of "indiscriminate information." In most instances we would not be interested in "anyone who has ever converted to Christianity." It is only because Bob Dylan represents such an oversized prize that editors are stretching the parameters for inclusion. Even that, in and of itself, is not overly problematic. What is problematic is that the editors are putting a Jew on a list of Christians. That is utterly unacceptable. Bob Dylan is unarguably not Christian after 27 years of non participation in anything Christian. Therefore there is real abuse in plunking him down anywhere in this article. I think the editors should seriously consider creating a separate article just to address the Bob Dylan -- Christianity issue. It should have "Bob Dylan" in the title. That way it would attract traffic not just from those interested in Christianity, but also from those looking for information on Bob Dylan. Bus stop 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: JJay -- The difference between offensive and defensive needs to be noted here. The opening shots in what you are referring to as a "battleground" were not fired by me. It is an offensive act to put a known Jew on a list of Gentiles. Respect differences, and there is no battle. Bus stop 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing that needs to be noted here is that you are doing an excellent job of convincing no one while continuing to make highly offensive remarks ("mouthpiece for a biased Christian agenda", etc.). There are processes for resolving disputes of this type. You have so far refused to participate in those processes. That is your choice, but it is also, in my view, a patent demonstration of bad faith on your part. --JJay 20:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, you were the initiator of this dispute, with your edit on April 21st. Additionally, I would hope that anyone checking the above diff would cycle forward for a little while to see the progression of edits. How can you turn us, a group of individuals who were not involved with placing Dylan on the list in the first place, into the aggressors? Oh wait, I see. Your reason is that "it is an offensive act to put a known Jew on a list of Gentiles". Lets pretend for a second that that statement is not drenched in bias. It is amusing that you, for at least the 5th time, have presented religious and cultural/ethnic Judaism as a single entity, when it should be clear that it is not. One can be Jewish and not practice Judaism. If the above statement uses 'Jew' in a cultural/ethnic sense, then the statement itself is offensive and creates the appearance of religious boundaries in respect to a certain group of people. If the above statement is intended in the religious sense, then a.) I would like to know which sources can be cited to support the assertion that Dylan is religiously Jewish, and b.) I would like to know how this makes any sense, considering the criterion of the list. It's like saying that ex-vegans should be removed from the List of vegans, which explains that it includes both current and former vegans, because "it is an offensive act to put a known omnivore on a list of vegans". Anyone who would make such a statement clearly misunderstands the purpose of the list, and should probably take a break and have some orange juice. --C.Logan 22:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 2[edit]

  • Very Strong Delete per Bus stop and Tomer. You have a total of 48 sources for several hundred names spanning the 2,000 year history of Christianity. As Bus stop explained, there are many meanings of "converts" and it is not defined and used in a broad range of sense depending on the situation. If these were notable conversions the list should be kept, but to just have a directory of names related to their religion is unencyclopedic. Arbustoo 21:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My only real objection to the above comment is that the specific criteria which will clearly indicate a person is a convert in one denomination will almost certainly not apply in a variety of other denominations, including non-denominational groups. Also, at least initially, there were fewer denominations in Christianity, so, for instance to prevent someone saying Constantine I converted to Catholicism, possibly before there was the differentiation of Christianity we perceive today, would be even more prejudicial. Also, frankly, some of the conversions included are among the most notable and noted in human history, Augustine of Hippo among them. I have said on the talk page of the article that I believe the article could and should receive more attention and scrutiny than it may have to date. However, I am, as indicated by my own reasons expressed above, far from convinced that the article per se even remotely qualifies for deletion, particularly for the reasons given. Rather the opposite. John Carter 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A convert in what way? You are only using it in the very general sense. Does a convert mean one can't be a Buddhist anymore? Is Constantine I's conversion the same as Heinrich Marx's? This is by far undescriptive, unsourced, ill-defined, and even POV.
If you want to keep this, I recommend starting from with a clean slate. Specifically define what a convert is, explain in what sense Christian is being used, explain the significance of the conversion, and put a source next to each name. Arbustoo 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 48 sources? Please take a look at the reference list, and do your counting again (my count is 114). Additionally, it's puzzling that you assume that an article's lack of sources is a factor which warrants deletion. How about suggesting that sources be provided for those who are currently uncited? Using this reason for deletion is extremely unproductive and illogical- essentially, it's like saying: "If an article needs improvement, delete it".
1) 48 reference to the number of footnotes, ie 1-48. 2) Thanks for putting yours in my mouth, but I did not say that. See Reductio ad absurdum. Arbustoo 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When a single footnote contains 37 references, as is the case in this article, I think you'd want to count all the citations among the footnotes when you want to determine the "total" number of sources. Additionally, I never claimed that you said such a thing, but I produced the statement because your listing of a lack of sources in the article amongst the factors for deletion was like saying the above, i.e. if you believe that the article is unsourced, why not simply suggest that sources be provided, rather than counting it amongst other damning features? --C.Logan 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that you take a look at the various other religious conversion pages, all of which have a similar purpose of existence: to make a reference list of people who have undergone a religious conversion during their lives. You are applying your judgment to what the sources say; if a source tells us that "he converted to Christianity" or "he converted to Islam", then this is what will be reflected in the article. It is not our place to dispute the factuality of the claims of a verifiable source, nor is it our place to apply our own meanings to the words used.
How does this invalidate anything above I wrote? How this is matter to wanting to remove a poorly writen/sourced listed with vague criteria? Arbustoo 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because on Wikipedia "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". We are not welcome to determine the senses of the words presented, and to complicate the statement of a source, which speaks in plain terms, unnecessarily. We simply present what the sources say, quite literally, without imposing our own judgment on the content of the source. --C.Logan 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, in regards to your statement about Buddhism, you should check the talk page. This is being discussed, and it's likely we'll explain the differences between philosophical belief systems and standard religions, and the fact that one need not abandon one to believe in the other.
It is one of the several problems I listed. You have a list without specific criteria. That's good that it is being discussed. Though a look at the talk does show that there are serious problems with having a list of ill-defined criteria. Arbustoo 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure how the criterion used for the list is ill-defined. We've presented it many, many times. If you're referring specifically to what criteria constitute conversion, please recall the above policy on verifiability. If the source claims it as a conversion, then what place does your judgment have in de-constructing the statements found within the source? --C.Logan 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, just so you know, here is the dictionary definition of conversion:
"A change in which one adopts a new religion, faith, or belief."
I don't know what the confusion is about this. --C.Logan 22:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that definition, which is not in the article does it apply to all the conversions listed? Does this list include people who switched to Christianity at one point, but changed again? It is so vague, I see no value in it. Arbustoo 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the readership so dense that they do not understand what it means to 'convert' to another religion? The above definition is elementary, and it seems (to me, at least) wholly unnecessary to provide such a definition in the article. Again, perhaps you would like to re-read the introduction of the article itself (in its current state):
"The following is a list of notable people who converted to Christianity from a different religion or no religion. Inclusion on this list is not an assertion that an individual continued to practice Christianity throughout life after conversion. This article addresses only past voluntary professions of faith by the individuals listed, and is not intended to address ethnic, cultural, or other considerations."
I can't understand how the above introduction is vague. It appears to explain everything quite clearly, while at the same time addressing the many other issues we've been discussing on the talk page. --C.Logan 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I explained it, and you don't "understand." I don't know how to respond. If something is unclear, be specific and I'll explain it better. As of now the term "convert," "Christianity," and "conversion" are not defined with clear criteria. Does "conversion" mean Christianity alone or does it include Eastern Philossophy? Does Christianity in 200 CE mean the same in 2007? Is Karl Marx's father important enough to be included on the list? To top it off, the vast majority is unsourced. Arbustoo 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Does this list include people who switched to Christianity at one point, but changed again?"
"Inclusion on this list is not an assertion that an individual continued to practice Christianity throughout life after conversion."
As the article is contantly being edited while this discussion is taking place, the introduction keeps changing to address other issues not related to this discussion- for instance, the Buddhism/Eastern philosophies issue, and another issue regarding forced conversions that I haven't taken the time to read through. However, when I asked you how the introduction was vague, I was asking because, to me, the question you posed in your above comment seemed to be answered right there in the introduction. It may seem generalized, but this is because of several possible occurences which could take place in a persons life; for instance, one could convert to another religion or return to their previous religion, they could lose faith in their religious choice and become only nominally Christian or become outright atheist/agnostic, they could have used the conversion for a political or societal gain (as is suggested in Carlos Menem's conversion and many of those who converted to Islam to escape dhimmitude), etc. The current, general phrasing of the above sentence is to cover all these scenarios in as few words as possible.
Concerning terms like 'convert' and 'conversion', what do you think would make them clearer?
As far as defining the term Christianity... it's easy to see that Christianity is a religion full of diversity. I'm not sure if one could accurately count the denominations which has sprung forth since the reformation began, and it seems that many of these churches consider themselves each to be the only true adherents of Christianity. The List of Christians article addresses this fact. If a verifiable source claims that a person "converted to Christianity", then we must take the source's word for it (WP:VERIFY). Obviously, some traditional Catholics may not believe that Baptists could be called Christians, and vice versa. However, as far as we are concerned, if a source defines a denomination as Christian, then it is Christian as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Do you have any suggestions about this?
In regards to Karl Marx's father, I don't know. I began to add sources one-by-one the other day, but I lost steam. The article definitely needs a go-over so that sources can be provided and so that any non-converts can be removed (I haven't found much in terms of Brother Andrew, but I'll have to check his book before removing him). As anyone who has ever edited the List of notable converts to Islam should know, non-notable individuals tend to get slipped in over time.
I most definitely agree that the article needs sources. It's unfortunate that so much has been focused into this discussion. I mean, C.S.Lewis sits there, unsourced, when hundreds of sources are available to attest to his conversion. I'm eager to get this discussion mediated so that I can spend more time on the article itself, and bring it up to good shape. --C.Logan 08:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your answers just prove my point. Comparing this to another list isn't going to help your case. You can always move this to your userspace and work on it there. Your response has been, at least in the posts I read: "no its not, oh and other lists are like this." That doesn't cut it. This has been nominated TWO other times, and has not gotten cleaned up, and the criteria is defined in such a way that a clean up is impossible as it stands now. As for your question if I have any suggestions, yes: DELETE IT and maybe start from over with clearly defined criteria. Arbustoo 18:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What point do they prove? The mentions of other lists are side notes, and I don't see how I'm comparing this article to another in any serious way. As far as your interpretation of my posts go, the above looks a lot more to me like "This needs improvement, and this is why it's a problem. What do you suggest?" Additionally, I myself can't speak for the way the article's been maintained, as I've only begun to focus on it relatively recently. Remember that I'm trying to improve the article, and that's why I ask for your input. What do you feel is the difficulty with the criteria? --C.Logan 23:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it sits, its nothing worth keeping. Please shorten your responses to be direct. The long/wordy passages on the page (pro or con deletion) are really making it hard to the follow the discussion. Arbustoo 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. It's not in the best shape, but I wouldn't suggest deletion at all. I apologize for the lengthy responses, but I usually try to be thorough in discussions. Thanks for your suggestions. --C.Logan 08:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear point: The suggestion that the article can be improved does not argue for its deletion, but rather for its improvement. Clear point: One need not define every possible interpretation of "Christianity" in order to discuss Christianity or build a list upon the concept. In fact, to demand such a precise, non-controversial, all inclusive definition sets an impossibly high bar to clear for any article on any subject. Point that should be clear: This article has an abundance of references, which is constantly growing, and Wikipedia only requires "Verifiability," not that every entry or statement be fully sourced. Dispute an entry to the list if you think it doesn't belong there, and it will be cited or removed. Don't demand the deletion of the article. zadignose 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete per User:Arbustoo. Also, the lack of clear cut criteria for inclusion creates potential libel issues for Wikipedia. The list is not encyclopedic. Cleo123 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Potential libel issues?? Please explain that with specific reference to people now included in the article. --JJay 00:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* In the first place, my remark specifically refers to "potential" libel issues, which encompasses future issues as well, which may be created by the vague parameters of the list. I'm not going to waste my time researching people on this list for you, so I'll point out the obvious - Bob Dylan. There is no question that he explored Christianity in the late 70's. There are even some sources that claim he converted. I'm not entirely convinced that he formally "converted", giving up Judaism. Dylan's actual statements are vague. He discusses being touched by Jesus, but doesn't seem to claim him as the Messiah. I accept discussions of his alleged "conversion" being included in the Bob Dylan article where the information can be put into its proper context and attributed to sources. However, placing him on a list, such as this, could be considered libellous, particularly when Dylan himself appears to contradict you. Where living people are concerned, policy dictates that we heir on the side of caution. WP:LIVING Are your second hand sources more reliable than Dylan himself? That is tabloid journalism to my mind, and Wikipedia should maintain higher standards. Here's what Bob Dylan had to say in an interview with Spin Magazine in December of 1985:
"It's the same way with Jesus being a Jew. Who did he appeal to? He appeals to people who want to get into heaven in a big way. But some day the true story will reveal itself, and by that time, people will be ready for it, because it's just going in that direction. You can come out and say it all now, but what does it matter? It's going to happen anyway. Vanities of vanities, that's all it is."
"I went to Bible school at an extension of this church out in the Valley in Reseda, California. It was affiliated with the church, but I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing. Jesus told Nicodemus, "A man must be born again." And Nicodemus said, "How can I go through my mother's womb?" and Jesus said, "You must be born of the spirit." And that's where that comes from, that born-again thing. People have put a heavy trip on it. People can call you what they want. The media make up a lot of these words for the definition of people. I mean, who's a person anymore? Everything's done for the media. If the media don't know about it, it's not happening. They'll take the littlest thing and make it spectacular. They're in the business of doing that. Everything's a business. Love, truth, beauty. Conversation is a business. Spirituality is not a business, so it's going to go against the grain of people who are trying to exploit other people. God doesn't look at people and say, "That's a banker, that's a dentist,that's an oil-well driller." [14]
Does that sound like someone who wants to be on your list? Several editors involved with this dispute have questioned Dylan's "return" to Judaism, repeatedly demanding sources. This pretense of "not knowing he's Jewish" strikes me as very disingenuous. All one need do is google "Bob Dylan" AND "Jew" to get 236,000 hits. Perhaps, you'd like to watch Bob perform Hava Negilah at the 1989 Chabad Telethon on youtube? [15] BTW, Chabad is a Jewish outreach organization dedicated in large part to combatting missionaries and cults that target Jews for conversion to Christianity. Dylan has been a public supporter of the organization for years. Here are a few more sources for Dylan's "return" to Judaism. [16] [17][18]
Although this debate may have been prompted by a dispute over Bob Dylan, he is merely one example of why the list in and of itself is inappropriate as currently defined. It as a haphazard list subject to POV determinations. It is little more than an arbitrary collection of trivia designed to label people. It is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. Cleo123 08:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Are your second hand sources more reliable than Dylan himself?"
"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians."- WP:NOR.
That is to say, your interpretation of the above statements by Dylan could be completely different from mine- like you said, he is rather vague. That's why we're encouraged to rely on secondary sources whenever possible. We're limited in our function- we aren't supposed to be interpreters. Therefore, we should rely on these secondary sources, rather than on Dylan's words. It isn't that Dylan doesn't know himself (obviously), but it's easy for us to make assumptions about what he means- we should let the secondary sources perform that job.
"All one need do is google "Bob Dylan" AND "Jew" to get 236,000 hits."
Bob Dylan was born a Jew (by Jew, I mean it in a cultural/ethnic sense, as we're not born with a religion in mind). Therefore, it's pretty easy to see why your search returns so many hits. I'm sure you aren't asserting that the above is any sort of proof, because phrases like "Bob Dylan was raised as a Jew" are not relevant to his post-conversion status, but still come up in the search engine. For instance, searching for "Bob Dylan" and "Christianity" returns 306,000 hits. Searching "Bob Dylan" and "Christian" returns 1,440,000 hits. It doesn't prove much, although it's interesting to compare the results.(By the way, your search terms now return 237,000.)
"Here are a few more sources for Dylan's "return" to Judaism."
As I've said, Bus stop's unwillingness to accept sources which were comparable to these (yet coming from a Christian perspective) was an unfortunate attitude, and one which would make the presentation of such sources as evidence rather hypocritical (I'm not saying it is as you present it, Cleo). Bus stop refused to consider any sources found on the internet, and still doubts the claims of biographies, newspapers, encyclopedias, Jewish newsletters, etc. For him to present sources akin to the ones he wouldn't bother looking at when we'd presented them would be a very troubling action.
"Although this debate may have been prompted by a dispute over Bob Dylan, he is merely one example of why the list in and of itself is inappropriate as currently defined."
What other listings are problematic, besides Duleep Singh (another convert who later reconverted to Sikhism)? I'm curious, because those are the only two I've seen.
"It as a haphazard list subject to POV determinations."
Haphazard- yes. The list needs much improvement. Personally, I preferred the older method used on List.conv.Islam, where individuals were sorted by their respective professions. I would like to see if sections could be made for each profession, and subsections for each former religion. However, it's a hard idea to develop... but I think it would be much more useful than merely labeling by former religion. Do you agree? As far as for POV determinations, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Can I ask you to elaborate a little more on that statement?
"It is little more than an arbitrary collection of trivia designed to label people. It is not encyclopedic and should be deleted."
I'm unsure how the above statement applies to this article any more than the Jewish encyclopedia's list of converts to Christianity. A criterion is established for the list, and it is compiled. I'm unsure why you feel the criterion is arbitrary. Additionally, we're not attempting to label people; the sources cited do these things for us. I believe that labels are bad to some extent, but only in that I prefer not to define myself in labels. It's silly when people are eager to label themselves (most of the time). However, I understand that to most people who know me or do not know me, I fall under many labels. I'm not exactly white, but I appear to be so, so I simply check "caucasian". The reality is much more complex. This applies to religion as well. The article lists C.S. Lewis simply as a convert to Christianity from atheism, but the reality is much more complex. For the purposes of research and the transmission of information, however, we can't be afraid of labels being used for the sake of brevity and clarity. The previous paragraph may seem like a rant, but there's a point made somewhere in there if you keep digging.
What suggestions do you have to improve the article? To be clear, and although it seems that you don't like me very much, so I'm unsure of the weight my words carry, but I don't mean to misrepresent Dylan as a Christian currently (his current status is a mystery, it seems). The article contained a "controversial" subsection which listed Dylan, but this was ultimately a half-baked attempt, and it was later removed by a zealous editor who seems to undo all the changes made by us through the course of the discussion (some of which was for better, and some of which was for the worse). I would rather propose a section for those who converted, but left the faith. I believe that separating these listings from the main body would help to avoid confusion and the need for general disclaimers, and would still convey the necessary information. The other conversion lists could follow suit, with people like David Gartenstein-Ross for the Islam page, for example. I feel that it's notable that David converted to Islam before converting to Christianity (as his book deals partly with this fact), and feel it's appropriate for him to be on that list as well. Do you have any suggestions or comments about this idea? --C.Logan 09:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of equivalent lists for other religions i.e. List of notable converts to Hinduism, List of notable converts to Islam, List of notable converts to Judaism, List of notable converts to Sikhism. Re:Arbustoo's comment that to "just have a directory of names related to their religion is unencyclopedic" perhaps they would like to explain how this list ended up in the Jewish Encyclopedia [19]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons to the Jewish Encyclopedia are not appropriate. The Jewish Encyclopedia makes no appologies for the fact that it presents information from a Jewish POV. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is supposed to be nuetral and unbiased. Cleo123 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you are being illogical. I thought you were claiming that this list should be deleted because it is made from a Christian POV? Yet the list made from a supposedly Jewish POV looks very much like the one made from what you suppose is a Christian POV. Do you think perhaps these people are just presenting facts? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my point. I believe all such lists should be deleted, as they are not encyclopedic. No POV is acceptable. Cleo123 08:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why haven't you nominated them for deletion already if you can't stand their existence so much? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleo123, it seems that point was actually addressed, by the suggestion that a list of facts that looks almost the same regardless of any supposed "POV," could fairly be considered "NPOV." If Christians, Jews, Athiests, and others can agree that certain people converted to Christianity, and agree that such knowledge is in fact "encyclopedic," then this neutralizes any claim of a supposed Christian POV. Personally, I have almost no interest in the subject of Christianity or conversion, but I find many of the arguments for the deletion of this article hard to stomach. zadignose 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Not an argument. --Tinctorius 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And why exactly is it crap? Just because facts annoy people surely isn't a good reason to delete an entire article otherwise a lot of articles would end up getting deleted on Wikipedia! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have you actually read what WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (equivalent to WP:WAX) is about? It tells you not to use the existance of other articles as an argument in an AfD discussion. --Tinctorius 09:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's what you meant- I am saying none of these lists are "crap" as religious conversion and the identities, circumstances and numbers of those who convert from what state of belief to another are of encyclopedic interest. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per above statements that several other religions have pages as well and the nominator seems to have a bone to pick with one particular entry. Yahnatan 00:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All such pages should be deleted from Wikipedia. It is one thing to list "notable christians who were converts to the faith", it is quite another to arbitrarily list people whose religious affliations have nothing to do with their notability. Religion is a private matter, and lists of this nature are a gross invasion of privacy. This is tabloid material, at best. Cleo123 09:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Yahnatan -- Not "seems to have." Has. I have this thing about truth. I don't know why, but I prefer it over lies. If the editors are so hell bent on labeling Dylan a Christian, then the list should be deleted. They can always recreate it after they've realized that the encyclopedia is not in the business of slandering people. They may think that they are paying Dylan a compliment by calling him a Christian. But it is still always better policy to stick to the truth. Bus stop 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From the above statement, it appears that Bus stop believes:
  • That the sources are 'lying' when they claim that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity.
  • That it is 'slanderous' to reflect what verifiable sources say.
  • That his proposed deletion of the article because of the conflicted nature of one entry is justified.
  • That we are editing with Pro-Christian intentions, because we are following WP:VERIFY.
  • That his own judgment of the claims made in the sources takes precedence over WP:VERIFY.
  • That he can maintain his argument without presenting any sources, despite the fact that he himself stated that "Wikipedia requires citations to support assertions". --C.Logan 01:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: This article should be deleted because of endemic point of view pushing that is Christian in it's orientation but has bearing on people and things not related to Christianity or Christians. This article does not have "Bob Dylan" in it's title. Yet arguably Bob Dylan's presence on this article is the most important thing about this article, in the minds of the editors who have been so fiercely guarding it. An average user of Wikipedia who happens to be interested in Bob Dylan is not as likely to find this article as they would be to find the Bob Dylan article. Yet the information (misinformation) here in this article is immeasurably powerful. I seriously have a hunch that the editors who guard this article so jealously would rather see the whole article disappear rather than lose their Dylan entry as a "convert to Christianity." I do not for a moment think the editors controlling this article are representative of all Christians. But this article is a part of the Wikipedia Christianity project so I can't help but pin the blame on at least some Christians. I am not the cause for this article for deletion process. The deletion process began in all the steps prior to this, in which the editors in charge unbudgingly refused to relate to the fact that Dylan is not a Christian. They strew disclaimers about the article to remedy the situation. But to me the need for disclaimers is only a more pointed reminder that Dylan does not belong on the list. It was 27 years ago when the last reported Dylan involvement with Christianity took place. He is clearly a Jew if for no other reason than that he was born a Jew. It constitutes slander or some related offense to deliberately mislabel a Jew a Christian. Why would Wikipedia want to do that? As I've suggested before, I think the editors passionate about this should start an article with the words "Bob Dylan" in the title, such as "Bob Dylan -- the Christian years." They could fully develop this picture. Of course such an article would be visited by people searching for "Bob Dylan," resulting on the editors likely having much less control over it. But apparently they are determined to simply have Dylan on this list as a "convert to Christianity." That's why this article should be deleted. Bus stop 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: [20] --JJay 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Yes, he is Jewish, JJay. That article is from 27 years ago. You are showing me the source of your misunderstanding. He is no longer Christian, if he ever was Christian. He has returned to his Jewish faith, by means of ceasing to have anything further to do with Christianity. It's pretty interesting that conversion to Christianity is argued by the editors here to be accomplished by virtually anything. Yet the same editors pretend that escape from Christianity is impossible. Why the difference in the different directions of travel? Why does virtually anything constitute "conversion" but apparently nothing constitutes reversion? It seems to me that "easy come, easy go," might be applicable here, don't you think? If conversion was accomplished by "sermonettes" between songs, might not reversion be accomplished by having nothing to do with Christianity for the next 27 years? Bus stop 02:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Thanks for restating your opinion. Of course, since you provide no evidence, links or diffs, I will continue to assume that you are just making this up as you go along in order to attack other users and due to a strange "obsession" with Bob Dylan. In the meantime, forgive me if I continue to rely - as per policy - on WP:V verifiable WP:RS regarding Dylan's conversion such as the Washington Post, NY Times, Washington Jewish Week, all the major Dylan bios, etc. --JJay 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Your sources are adequate for using the word converted in an article (a prose article) concerning that period in time. Your sources certainly do not support referring to him in the present as a "convert," because a "convert" is Christian. You have to understand the variety of meanings of the word convert. A convert, in this sense, is a Christian. Which Dylan is not. In the Bob Dylan article you can refer to his "conversion" in 1979. You have a source for that. But a list (not a prose article) compiled in 2007 cannot possibly refer to a Jew as a "convert to Christianity." "Convert," in that use is part of a phrase stating he is a Christian. It is a completely different use of the word convert. Also, I keep pointing out that there is a difference between a prose article and a list. An article allows for the specific situation to be spelled out. A list does not. The editors have tried to compensate for that shortcoming by piling on what they referred to as their "disclaimers." Their disclaimers were proof positive that Dylan did not fit on the list. Not least because Jews are not Christians. Those are two different religions. Bus stop 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction: This AfD will be closed by a spineless admin as either [overwhelming ?] consensus to keep (despite the clear violations of WP policies I've outlined above) or no consensus (completely dismissing consideration of the aforementioned inappropriatness of this listcruft). I readily admit I think the rationale Bus stop had for nominating this listcrap for deletion is horribly flawed (indeed, it seems to revolve almost entirely around hir objection to Bob Dylan's inclusion in the list), the reasons given to "keep" have been far more flawed and far more woefully ill-considered than the nomination was to begin with. Nevertheless, to avoid conflict and controversy with willful ignorance or flagrant violation of policy, the decision will be made to "offend only Bus_stop" by calling the whole affair a "draw" or a "win for keep"...and a loss for encyclopædicity be damned. I'm not generally given to betting, but I put US$10 on it. Any takers? Lemme know, and I'll tell you where to send my winnings. Cheers, Tomertalk 10:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is that an attempt at intimidation (i.e; "spineless admin"?)? Or some kind of vague threat? Argue whatever points you have to make, without resorting to absurd predictions or proclamations. Refrain from insulting well-meaning contributors with the use of derogatory terms such as "listcrap". If you are not happy with the outcome of this debate take it to DRV, but there is a process underway here that requires no editorializing from you. Oh, and I haven't seen any serious policy argument from you regarding list, besides a weak defense of the corresponding category (which is arguably far more flawed than this list). JJay 15:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, an administrator will be wise enough to see the argument for it's merits. The fact that the list has been nominated for deletion three times, indicates that many editors have taken issue with its existence. It has been said that the page and its content have been tenaciously guarded by a group of editors from the Christianity Project. That would appear to be the case here. I believe that the validity of policy concerns should over ride numbers in this scenario, as the deck seems to be stacked against the community at large. Cleo123 20:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: It is not irrelevant here to note that Judaism is a religion that does not proselytize, and Christianity happens to be a religion that places big emphasis on "spreading the Good News." Big difference. The terms are almost not comparable. Conversion is something Judaism does reluctantly. The winning of converts to Christianity, on the other hand, is something that is actively pursued.
This list should be deleted because it is not only a locus of abuse but it is unlikely to ever be used responsibly. The sort of Christians who gravitate to this page and glom onto it as if they were clinging to a raft for their life are probably going to be relentless in twisting the meaning of every "convert" they can get their editorial hands on, not because they are bad people, but because it is a religious imperative. I may think it is irrational but it is not for me to judge. These may be very spiritually elevated people living admirable lives, but my job as an editor at Wikipedia is to squash untruth where I see it. That is untruth of any sort.
We know full well that we rely on sources. And that we aim for verifiability, not for truth. But truth is generally a byproduct of verifiability. We do not have verifiability for the fact of Dylan being a Christian in 2007. Therefore it should be a simple fact that we don't have Dylan as a "convert to Christianity" in 2007. That is an impossibility because of the aforementioned absence of verifiability for Dylan being a Christian in 2007. This is not complicated mental gymnastics.
The only way the editors have found to get Dylan on their list is to make some adjustments to the parameters of their list. Instead of it being a list of converts to Christianity, they've said it is a list of anyone who has ever converted to Christianity. Voilà. They've gotten the superstar onto their list. The trouble is that is a contrivance. That contrivance is in violation of WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. It is not a valid parameter to list all those who have ever converted to Christianity. Notable people who have arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion may be valid criteria for a list. But it clearly wanders into the area of the collecting of trivia to compile a list of all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity. As we have seen, conversion to Christianity can be accomplished by just about anything. It is a virtually meaningless term as used in this context. It is not in any way realistic to think that any editor is scouring the information banks looking for any other notable people who have ever converted to Christianity. It should be carefully noted that the adjustment in the parameters is solely to capture Dylan onto the list. There is no way any realistic attempt is being made to add any others to the list who have ever converted to Christianity. That is a ruse. It is guile. The admin who closes this article for deletion should keep one thing in mind: it's all about Dylan. Dylan is not an inconsequential add-on to this list. This list is more properly titled Dylan, and other converts to Christianity. Bus stop 11:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mixing of the past with the present, the mixing of professions of faith with cultural identity. Some seem to be concerned here that somehow Bob Dylan's Jewish cultural identity might somehow be compromised by listing him on a list of former and current Christian converts. The fact is that he qualifies for listing on this list, and is documented, by these people's own admission, to be at least a "former convert". These people seem to be so concerned that such a listing might somehow "tarnish" Dylan's cultural identity as a Jew, that they have devised numerous ingenious arguments and maneuvers to get Dylan removed from this list, despite their own implicit admission that he qualifies for entry on it. Now we are all here spending our time trying to figure out why otherwise seemingly rational people would act so seemingly irrationally. Apparently the preservation of what is perceived to be "Dylan's Jewishness" somehow seems to be of such value to them that they are willing to expend titanic amounts of energy and even risk appearing to be... well..., a bit odd, all in the interests of their "cause celebre". I must commend them for their passion and their persistence, but I must admit, I still don't understand them. -Scott P. 12:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion- If it is believed that he converted back to Judaism, then place him on the list of converts to Judaism while properly documenting this, and place cross references next to his entries on both lists, cross-referencing between both lists. -Scott P. 12:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested the same above, as certain entries like David/Daveed Gartenstein-Ross have undergone multiple conversions. Gartenstein-Ross should be placed on the Islam page as well. I suggest that a separate section be made on each article (if there are a sufficient number of entries in this situation), for those who later reconverted to another faith. This would dispel any confusion that might arise in including these names in the main list body, but would still effectively present the information. --C.Logan 14:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Jew can't convert to Judaism. Calling Dylan a convert to Judaism would, in fact, be a far greater insult than calling him a convert to Christianity, no matter how erstwhile. Tomertalk 16:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Unfortunately, many editors involved in this debate really do not seem to understand basic tenants of the Jewish faith. User:Bus stop, User:Metzenberg and others have presented many logical arguments, from a Jewish perspective, that have unilaterally been rejected due to an apparent lack of understanding of Jewish beliefs.
Regardless, this debate is not about Bob Dylan, at least it shouldn't be. He happens to be an interesting example of how the flawed structure of the list creates potential libel issues. Here we have a person, who has gone on record saying : " I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing...The media make up a lot of these words for the definition of people." Yes, there are secondary sources that claim he was a born again Christian. Editors on the other side of the fence have misinterpretted policy to mean that secondary sources are somehow always preferable to primary sources, and that they should not be scrutinized for "truth". That is not the case. WP:BLP specifically demands that the "truth" of a secondary sources should be scrutinized. In this case, one cannot simply ignore conflicting information from the primary source. When there is doubt, one must heir on the side of caution taking the most conservative approach. Certainly, "conversion" material can be presented in an article, where there is room for clarification. A list is something all together different. This particular list is so poorly structured that it has become a platform for abuse.
The list, as defined, is not encyclopedic. A list of "Notable Christains who converted to the faith" would be more appropriate. If an individual's faith has no bearing on their notability, then it should not be documented on a list. It an arbitrary collection of information, which creates invasion of privacy issues for biographical subjects. Lists such as this one create a dangerous precedent, which must be quashed. What's next? A list of notable people who are HIV positive? Cleo123 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, definitely. And a redirect to List of notable people who are HIV positive from List of people who are HIV positive. Make sure to give it some inane opening text too, so that it can and should include people who are rumored to have HIV, or people you think might have HIV, or people you at one point thought might have HIV—even if it now turns out they only had a cold. Make sure to attach it to a wikiproject and then if it ever gets nominated for deletion, a bunch of editors from that wikiproject can go !vote to "Keep. Because everyone knows Paris Hilton had HIV at one time! Bad faith nomination, and give the nominator a cold shower." Sheesh...then I'll come along and place bets on how the closing admin is going to handle it. Muwahahaha (Note: The above was a tongue-in-cheek recommendation, it was not serious. There is no evidence in the possession of this editor nor of Wikipedia in general, to indicate that Paris Hilton has, or has ever had, HIV, nor that anyone seriously thought so.) Tomertalk 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be most interested if the user above could indicate specifically where in the page cited the specific claim that is stated as being "demanded" of WP:BLP is located. This is the specific quote I found on that page, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about them". I believe that the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times are generally counted as among the most reliable sources of the type indicated in the above quote. The quote I used above can be found in the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Biographies of livng persons#Writing style. Given that the above user seems to indicate that there is some specific statement elsewhere in that page which seems to state something different, I would be most obliged if the 'specific statement to which that user is referring is specifically indicated, in the way I have done above. And I would equally be interested in where that user seems to find in policy or guidelines what is and is not "appropriate", to use their specific word. I did not find anything remotely similar to that in the page cited above, or anywhere else in wikipedia policies or guidelines of which I am aware. And, of course, we have already had indicated on this page that individuals who claim that something supports their arguments should specify exactly what statement they are referring to, as I have done above. John Carter 00:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider your tone to be hostile and inappropriate. WP:BLP states:
"Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?"
Seems to me that would aply to the much quoted pastor, who is the source of Dylan's alleged formal baptism and conversion. WP:BLP Also states:
"Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy."
It seems Mr. Dylan considers his religious persuasion a private matter. It's a pity, you do not.
Additionally, WP:BLP states:
"Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."
I have yet to understand how Dylan's alleged conversion to Christianity and his inclusion on this list are relevant to his notability as a musician. Could you, please, demonstrate that for me? Thanks, Cleo123 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I understand that Jew who is born a Jew retains a special bond with his ancestral religion. However, no one is trying to offend when they make the effort to report the fact that a Jewish person converted to another religion and reverted to Judaism. Despite the terms used in suggestions during this discussion, pains are taken to ensure (or at least an attempt is made) that no one is offended by the terminology. As the idea above intends to explain, there should be a separate category for those who later left the faith. Whether these people reverted to their old faith or reconverted to a new faith, their conversion to the list's religion is a relevant piece of information.
Additionally Cleo, I'm not entirely sure that one should be presenting arguments from a Jewish perspective rather than from a neutral perspective. I'm not saying that either side has been presenting arguments neutrally, but we should at least attempt to do so.
Our rationale behind stating that secondary sources are largely preferable comes from WP:NOR. As it says there, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them...Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." This applies to instances like the above quotation you have presented from Dylan himself. As you are interpreting it mean one thing, the sources we have do not make this same interpretation.
In regards to your references to WP:BLP, that isn't exactly what the page says.
Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.
Since the biographies presented as the main sources do not fall into any of the categories mentioned in the latter half of the above quote, we should scrutinize the reliability of the sources. Let's see what the WP:RS page says:
"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
Considering the publishers of the sources (Harper, Grove Press, Rough Guides), the main issue would be the latter part of the above. Let's see what information we have about the authors and their reliability and expertise.
Clinton Heylin:
Clinton Heylin is recognized by fans all over the world as a leading authority on Bob Dylan. Co-founder of Wanted Man, the British magazine dedicated to studying Dylan's life and work, he edited the news section of its quarterly magazine, the Telegraph, for a number of years. He is also the author of Dylan: Behind Closed Doors and From the Velvets to the Voidoids: A Pre-Punk History for a Post-Punk World, both of which are published in Penguin. His other books are on musical subjects as diverse as Public Image Limited, Joy Division, Richard Thompson and Sandy Denny.
Nigel Williamson:
Nigel Williamson is a leading music journalist with name recognition for serious fans. He writes widely in the national press as well as specialist magazines. He produced the Uncut special on Bob Dylan (which Dylan himself approved of) and wrote a well-received book on Neil Young for Backbeat Books.
The above two authors have entries at Penguin's author listing, and this is where the above info comes from. However, Howard Sounes isn't listed there, so I'll provide information for him from two other sources.
From Harper-Collins:
Howard Sounes was born in 1965. He is the author of five works of nonfiction, published in thirteen languages, addressing diverse subjects. Each book is based on a huge amount of research and exclusive interviews conducted over a number of years, revealing a great deal of new information. Sounes's recent books include a celebrated biography of the American poet Charles Bukowski and Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan. Sounes lives in London.
And a relevant section from his personal website:
Ever since he was a teenager, Howard Sounes has been a devotee of the music of Bob Dylan, as well as being fascinated with Dylan's singular personality. In the late 1990s, Sounes began to research a major new biography of the musician, for publication in 2001 when Dylan turned sixty. Travelling extensively in the USA, Sounes interviewed more than 250 people close to the artist, including Dylan's fellow musicians, girlfriends and family members. The result of this original research is Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan, first published in the USA by Grove Press, and in the UK by Doubleday, in 2001. The book has since been translated into many languages. The book made news upon publication partly because it contained the revelation that, unknown to his fans and the media, Dylan had married for a second time, in 1986, to backing singer Carolyn Dennis, with whom he had a daughter. The secret marriage story was, in fact, only a small part of a wealth of new information revealed in Down the Highway, which is both a truly revelatory biography as well as being an affectionate celebration of one of the leading cultural figures of our time. Down the Highway was a finalist for the Ralph J. Gleason Music Book Award (USA) and was chosen by Uncut magazine as its 2001 Music Book of the Year.
Additionally, WP:RS says in "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources":
Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people. Considering that the above sources seem to be fairly reliable, considering the authorship and the publishing houses, it would seem that the above is satisfied by the inclusion of these three corroborating biopraphies.
From reading Wiki's policies and guidelines, and considering the above, I'm unsure how the information taken into account is not compliant with the standards of WP:BLP. --C.Logan 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please attempt to keep your comments brief. These long winded essays are not appropriate. I see all this as a smoke screen. I have mentioned potential libel issues. Bob Dylan has said that he does not believe in Born again Christianity. You have chosen to ignore his statement and present "as fact" in the article that he was a born again Christian. You have, also, failed to present his contradictory statement, so there is no balanced point of view. If you think he can not sue Wikipedia, you are living in a fantasy world. Cleo123 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: to convert to Christianity from Judaism does not mean that one is a born-again Christian. That is a very specific subset of converts; some converts can, and do, express disdain for those born-again. Hornplease 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To keep the comments brief, I cannot see how citing preexisting material published in reliable sources including the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times, citing sources, is something that could get us sued. Also, the key word in what was said above, I think, is that Dylan does not believe in Born again Christianity. At no point does the content of the article, as I read it, say otherwise. It indicates that there are substantial references from external published sources which indicate that there was an earlier conversion. I fail to see how inclusion in this list, particularly including the relevant disclaimers which are in place, could result in a lawsuit against us. I personally would welcome seeing a comment from the WP:OFFICE one way or another. However, as I believe the proponents of not including Dylan are the ones who are, as it were, challenging the "status quo", they would be the relevant parties to raise their complaint there, as they are the ones who most clearly know their complaints. Otherwise, I really can't see how the repeated speculation, without specifically cited sources, about what "might" happen, particularly when we are following existing wikipedia policy and guidelines, is anything other than original research or point of view, or at all productive. However, as I have personally not seen (I may have missed it, however) any interest on the other side in doing anything other than talking, I have myself contacted User:Bastique, the first named person on the page WP:OFFICE to review the subject in question. I also indicatedon that user's talk page that they might request that this discussion not be terminated until such time as they have had the opportunity to review the matter themselves. I only say that in the event the user mentioned above, or some other party, does request such a delay in the closing of this discussion, that there was in fact an express request for their input in this matter. John Carter 01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user contacted above has informed me that the appropriate place to request follow up on this matter is WP:BLPN. I have on that basis added a link to this discussion there. I have no previous experience with how that group works, but think we might conceivably expect some sort of response, positive or negative, sometime soon. Sorry, like I said, I have no previous experience with them or any of the other groups which may or may not be relevant to this discussion, and am basically flying by ear here. John Carter 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop misrepresenting facts. You have repeatedly thrust the Encyclopedia Britannica and the New York Times forward as the sources for your bold and controversial statements. In a review of what "you and yours" have labelled the "Born Again Period" in the Bob Dylan article as it currently stands,[21] I do not see the Encyclopedia Britannica cited as a reference for any of the material. I do see a quote from the New York Times, which says the following :
"Mr. Dylan's record has been preceded by months of rumor as to whether he has or had not converted to fundamentalist Christianity. The new record may give no guarantees for the future, but it does attest to the fact that, for the moment, Mr. Dylan is very definitely and overtly dealing in just that imagery."
Hardly an endorsement of your position. Such misrepresentations do not demonstrate good faith on your part. Cleo123 07:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleo, no one is forcing you to read the comment. However, if you feel the need to accuse editors of things based on your ideas about Wikipedia policy, you should expect a thorough response. I don't see how any of the above information is any longer than it ought to be. You accuse editors of committing an offense, and so you shouldn't be surprised when you receive a sizable response. Honestly, I'll try to keep my regular comments much shorter, but don't cite WP:BLP or other guidelines and policies without expecting me to take a good look at them and share what they say. I haven't chosen to ignore Dylan's statement, but I have chosen to refrain drawing conclusions from it and presenting this as an argument. What you are attempting to do echoes the text I'd quoted from WP:NOR above: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them...Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."
Despite what you might think, you do not have a monopoly on understanding the context and meaning of Bob Dylan's sayings. I read the above quote, and I agree with him... and I'm a Christian. Of course, this is simply a personal note, but as it is, I remind you that your own interpretation of a primary source may differ completely from another person's. You are turning a quote which is gray and polarizing it to black or white. This is why "any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." It is likely that your own bias plays into the interpretation as much as mine does.
Additionally, I'm not sure if the penultimate sentence is an indication that I'm obliged to 'present his contradictory statement', but I suppose I could gladly take a quote and push my own interpretation onto it to make myself seem right:
"Bob Dylan: Being born again is a hard thing... We don't like to lose those old attitudes and hang-ups. Conversion takes time because you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. You have to learn to drink milk before you can eat meat. You're reborn, but like a baby. A baby doesn't know anything about this world, and that's what it's like when you're reborn. You're a stranger. You have to learn all over again."-Clinton Heylin's Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades: Revisited
On second thought, I think I'll take WP's advice and let the secondary sources do the interpreting. Don't want to insert my bias into the equation, after all.
Additionally, in terms of legal action, I've never made any assumptions about it, because I'm not so familiar with the specifics. However, Wikipedia has several disclaimers for this purpose, and if this court case is any indication, it's unlikely Wikipedia can be held responsible for the actions and claims of third party sources. Of course, I'm no legal expert, so I could be wrong. --C.Logan 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your argument is ridiculous and long winded to boot. I have not "drawn any conclusions" from Dylan's statement. Again, I ask you to stop "spinning" the statements of others. I've allowed Dylan's words to stand on their own and be interpretted by the reader. You and your cohorts, by contrast, have failed to present the opposing point of view entirely. You and your "we" have accused User:Bus stop of edit warring. It may not occur to you and your team, that the ongoing stream of long winded, fanatical diatribes on this page seem to tell a very different story as to who the "edit warriors" are on this subject. Cleo123 07:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O-kay. Talking to you is really quite a trip. Reading over your comment several times, I find it laughable that you could suggest that I somehow 'spun' what you said. If you would step back and realize how you framed the quote, it would be quite clear to you that it is being presented as evidence against the secondary sources, i.e. you assume that the quote presents a view contradictory to that expressed in the secondary sources. I'm not saying that I'm innocent of doing the same, but I'm not the one making accusations of WP policy and guideline violations. Before you make any more accusations of the sort, you may want to make sure that you're not taking the same action that you accuse others of taking. As far as the rest of your comment goes, I'm amused that every accusation you've made about us could be reasonably made by us about your camp. I've tried to end this whole thing before, and I was hoping it'd be in a friendly manner, but it seems that all you fellows want nothing to do with that sort of resolution. --C.Logan 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, your edit history reveals a history of bizarre behavior including repeated requests that editors engage in "private discussions" with you. Yours is a history of what I see as trolling, stalking, harrassment and misrepresentaion of facts. No, we are not here to "be your friends" nor do I think other editors are impressed by your long rambling essays. Frankly, I think you need to take a break from all articles related to Bob Dylan. Cleo123 08:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You view things with such an interesting pair of lenses! Please do continue to accuse people of violating policies and guidelines that you apparently haven't read, and feel free to continue "interpreting" my edit history however you'd like. I look forward to many more unwarranted accusations and such. --C.Logan 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. I also am unsure why the "Jewish perspective", while relevant, should somehow "trump" all other perspectives, which seems to be at least an implicit argument in the statement Cleo made above. Personally, I would think that the perspective of the person involved, rather than that of any outside group, would probably be most relevant. So if, for instance, a person who converted to religion B from religion A pointedly stated that their "covnersaion" was a complete rejection of the earlier religion, then that would qualify as apostasy. If they stated that they thought it was an "evolution" or similar term which did not seem to renounce the earlier beliefs, then it would constitute a conversion. If not such specific statement is forthcoming from the individual in question, but there are a number of other statements from similar converts regarding their own opinion of their change in belief, and those statements are not counterindicated in the statements of the specific subject individual, then it would be fair to characterize their apparent "conversion" or whatever the way the others who had made specific statements would, citing that third party as the source for the statement regarding the way they perceived the relationship between the religions. I say this particularly taking into account that all the religions which have evolved in the Levant share a common history as Abrahamic religions, and are all inherently related. I also thought taking one perspective, particularly if it is not uniformly agreed to and from a particular "side", as it were, was a clear violation of WP:POV. In the case in question, Dylan, I personally believe that such statements requied specific sources for the so-called "Jewish perspective". I think a reference to any sort of official document or statement of a widely recognized and respected Jewish group would qualify under these terms as being, if not definitive, at least generally reputable. Please indicate to me where such a specific document or statement has been made, as I personally have to admit that I do not remember ever seeing it. John Carter 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that discussion of the "Jewish perspective" specifically referred to an offensive proposal made on this page that Dylan be included on a list of Converts to Judaism, as some sort of compromise. Within the context of discussions related to the Dylan article, attempts to explain Jewish beliefs (such as matriarchial lineage) have been treated with hostility and rejected. There is a profound lack of sensitivity towards the Jewish Community eminating from editors on the other side of this argument. Cleo123 06:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not however find any specific sources on that discussion, however, As I remember, we are supposed to supply such. Please indicate to me which specific sources were earlier cited, as requested in such instances, so that I can review them. John Carter 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where your statement is coming from. All anyone has asked you to do is provide sources for article content. Your repeated demands that I provide sources for every talk page comment I post is most unusual. You do not seem to be making similar demands of other editors. Can't you read the discussion above on this page? Why would I have to provide a citation for the proposal that Dylan be included on a list of Converts to Judaism? Are you incapable of scrolling up the page? Or is this just some form of harassment, designed at make editing as unpleasant as possible per WP:HARRASS?
Anyone who does not believe that there is an overtly hostile tone eminating from your camp, need only read the Dylan article talk page for confirmation. As for attempts to explain Jewish beliefs being met with hostility, here's an example, specific to the maternal lineage discussion. [22] As for your apparent lack of sensitivity towards the Jewish community, I can think of no finer example than your repeated off point references to the Nazi occupation during WWII. [23] Was this an attempt to intimidate or merely just upset the many self-identified Jewish editors you were addressing? It is hard to believe that anyone would be so callous as to point to the Nazi occupation (as a defense) within the context of a discussion that relates to listing and documenting religious affiliations, particularly in a debate with Jews. I, for one, found the repeated introduction of the Nazi occupation into the discussion to be disrespectful and offensive. Cleo123 05:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem easily offended and ready to accuse, and your histrionic presentation is also a little bit stressful. I can certainly sound like a jerk when I feel as if I'm repeating an argument over and over again to someone who isn't listening (not that that's any excuse), but considering the above comment directed towards John Carter, it seems like you might need to WP:CHILLOUT. I may deserve criticism for my occasional attitude and sarcasm, but John Carter has been extremely reasonable and civil. I'm certain that John didn't mean to offend anyone with his statements, and I don't know if anyone besides you actually took his statements offensively. --C.Logan 10:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 3[edit]

Although I was the first to vote strong keep, I think it is a great idea to tag all unsourced, unfoot-noted entries with {{fact}} tags. If they don't accuire sources in 1 month? delete them. --Knulclunk 00:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I could in general agree with the statement above, except perhaps in cases where there is substantial content in the subject's own page with references for the information here. I really only say that because of the large number of names involved (over 300) and because no project has yet "tagged" the article. Personally, I think the best project to deal with all the converts articles would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, as the members of that project would (I hope) have the broadest base of knowledge of all the religions. Thoughts? John Carter 00:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to work on this task. I've made a small start on the List by adding a few sources to the Agn/Ath category, but I've lost steam (laziness). I'd be willing to make an official attempt to go over the article and provide sources/ remove names. --C.Logan 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could as well, at least regarding my area of specialty, the Saints. I assume sources like Alban Butler's "Lives" would be sufficient for those articles, even if it is the only source initially cited in those instances? John Carter 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not, as an initial. I suppose it's more important that everything is sourced at all before focusing on individual entries. Once this is accomplished, we could take more time on boosting each individual entry with more verifiable, reliable sources. --C.Logan 01:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the delete arguments. Bulldog123 12:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: It's bunk. Unfortunately it's complete Christian bunk. Dylan, the superstar, is a prize they can't resist, even if it is not rightfully theirs. Judaism is completely ambivalent about acquiring converts. The same cannot be said about Christianity. This page should be deleted because it's clique of editors have demonstrated the capacity to use it irresponsibly. Sources have areas of applicability and areas of inapplicability. The sources cited support the use of terms referring to conversion in 1979 or 1980. One does not extrapolate forward in time to 2007 using those same sources. If we were compiling this list in 1980 it would be justified to put Bob Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity. That is not the case now. But, in point of fact, perhaps paradoxically, we do extrapolate forward from time of birth. Religion at birth does have lasting influence. This is not so strange. We all know that early experiences can have lasting effect. One's early experiences are understood to have bearing throughout life. Dylan's Christian phase cannot be said to have comparable bearing on his religious identity at this time. Dylan has not been seen to have anything to do with Christianity since 1980. Do Wikipedia rules say that we must make absurd assertions? The whole article should be deleted. Christianity's need to acquire converts (at least in the hands of the small clique of editors who have been maintaining and guarding it) renders this article unmaintainable. Bus stop 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I can't even follow that comment. It just reads like a rant. Is there a rebuttal you want from me or something? Bulldog123 07:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Bulldog123 -- The above was not addressed to you. Though it appears beneath your comment, it is not a response to you; it is a response to earlier material. Sorry for the confusion. Sorry if it is a bit "rant-like." Bus stop 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop: Just a comment, but I believe this list is not simply for people that are currently christians, but ones who converted in the past. So your insistence that he is now Jewish should be on the bob dylan page. And PS, why did you not respond to my response on your talk page? I actually am curious. SECProto 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religion and religious conversion are private matters and should remain so, Modernist 14:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: By that logic, we would have to remove all references to religion and/or conversion from all bios at wikipedia. All lists and categories related to religion would have to go as well. Next we would have to remove all references to sexuality, family life, political views etc - all of which are arguably "private matters". Wikipedia would be applying standards that do not apply anywhere else in scholarship or the media and, at the end of the day, a large portion of the material here would be worthless. JJay 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, in many of these cases, the subject's personal life is closely and directly related to their rather public conversion. Actually, considering that most of those referenced have an explicit source referring to their conversion in their own article, if not yet this one (we're working on that) I would think most to all of them qualify as public conversions. On that basis, I think it is inappropriate to refer to these conversions which are all, at least to some degree publicized in the media, as "private". John Carter 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: This is all bunk. The sources supporting the use of terms relating to conversion have an area of applicability, restricted by time. Those sources do not necessarily confer "conversion" on a person at a future point in time. As we have seen, "conversion" to Christianity is accomplished by just about anything, including nothing at all. That is not according to me. That is according to the editors supporting inclusion of Dylan in this list of converts to Christianity. They have argued that some denominations of Christianity do not require anything at all to mark the transition to identity as Christian. Conversion can safely be thought of as a pretty meaningless term, as concerns conversion to Christianity. This is not mean-spiritedness on my part. This is simple description, based on the fact that Christianity requires little in the way of formal evidence of passage into membership in the religion. I make no value judgement. I just report what I see. But even if we do attribute to "conversion" a substantiality beyond indications, that still would not mean it is applicable 27 years later. There is no indication Dylan has had anything to do with Christianity since approximately 1980. We know perfectly well that early experiences in life are important to us. Dylan's identity as Jew is applicable throughout his life, unless he actively negates it. If we were writing this article in 1980 we would have sources that support including Dylan in a list of converts to Christianity. But at this time we do not. His early experiences as a Jew inform his life. It can safely be assumed that the formative years of one's life have lasting importance. The years 1979 and 1980 cannot be used to label Dylan a Christian. One reason is that conversion to Christianity has very little in the way of apparent meaning. But also, the absence of Christianity for 27 years of Dylan's life indicates it's unimportance to the him, not it's importance to him. Bus stop 15:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the last statement above by Bus stop is at best a gross distortion, and possibly at worst an intentional one, of the position of the other parties. Bus stop explicitly says "they have argued that some denominations of Christianity do not requiore anything at all to mark the transition into the identity as Christian". The at all is I believe at best a clear misrepresentation of the statements of these others. I would acknowledge that not all cases require the type of formal ceremony which Bus stop and others seem to believe is the only evidence they will find acceptable. This is true, and the Vineyard movement is one such case which seemingly does not require, or even necessarily create, any sort of documentation of conversion. As stated before, to follow Bus stop's argument to its logical conclusion, all of the content relating to these groups within Christianity would have to be deleted on the basis that they cannot indicate that they are notable in the specific way Bus stop, in I believe direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Notability, finds to be the only kind of evidence acceptable. I humbly ask the above editor to review that page and its related pages (hitting the link provided works) and reviewing that information. If Bus stop or others can point to specific clauses and/or details in that page or the related pages which support their contentions, I and I believe all the other parties involved in this discussion would be more than happy to review it. Again, I note that the above user is to date the only party named in the request for mediation who has not already demonstrated a willingness to achieve a final, supportable conclusion to this discussion. I, and anyone else even remotely interested in this discussion, can only speculate as to why that would be the case. John Carter 15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge problem with that argument in that your sources contradict one another. New Zealand's Dominion Newspaper (I won't even begin to comment on the reliability of the source.) which has repeatedly been held out as one of your team's most explict sources for Dylan]'s formal conversion affiliates Dylan with the Assembly of God, not the Vineyard Movement.[24] According to Wikipedia, the Assembly of God holds baptism among its tenants. Baptism in Christ is specifically tied to conversion. This organization seems to keep records. So, if he formally converted, where are they? No one has demanded a baptism record or anything like that. A date might be nice. The location of where the "baptism" your side has claimed took place. Perhaps, a witness such as a godparent/sponsor? In response to requests for sources on the "baptism" what has repeatedly been presented is a murky self-published statement from a pastor with the Vineyard Movement who doesn't say where and when this baptism might have taken place - but it happened! Oh, yes, it happened! [25]
At issue here is not whether Dylan went through a Christian phase, but whether or not that phase rose to the level of a formal conversion that can be presented as a sourced fact that can stand alone outside the confines of an article. Cleo123 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1) There are no "teams" here. There are no "sides" here. Your language is misplaced and innapropriate; 2) What exactly are you implying regarding the "reliability" of The Dominion? Is that meant as some kind of slur against New Zealand? I'm fed up with the innuendo that has been splattered all over his page. If you know something about the source spell it out; 3) Considering that you have argued Bob Dylan returned to Judaism based on his singing Hava Nagalia at a Chabad telethon (please inform Kareem Abdul Jabbar that he is now a Jew [26]) or a vague report in the Daily News that included the tidbit that Dylan was about to marry a hasidic woman, I find your comment regarding the sources disingenuous at best. --JJay 10:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not misrepresent facts. In addition to the youtube video, [27] I also supplied four other sources, [28] [29] [30][31] including a statement from Dylan himself that contradicts claims made by certain Wikipedians : “I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing.”
As for Dylan's 1989 “Hava Negilah” performance, he’s doing a bit more than performing there. He’s publicly supporting Chabad, a Jewish outreach organization that holds among its missions combating Christian groups that target Jews for conversion. To an astute observer, his attire (a dark suit, no tie, kippah and what appear to be sidelocks, or payot) makes a very explicit statement about his religious identity.
Anyone can see for themselves that the New York Daily News article that I provided as a source, titled “1960s Superstar Dylan is Worshipping with Hasidic Jewish Group in Brooklyn” [32] is not “vague” nor is the article’s focus a pending engagement. An interesting attempt to spin the content of the reliable source that has been supplied to refute false statements. Among other things the article says:“Bob Dylan, the reclusive pop superstar of the 1960s, has spent parts of the last four years living and worshipping with the ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn's Lubavitch community. Members of the community say that Dylan, 45, has been taking instruction from Talmudic scholars and listening to talks by Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Schneerson.” Unlike the sources for “baptism” – the article is quite specific.
More importantly, it characterizes Dylan’s “Christian Phase” not as a formal conversion as some Wikipedians might like us to believe but as a “flirtation”:“Dylan has made a long spiritual journey that began with the protest and drug culture and included a flirtation with fundamentalist Christianity in the late 1970s. Now he attends farbrengens, gatherings where Schneerson speaks to followers for hours.” The article also references Dylan’s trip to Isreal for his son’s Bar Mitzvar. If Dylan were a practicing Christian, wouldn’t he be having his son baptized or confirmed as opposed to Bar Mitzvahed???
Many an editor involved with this discussion has touted the NY Times as the reliable source for Dylan’s conversion to Christianity. One of the Times references’ that has been thrust forward as evidence of verifiability, says the following:"Mr. Dylan's record has been preceded by months of rumor as to whether he has or had not converted to fundamentalist Christianity. The new record may give no guarantees for the future, but it does attest to the fact that, for the moment, Mr. Dylan is very definitely and overtly dealing in just that imagery." Rumor? Did I miss something? When did it become acceptable for Wikipedians to present rumors as fact?
I sincerely hope that I have satisfied User:JJAY and any other editors who continue to refute the fact that Dylan is not a Christian. The ongoing stream of requests for citations is little more than a smokescreen designed to divert attention from the real issue at hand, which is the deletion of this list, which is unencyclopedic and violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The page has become a magnate for edit warring and abuse. In its current closely guarded format, it violates WP:SOAPBOX and is rife for violations of WP:BLP that create potential libel and invasion of privacy issues for Wikipedia. It is not useful. Cleo123 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: JJay -- There are no "teams" here? Why don't you offer constructive criticism? Perhaps you could point out that this is a contentious issue. That passions are aroused. If you find the choice of word "team" not to your liking then there is a nice way of pointing that out. Your way of communication creates a hostile atmosphere, in my opinion. Speak politely to people. Don't reach for the most confrontational language you can find. Try to understand others' points of view. Try not to characterize other peoples' input as "disingenuous at best."
Comment: From someone who has accused the editors of this article of "antisemitism", who speaks of a "biased Christian agenda", who engages in conspiracy mongering by accusing editors of perpetuating the "forced conversion" of Jews, you are extremely poorly placed to respond to my remarks. If this is a "contentious" issue, if "passions are aroused", I know squarely where I would place the blame. By my count, you have edited this page 75 times. That is not only excessive, by all measures, but your posts here have also been filled with outrageous accusations, slander and attacks on the integrity of other editors. You have done your best to turn this debate into a Christian-Jew confrontation. You have done your best to stir up religious hatred and hysteria on this page. You have done your best to create a poisonous atmosphere on this page - to the point where you feel compelled to defend the use of "confrontational language" such as "sides" or "teams". I have objected to that from the beginning and will continue to object. If you sincerely feel that my comment is innapropriate, I would invite you to pursue the matter in another forum - where I will be more than pleased to respond with an itemization of diffs from you that have no place anywhere at wikipedia. --JJay 18:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To whom is this remark addressed? Cleo123 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: John Carter -- Yes -- delete the whole thing. I see the list of converts to Christianity not as a compilation of information. I see it as a display of trophies. Christianity places a premium on acquiring converts, does it not? Christianity asserts that Jesus is the Messiah, does it not? Judaism does not accept that Jesus is a Messiah, is that not so? We know perfectly well by way of a grisly history, not to mention plain logic, that it sticks in the craw of some Christians that the "Jew" does not concur with their assessment of the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. I say just delete the whole page. It is demonstrably the locus of abuse. It is not being used to accumulate information. It has various agendas. Why not write separate articles on notable converts to Christianity, if that hasn't been done already, and leave it at that? List form is not the appropriate form for handling complex subjects. Regardless of our differing points of view, I find it outrageous that anyone can think they can reduce information such as Bob Dylan's religious identity to "convert to Christianity." It's ridiculous. It is laughable. It's absurd. It is ludicrous. Since the list has to be used for the promotion of Christianity it has to be deleted. Even this AfD page is indication that the article must be deleted. This discussion has been characterized by unbudging commitment to a simplification that I personally find remarkable. I can not imagine insisting on the simplified characterization of a living, complex, being, that I hear you and others arguing for here. It is remarkable. Please, just delete the list so you will abuse it no more. Bus stop 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only thank the above user for explicitly demonstrating by his above comment his failure to assume good faith and explicitly indicating that his own point of view is the driving force behind his nomination of the article for deletion, and presumably the majority of his other activities in this regard. John Carter 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Bus Stop and Modernist both appear next to each other on this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts and strangely the only communication between the two EVER seems to be "a barnstar" from Modernist to Bus Stop congratulating Bus Stop for sticking to his/her guns User_talk:Bus_stop#Sticking_to_your_guns in relation to this issue. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: What does that indicate to you, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel? Bus stop 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gustav - that is beside the point. I've worked with them on visual projects as well. Many of the supporters of this list have also worked together on "Christian" projects. Although I diagree with BusStop on this topic, he is certianly allowed to gather for support for his cause.--Knulclunk 16:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I guess he's just saying that my modernist views are not in keeping with the religiosity of the subject matter under discussion. Bus stop 17:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you ever communicated with this Modernist person on Wikipedia other than him/her awarding you a "barnstar" congratulating you on your sterling efforts in stirring up this Bob Dylan issue? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop still hasn't explained why when he/she has never communicated with User:Modernist on Wikipedia, despite their similar interests, Modernist ends up placing a "barnstar" on Bus Stop's page congratulating Bus Stop in their persistence in trying to delete this article? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Or perhaps he's reacting to your canvassing and forum shopping [33] [34], which is distinctly frowned upon and can lead to blocking. JJay 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you're busy trying to get User:Bus stop blocked for letting two editors know about this debate, you may want to file a complaint against your pal User:C.Logan, who has blatantly asked for a vote. [35] Cleo123 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Read Wikipedia:Canvassing before you accuse, thanks. --C.Logan 07:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it strange that there are two people who both have "123" on their name who both voted to delete this article- User:Cleo123 and User:Bulldog123? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are implying that there is sockpuppetry at work here, I suggest you make a request to Check User. There is absolutely no connection what-so-ever between myself and User:Bulldog123. Such allegations fly in the face of WP:CIVIL. 123 is hardly an "uncommon" sequence of numbers. How sad that anyone would stoop to innuendo of this nature to try and discount valid votes for deletion. Cleo123 01:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gustav- I'm against Bus stop and Cleo in this issue, but I wouldn't suggest you make accusations. If you have suspicions, then you're free to check them out for yourself, but if you're incorrect, it makes you and your position look bad. I noted the similarities as well, but as far as I know, they're just similarities. --C.Logan 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way my input here is my perogative as an editor, as to my awarding the Barnstar, that also was my right as an editor. And yes User:Knulclunk and I and other editors have worked together on other projects, Thank you, Modernist 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Shouldn't assuming good faith extend to depending on the integrity, strength, and articulation of one's own argument? Bus stop 17:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responses: (1)Whose arguments are we talking about here? If your own, then your to date total failure to show any sources for your own position, despite repeated requests from others to do so, clearly detracts from its "integrity, strength and articulation". (2) If referring to others, I honestly think that the best place to discuss changing guidelines is the talk page of the guideline in question, not a forum such as this one. John Carter 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: John Carter -- I'm talking about anybody's arguments. In fact, a person's argument begins in the choosing stage. Obviously one should only choose an argument that one feels one is right about. To me it makes no sense to put Bob Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity. Yes, there exists grounds for the argument you make. But they are not the substantial grounds for not putting him on that list. Is this not the argument that has been going on from day one, of this discussion? Sources that he was born a Jew? Sources that 27 years have elapsed since the last known contact between Dylan and anything of a Christian nature? What would you like me to bring sources for? Bus stop 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A preferable start would be a source which supports your age-old claim that Dylan did not convert to Christianity. Considering the fact that you choose not to accept the validity of these sources, I'm curious as to what alternate source leads you to your current view, which is at odds with the reliable, verifiable, and WP:BLP-compliant biographies that we have presented as sources. I mean, you have the right to deny the validity of sources on your own time, but on Wikipedia, if you want to make suggestions that Dylan did not actually convert to Christianity in spite of what the sources state, then it's reasonable that you would at least present a reliable, verifiable and WP:BLP-compliant source to support your viewpoint, so that we know it's not just something you thought up on your own after lunch one day. Additionally, why would we need sources saying that he was born a Jew? You know that a.) this is not in dispute, and b.) birth religion plays no part in the parameters of the list; it only effects where on the list they are placed. It should be apparent that we don't want sources of that kind. As far as the 27-year sources go... once again, an argument from ignorance. A source which claims that he has had no public, known involvement with Christianity for 27 years does not prove anything except that he has had no public, known involvement with Christianity for 27 years. Like I've said, it is suggestive of that fact, but it is not logical proof. As you've demanded sources which were quite literal and explicit in their claims of conversion (and we have supplied them), then it would make sense that you should submit a source which makes explicit and detailed claims regarding Dylan's return to practicing Judaism. You should also consider the fact that the sources we have presented also take his time with the Lubavitchers and Chabad into consideration, but brush them aside as cultural, rather than religious, involvement in his Jewish heritage. So, thats essentially all we're asking for, in terms of Dylan's personal history and such. As far as the argument for inclusion, it would be nice if you could again summarize which policies and/or guidelines you believe we are violating by standing by the criterion of this list. That's all I can think of at the moment. Any sources you could present would be welcome, especially if they detail new information that we haven't been over several times already.--C.Logan 20:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: C.Logan -- Dylan need not "return to practicing Judaism." Dylan need only return to being a Jew. That is accomplished by his having been born a Jew. We understand a person's early influences as being important, so much so, that we assume that they persist through life, unless we see active negation of them. On the other hand we don't assume brief stages in a person's life, that are abandoned, to have lasting significance. We understand the abandonment to be indicative of a change of heart, and a parting of ways with that concept, or whatever that thing might be. As far as your unearthing of sources indicating conversion I will have to say again they are decidedly flakey. Someone said something happened at some time but they are not sure where. Is that a reasonable recapitulation of your source? But yes, you've found a source that is good enough for Wikipedia's purposes. But it, like all sources, has an area of applicability and an area of inapplicability. Were we writing this article in 1980 your source would support calling Dylan a convert to Christianity. And from the present point in time, your source supports reference to Dylan's conversion. But your source does not support the categorizing of Dylan as a convert to Christianity in the year 2007. A Jew does not get categorized as a Christian. The phrase convert to Christianity is an assertion that the person is a Christian. Christianity does not even have standards of conversion to Christianity. It is debatable if anyone is a convert to Christianity. It would seem that conversion to Christianity is an ongoing process, requiring continued input from the convert. How else to find meaning in "conversion to Christianity?" You and others have argued that conversion is accomplished by just about anything. The "sermonettes" delivered from the stage, between songs, were said to constitute conversion. Has Dylan given "sermonettes" in 27 years? Have you ever heard the phrase easy come, easy go? It is applicable here. Dylan's apparent lack of involvement in Christianity is not indicative of his ongoing attraction to it. Dylan need do nothing to be a Jew. If he is not actively negating his Jewish identity then it applies to him because it is his religion of birth and his abiding religion. It is his early childhood. Why would it go away? It would seem these principles would be applicable to other converts to Christianity as well. If Christianity has little or no standards for conversion then doesn't that place increased emphasis on ongoing involvement in order to perpetuate identity? Would you argue that a brief encounter with Christianity marks a person for life as a convert to Christianity? Bus stop 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan was, is and will always be ethnically and culturally Jewish. He does not need to return to "being a Jew", as he is a Jew in these senses regardless of his religious beliefs, just as Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger is always a Jew, by his birth and by his culture (and he also happens to be a Jew who believes that his Catholicism is an extension of his Judaism). However, Dylan does need to return to belief in the tenets of Judaism to be considered a religious Jew. How does this not make sense to you? Dylan could have become an atheist after his Christian beliefs faded; what makes you think he returned to believing in the tenets of Jewish faith? What leads you to believe that his involvement with Jewish organizations is any more than 'just' a cultural thing (as Nigel Williamson's biography claims)? I'm not claiming if it is one way or the other, but I am saying that it is foolish for you to assume that no sources are needed to support your argument.
As far as the 'flakey' sources are concerned, I believe a more accurate summary of the sources would be: "Widely respected Dylan experts write extensive biographies on Dylan, cover his religious conversion, and offer personal quotes from Dylan's pastor, but Bus stop assumes that he knows more about Dylan than these biographers, and he assumes that the pastor's quotes are the only source the biographers have for Dylan's conversion- therefore, by Bus stops logic, because a pastor cannot recall from memory the time and place of an incident, his testimony is false and 'mired in the agenda of proselytizing', and the entire section of the biography devoted to Dylan's religious conversion has no validity".
A (religious) Jew does not get categorized as a Christian, but a (religious Jew) does get categorized has someone who converted to Christianity, if they did happen to do so in 1979. Nevermind the fact that this particular (religious) Jew who converted to Christianity in 1979 has no sources as of yet that make the claim that this particular Jew has actually, truthfully returned to the tenets of Judaism and rejected his Christian beliefs.
As far as your misinformed opinion of conversion to Christianity goes, maybe you should read for yourself a bit. Though the Conversion to Christianity article needs improvement, it provides at least some information which may rid you of misconceptions. Professions of faith and baptisms are considered to the two main entrances into the Christian faith. According the the biographies, Dylan underwent both. --C.Logan 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: C.Logan -- Catholicism is an extension of Judaism? Someone may have said that is so. I don't accept it. I don't think anyone reading these posts accepts it. Just because someone said something does not make it so. Christianity is centrally based around Jesus the Messiah. Judaism doesn't accept that. Judaism rejects that. You are saying black is white. Fine. No one accepts that. If you've found a source for that, fine. It may represent a minority opinion. But it is a very minority opinion. It is for all purposes irrelevant.
As far as your suggestion that Dylan may have become an atheist, in point of fact many Jews are atheists. That doesn't invalidate their Judaism. We are here talking about basics. We are not talking about someone's out on a limb view.
I still think your source for conversion is flakey. You have one individual who says that over a several day period "Baptism" took place, he knows not where but probably in the ocean. He was not there. We have no witness to such "Baptism." That, in my opinion, is "flakey." But I believe other, fairly reasonable people (in the Wikipedia discussions), have accepted it as a source, so I go along with that. Bus stop 23:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop: You should refrain from overanalyzing an aside. I regret that you've wasted your words doing so, when it was entirely irrelevant to the point of my comment. That's not supposed to sound rude, just a note.
And yes, I'm aware that many Jews are atheists. I've known quite a few. Being a Jewish atheist doesn't revoke your cultural and ethnic Judaism, but it definitely removes you from your religious Judaism. You are still a Jew, but you are not a believer in the Jewish faith (although one could participate in the rituals and services and be atheist or agnostic, I'm referring to those who do not believe and do not go through the motions of it). What I am saying is, simply, if one leaves a thing, they are alien to it, lest they make effort to return to this thing. Culture and ethnic elements may never leave a Jewish person, but the religion can. And one can return to their faith, but it is not a seamless process- lines of division from one belief to the other must be drawn. This is why I'm saying that if Dylan left his Jewish religious beliefs (the ones which are antithetical to Christianity) for Christian beliefs, then he must 'return' to these beliefs, and must renounce his Christian beliefs. As far as I've read, Bob's pretty vague about the whole issue. He seems to have a syncretic view of the two faiths (just my interpretation).
I appreciate your somewhat-acceptance of the sources. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I understand your skepticism about the account given. I disagree with you in the final assessment, though. --C.Logan 02:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bus stop, you are still seemingly refusing to pay attention to the fact that virtually everyone acknowledges, and even the content of the list acknowledges, that changes may have been made in the beliefs of all subjects involved since the time of their conversion, and are still arguing that, apparently according to your own definition of the terms for inclusion on this list, which are of course not in agreement with those stated in the article itself, inclusion must be based on current status. On that basis, I would have to say that the "integrity, strength, and articulation" of your comments is nil, because at least part of your position is in fact irrelevant to the extant content. You do make a decent argument (although, of course, you still seem to think that the guideline for providing sources doesn't apply to you) for your position, but the position you are arguing is not in fact at all relevant to the discussion. John Carter 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: John Carter -- That is a contrivance. It is not a natural interest of people to want to have a list of all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity. That is a contrivance. If the person abandoned Christianity then it is something of fleeting importance. An area of naturally occurring interest is the category of all those notable Christians who arrived at Christianity by way of conversion. That distinguishes between those who made a conscious choice, perhaps in mid life, to choose to embrace Christianity, and those who were born into Christianity, through no choice of their own. Wikipedia has a policy, called WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. I think it is applicable here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. The variety of criteria that one can devise for a list are limitless. By the way, I just checked the first version of this list, from January 17, 2006, and Bob Dylan is already on it. He is one of only three people. Is Bob Dylan important to this list? Reach your own conclusion. Bus stop 00:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note once again you are relying on terms which have no specific meaning in wikipedia or relevance to whether the subject qualifies under inclusion. Please indicate to me exactly where the word or concept "contrivance" is mentioned in any wikipedia policy or guideline, and I will be able to respond to you on that point. Until then, however, it looks to me like all you are doing is using big words to hide the fact that you don't have that much of a solid argument to stand upon. However, I believe even you would acknowledge (1) that referring to an original version is probably not something that is necessarily relevant (without knowing who or why the article was created, or who have added to it since then), (2) what sources the individual who created the article had when creating it (maybe this was a subject included in the scanty sources they used? Who knows?) and (3) it would help if you cited exactly how this article violates the policy you indicated above, rather than simply making others try to draw the same conclusions that you do. Personally, I am not myself convinced that the article as it stands is necessarily constructed in the best way possible. However, the specific terms of that policy you cited permitted inclusion of individuals who are famous (or notable) because of their status as falling in the given group. I think that in many cases, (some of the sainted martyrs could arguably not qualify here, I dunno, as well as some of the academics) these individuals have achieved recognition through ways dissociated from their religious beliefs. I don't necessarily know all the details of all these individuals, however, so hesitate to make such blanket statements. However, in the case under primary consideration, Bob Dylan, he received a good deal of contemporary press coverage regarding his religious conversion (or however you want to determine it), and on that basis it could certainly be argued that his continuing fame and certainly his fame at that time are closely and creditably linked to his "conversion". On that basis, I believe that that specific subject's inclusion in the list probably meets the standards for inclusion according to the policy you specified above. Also, some of the other most notable subjects included, including Augustine of Hippo, achieved at least part of their notability on the basis of their conversion. In his case, much of his work deals with the subject of how the mainstream Christianity of his time differed from the religious group from which he had converted. Were that not the case, it could certainly be rationally argued that he would be significantly less notable (because his own works would be less unique), and that as a result at least part of his notability, as it exists, is due to his conversion. Like I said, though, some of the martyrs who converted and others might not be notable enough specifically because of their conversion to necessarily qualify, although even there it could be argued that they wouldn't be martyrs if they hadn't converted, so it was a significant contributor to their acquiring the status which made them notable in the first place. Again, opinions, such as your own, are not the basis of this list, but some degree of verifiability. The content has been verified. In this case, I once again stress to you that asking people to "come to conclusions" or "read between the lines" is almost inherently POV, and something we should in no way be encouraging. John Carter 01:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was clearly not nominated in good faith when all the other articles NOT related to Christianity i.e. List of notable converts to Hinduism, List of notable converts to Islam, List of notable converts to Judaism, List of notable converts to Sikhism have not received one IOTA of complaint on their talkpages and have never been nominated for deletion by any of the users complaining so bitterly about the List of notable converts to Christianity. You would have thought if their reason was as they have stated that they oppose the List of notable converts to Christianity because it invades privacy and is insulting to other religions etc. that these other lists would have equally attracted their attentions. But no, they haven't uttered a word about them. Therefore it seems to me what we have here is partisan behaviour in extremis. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Gustav von Humpelschmumpel -- This article, it seems has some particularly egregious problems with it. I think it is a locus of abuse. And I think it may have been a locus of abuse from the start. It only occurred to me a few hours ago to look at the history of this article. There in the first iteration of this article, which was January 17, 2006, was Bob Dylan. There are only two other people there with him. To me that indicates Dylan is integral to this article. And that is not fair. I think that is further indication of an abusive purpose to this article. Dylan dabbled in Christianity in 1979 and 1980. That is no reason to label him a convert to Christianity. That is abuse of Wikipedia, in addition to it being the spreading of untrue information about Bob Dylan. Were this article, or a similar article, being written in 1980, you would have a source for asserting that Bob Dylan is a convert to Christianity. Clearly in 2007 you do not. You are going out on a limb to justify that assertion, but it doesn't hold up. Under scrutiny we see that for a brief period there was a theatrical coincidence of Christianity and Dylan's performances. If the Wikipedia Christianity project is abusive of the subject of converts to Christianity then it should have this article deleted. Dylan is a Jew. Judaism has at it's core a direct refutation of what has to be one of the central core significances of Christianity -- the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. It is offensive to misconstrue a Jew as a Christian. If they want to have a knowledge-oriented list, fine. At present we have abuse. Bus stop 13:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop isn't there evidence Dylan converted to Christianity i.e. he believed Jesus was the Messiah, but not evidence he no longer believes that he was or that he practices Judaism? Therefore the only thing we know for certain is that he converted to Christianity and we do not know if he still is a Christian or whether he now practices Judaism. Whichever is the case it in no way justifies the nomination of this whole article for deletion. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For what its worth, I hate religion-based lists; but at least this one requires citation. Most other lists assume religion. I would like in each case to know both that the conversion was cited, and that it can be demonstrated as notable as well. In the Dylan case, it caused some comment, and was relevant to his musical output for some years. Meets both criteria. Hornplease 15:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Gustav von Humpelschmumpel -- There is a source which I would call flakey which may be good enough for Wikipedia's purposes to support the use of the term conversion in relation to Dylan's activities in 1979, but good faith editing does not extrapolate the applicability of a source to areas where it doesn't have applicability. Dylan has not been negating his Jewishness since 1980. He was born a Jew; he received "bar mitzvah" at age 13. That is basic Jewish upbringing. That is basically the only source necessary for us to understand him being a Jew in later years, that is, in the absence of the active negation of his Jewishness. I don't know Wikipedia guidelines in relation to this but bad faith editing to a fairly great extent could quite possibly warrant deletion. Nonsense articles get deleted all the time. This article has a superficial seriousness of purpose. But the strained, farfetched reasoning employed in the insistence in the labeling of Dylan as a "convert to Christianity" may be indicative of an inability of passionate people act unbiased. Dylan need not "practice" Judaism at this time. It has no bearing on the fact of his presently being a Jew. As I see it, his not presently negating his Jewishness is all that is necessary to bring about the return of his Jewish identity. Many Jews are nonobservant. It doesn't detract from their Jewish identity in any way. No renunciation is called for (for past non-Jewish religious participation). In fact I don't think any provision for any such thing exists. Bus stop 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop why do you mention the fact he had a Bar Mitzvah as evidence he didn't convert or isn't still a Christian? He went through his Christian "phase" long after his Bar Mitzvah and presumably he was a little more mature then and could think for himself. Presumably most people on the "from Judaism" part of the list had a Bar Mitzvah so are you saying none of them should be there because of that? Is your opposition to this list based on the belief that you believe that noone born into Judaism can REALLY convert????? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Dylan has not been negating his Jewishness since 1980."
This is a very misleading and murky statement. Basically, it means "Dylan has done nothing to prove that he is not Jewish". Let's assume that somehow, you're referring to the religion, Judaism. Is this, in all actuality, your reasoning behind belief in Dylan's return to Judaism?
Because an entertainer has done nothing to negate suspicions of homosexuality, does this mean that he is gay? No, it doesn't. The absence of 'negation' is not the presence of proof.
I'm not suggesting that Dylan doesn't practice Judaism, but your arguments offer no reasonable evidence that he does.
And once again, don't confound cultural and ethnic terms with religious ones.
Spanish-ness does not require that the person practices Catholicism.
Arab-ness does not require that the person practices Islam.
Jewish-ness does not require that the person practices Judaism.
Participation in these cultures does not require religious belief.
Let's look at your comment from another perspective.
"This article has a superficial seriousness of purpose. But the strained, farfetched reasoning employed in the insistence in the labeling of Rodrigo as a "convert to Islam" may be indicative of an inability of passionate people act unbiased. Rodrigo need not "practice" Catholicism at this time. It has no bearing on the fact of his presently being a Catholic. As I see it, his not presently negating his Catholic-ness is all that is necessary to bring about the return of his Catholic identity. Many Catholics are nonobservant. It doesn't detract from their Catholic identity in any way. No renunciation is called for (for past non-Catholic religious participation). In fact I don't think any provision for any such thing exists."
The above paragraph sounds rather silly. This is partly because I've confounded certain things which are cultural (Spanish) with things which are religious (Catholic). I've done this to illustrate the misrepresentation and logical lapse which occurs with the confounding of two aspects of 'Jewish-ness': culture/ethnicity and religion. You may want to clarify which one you're referring to in your comments, as they are not one and the same.--C.Logan 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Gustav von Humpelschmumpel -- "Presumably" he could think for himself? "Presumably" he could have also found Christianity a good prop for his music. I mentioned that he received "bar mitzvah" to emphasize his Jewish upbringing, going even beyond his Jewish birth. Do we not understand early, formative, experiences in life as tending to have long lasting effect? I didn't say no person who is Jewish can convert. I made the point that in the absence of active negation of their original religion, the newly adopted religion may be suspect. Dylan's non-involvement in Christianity since he stepped down from the stage in 1980 at which he gives his last Gospel music concert is indicative of his non-interest in Christianity. One does not give "evidence" that an individual didn't convert. That is proving a negative, a difficult thing to do. An editor making an assertion bears the responsibility of providing a citation that supports it. Bus stop 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"One does not give 'evidence' that an individual didn't convert. That is proving a negative, a difficult thing to do."
From the above, it would seem the burden of proof is still upon you to show that Dylan renounced his Christian beliefs and returned to believing in and practicing Judaism. Once again, don't confound religious things and cultural/ethnic things.
"An editor making an assertion bears the responsibility of providing a citation that supports it."
I knew you had it in you all along. --C.Logan 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep simply due to nomination in bad faith - this list does not revolve around bob dylan, and he simply should not even be mentioned on this page as anything to do with rationale for deleting or keeping. As it stands, this "list" is truly a mess and could use quite a bit more sources - as religion can be a touchy subject with some. That said, my vote is still keep, since it the possibility of being a good article. SECProto 17:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Changing vote to Delete. While I still object wholeheartedly to the reasons for nomination, I believe that even when comparing to other lists on here, this one is truly pointless. And just as a mention, those other lists for converts to islam, judaism, etc should be deleted if this one is. and just as an opinion, almost all lists on here should be deleted. SECProto 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Changing vote back to keep. I'm hopping around like a rabbit. I maintain my position that a lot of lists are of very little use, but this one is not one of those. It requires a lot of citations that it doesn't have, though. SECProto 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'lists'? Do you mean all lists, or just religion-affiliated lists? Why do you feel that this one is pointless? Just a few questions. --C.Logan 18:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: C.Logan -- Religious contentiousness is a problem. I know -- there is no Wikipedia policy against this. But why create a situation in which 1) religious passions are aroused, and 2) there is not adequate space to resolve them into a "presentable" picture? A list does not allow for adequate handling of each situation. It is unwise to have a list of converts to any religion. It arouses passions. And no two convert's situation is the same. We are talking in most cases about adults making choices in the middle of complex lives. Adequate handling of such a situation calls for prose text. List form makes the unlikely assumption that all on the list share something in common. Maybe, but just as likely not. The Bob Dylan article can devote several sentences or paragraphs to adequately fleshing out a picture of what transpired. An article is also less likely to be abused because the population visiting the page is proportional to the importance of the person in the eyes of the readership. In the present "List" article you have a powerful and controversial and largely unchallenged statement being made about Bob Dylan in a section that is unlikely to even be visited by people interested in Bob Dylan. Bus stop 19:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the above comment sound to me like someone who has started a fight and is then trying to blame the person he fought for the fight after the fact? John Carter 19:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: John Carter -- I am just responding to a subject being discussed. They were discussing whether there should be lists of converts to religion. I have a feeling about it. So I expressed it. Bus stop 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I have been thinking about the ways I use wikipedia, what pages I do and do not look at. And I realized, the way I get between articles has never had anything to do with lists. As a completely random example, see the page List of counties in Indiana by population. While this is good because it has links to all the counties, and their populations, it is useless. One person might come to it and say "oh perfect, its organized by population so i can see what is the tenth largest county by population!". But the next person might come along and think "oh no, it isn't organized alphabetically, so now I have to go through it and figure out which one is the first alphabetical county" or "but which county is furthest north?". On the topic more at hand, this list of notable converts to christianity (or judaism or sikhism, the other articles are all the same boat) is pointless. To get to the page, someone would probably first have to find a link, from someone who is on the list. I just fail to see what purpose it serves. I think basic lists are pretty much pointless. But since these aren't really reasons for deletion, maybe i should change my vote of "delete" to "abstain" or "comment"? SECProto 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you may never find yourself using lists, but many readers/editors do. Wikipedia has a lot of features that may or may not be useful to each reader/editor. For instance, I've never found categories very useful. I've always preferred lists because more detail can be given for each entrant than in a category, and more information can be supplied throughout a list article.
When I go to categories, I see only names. I don't learn very much beyond the names of people I recognize, unless I choose to click arbitrarily on a person listed and read about them. I've always found lists to be more useful, because summaries can be given, and they act as an inviting doormat to the person's article. For instance, "Abdul Rahman (convert)" may not really catch anyone's interest and inquiry, but "Abdul Rahman (convert) (born 1965), Christian who faced the death penalty in 2006 for converting from Islam", gives me a better idea of the subject and provides me with an incentive to read the article behind the name.
According to the Wikipedia list guideline, a list...:
"may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles)."
The fact that many editors may bicker over how the list should be organized and the fact that lists can be difficult to find in the first place are, as you said, not really reasons for deletion.
As far as the accessibility of lists goes, there are often difficulties, but this can be remedied by providing more internal links on related articles. One might find the list by clicking on the category link of a person who's included on the list. They might also find the list by researching Christianity, and moving around through related articles. They could also find the list by using a directory of lists (a preferable approach for a research starting point).
Some lists may seem pointless, but many people find them to be very useful. I would suggest that you 'abstain', but you already know that my opinion lies with keeping the article. As you've pointed out, the issues you've listed are worth noting, but they are not cause for deletion. --C.Logan 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:And what if you were doing research on Muslim converts to Christianity, or Jewish converts to Christianity? How would you go about finding information on the subject without this list? --JJay 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SEC do I guess correctly that you saying the category is all that is needed? That would seem wrong headed to me be as surely it is much easier to make sure a list is properly sourced and to watch it for any additions. The categories in my opinion should just be seen as ways of linking lists to articles and providing an instant information snapshot to a reader. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alrgiht gustav, I agree, lists are much easier to ensure they are sourced - but in this case, the list needs a lot of sources. For almost everyone. Maybe they can be found in the articles on the people, but right now, it is no more reliable than a category. SECProto 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. SECProto 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is filled with inaccuracies and original research, and is an Original Research magnet, as these kinds of articles inevitably are. For example, the "from Judaism" section is filled with people who never practiced Judaism to begin with, or whose religion is unknown, but who simply happen to have some sort of Jewish ancestry. How can someone whose article says they were "raised atheist" or who "went to church as a child" be considered to have "converted from Judaism to Christianity"? Yet Tamsin Greig and Kathy Lee Gifford were both on the list. I'm sure there are dozens more like that, and always will be. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that these two could be removed from the list, the list included information questioning the status of both of these individuals. Kathy Lee Gifford is included in Category:Jewish American singers and Category:Jewish American actors. Is the Gifford article thus an OR magnet? And should those cats be deleted as well? Note that some here have argued for deletion by claiming that a category is a better way of managing the subject. Tamsin Greig is included in Category:Converts to Christianity. Her conversion is sourced in her article. The list is, in fact, just a reflection of the underlying bios. If you want to equate innacuracies to OR, the problem cuts across most articles here. The solution is to require strict sourcing. --JJay 02:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Tamsin Greig was raised as an atheist, shouldn't she have been moved to the "Atheist and Agnostic" category rather than be removed entirely? I'll just take care of that, unless someone beats me to it. --C.Logan 03:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to get sucked into this blackhole, but: She grew up in Bowie, Maryland, in the United States. Her father was part Jewish and her mother was a Methodist; Gifford grew up in a culturally Jewish environment, but she became a born-again Christian at the age of 12 (after seeing a Christian education film directed by Billy Graham), and told interviewer Larry King, "I was raised with many Jewish traditions and raised to be very grateful for my Jewish heritage."--Knulclunk 05:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138017296"